Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 3, 2014 at 9:24am

not authentic imo

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on January 3, 2014 at 10:47am

Hi William, here it is.   sorry for low-resolution, but it's all i got.  Just to add some more info, it has been authenticated by 2 legit companies (SGC & JSA)...but I just wanted to get some more feedback from the experts here at AML, as I've seen many posts here of "authenticated" items that people believed weren't authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on January 3, 2014 at 10:50am

Additionally it comes with the original envelope it was sent in, postmarked Oct 21 1947, with a 3cent stamp, and this return address on the back:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 3, 2014 at 1:31pm

David,

If they won't send you large enough images to examine the autograph closely, be especially cautious. Have you asked?

BTW, we are mostly serious collectors and enthusiasts here...not experts. You can get good advice and carefully considered opinions here, and many of our members really know their stuff in certain areas. But few members here call themselves experts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 3, 2014 at 11:24am

interesting. I dont like the relative size of the a to the e, the shape of the R, and the u.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on January 3, 2014 at 12:27pm

thanks for your feedback terrier...like i said, i haven't studied his signature much, so not sure what to look for...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 3, 2014 at 12:58pm

the newness of the ink also was taken into consideration.  William, you seem to have a very good knowledge of Ruth's signature, so I will trust what you are saying.  I still think it looks off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 3, 2014 at 1:05pm

I know I am conservative in my opinions, but I would rather err on the side of caution, as opposed to these TPA's that really stretch the limits.

this is a 1948 Ruth that is what I would typically expect in a genuine Ruth signature:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 3, 2014 at 1:10pm

William,

If you have telltale signs you look for on Ruths or any autographs, I don't think keeping them to yourself due to concerns about helping forgers is the way to go. It's much more important to get as many of the current forgeries off the market than worrying about tomorrow's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on January 3, 2014 at 1:18pm

here's the last pics i have of it...with the JSA letter & showing it encapsulated by SGC as authentic and an "8".  again, low resolution, wish it was better image....but i would think if SGC encapsulated it, they would be able to tell if it was fascimile/electronic copy?  I can't find the autograph in the SGC database, but it's hard to read the # so maybe i'm typing it wrong.

I also can't really read the JSA letter, and wondering if it was encapsulated before or after JSA saw it? 

Thanks to you all for your input so far...i think i will try to look up some exemplars of Ruth to study for my own knowledge now!  I will be able to see this in person in a couple weeks before deciding on it...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 3, 2014 at 1:33pm

Very nice Ruth autograph. Not a facsimile or pre-print. Will bring a premium with the strong non personalized autograph.

I would guess it was encapsulated first since SGC's fees are much lower than JSA.

Probably when it passed SGC, it was submitted to JSA since they are more well known in the 3rd party authentication autograph process than the newly formed SGC and prices realized with their LOA bring a premium.

Of course, SGC's two primary authenticators worked for JSA for several years before moving to SGC's autograph authentication division.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erich Jerozal on January 3, 2014 at 2:25pm

Thanks William.  For some info on The Babe. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page