We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

The much debated Ruth removed from the frame

Decided to start a new thread... Local memorabilia shop confirmed live ink and we removed it from the frame. It was processed in the mail in 1937 based on the reverse side. Took a few more photos before we packaged it up for JSA

the shop owner who’s been doing this for 40 years. “I strongly believe you got lucky as hell.”

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on November 13, 2019 at 3:37pm

Only way to know that fir sure is physical examination. JSA will be able to find that and I’ll get a refund if that’s the work of a forgery

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on November 13, 2019 at 3:41pm

Steve, I have no idea about the Ruth signature, but thank you. Ha ha. I just felt the need to reply to some off-topic nonsense.

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on November 13, 2019 at 4:02pm

In your jest you may have stumbled across something. :-) The light and dark sections of the signature didn’t look totally natural to me, and the feathering bothers me as well. There does appear to be rubbing to parts of the signature. I don’t have a definitive opinion either way, but these things would concern me. I’m curious to see what JSA will say.

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on November 13, 2019 at 3:26pm

Richard thought it was genuine but thought the Baldwin city post Mark is weird

do I need a screenshot for that Steve?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 7:59pm

RE RS what about...Lugosi? ;) SK as well. Not for me. I was younger then. Not anymore. :/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 8:53pm

One should not use a forged exemplar. :)

If it were a forgery and a good one, it could be working right now - would we all know? Folks are arguing for it...this or that way.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 4:33pm

"...Never seen a signature opinion that has brought about this much debate in my short time here...."

And with no scans...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 6:48pm

This says a lot to me anyway.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 4:07pm

Th feathering doesn't bode well. The uneven abrasions/smudging/surface disturbances also concern - odd locations for one. Would feel better if the sig was under the cancel. My .02

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on November 13, 2019 at 5:09pm

Porous surface with some slight imperfections will cause feathering exactly like this. Also, the feathering is most severe precisely where one would expect it to occur, as is typical of the pressure Ruth consistently exerted at various points in his track, especially ca. 1937-1941.

If this was forged by a pen in human hand, the forger has perfect control over more elements than I would think as being humanly possible. Logic would dictate that even if that were possible, it may take as many as 1000 tries or more for even the best forger in the world to produce one specimen at this level of precision, akin to the old exponential analogy of 100 monkeys typing 24 hours a day to produce a Shakespearian epic.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 5:11pm

"...Logic would dictate that even if that were possible, it may take as many as 1000 tries or more for even the best forger in the world to produce one specimen at this level of precision..."

I could not calculate this. The best forgeries are collected undetected.