Hi everyone,
Does this Babe Ruth autograph look real in your opinion?
Thanks!

Views: 986

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No fading? the autograph is 20%-30% faded. A machine? If it was a machine and not a human hand, I guess Perry would have noticed that in his physical inspection - it's basic. It is enough to look at it in magnifying glass to see that it is not a machine, but a real blue ballpoint pen's ink by a human hand.  

It's signed in ballpoint pen. No doubt, it's definitely live ink. But it's either signed by sophisticated technology or by someone with a remarkable ability to replicate a signature.

If the experts who thought it was genuine looked at the seller's other items, they may have had reservations.

Roger Epperson's opinion on my George Harrison:

Paul Wane from Tracks UK offers a price to buy my George Harrison (a good friend of mine checked with him):

Jason from Tracks UK opinion on my George Harrison:

Beckett opinion on my George Harrison:

Perry Cox COA for my George Harrison:

Opinions of AML members on my George Harrison (please notice for Terrier comments and opinion):

The auction for this Babe Ruth autograph was ended a few hours ago and sold for $1826 with 7 bids and 6 different bidders. Is it an authentic autograph or not? 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Signed-Cut-/303278185399?_trksid... 

Considering sellers penchant for selling little forged uninscribed slips of paper I would just move on. Bad source.

I don't think the Babe Ruth is real, but I don't think the bids were legit either.

A screenshot of the bidding history is below, linked to the bidding history page on eBay. In red next to each bidder is how many total bids they placed on how many different items in the last 30 days.

This lot opened on Sept. 8 but no one bid until today, about 2 hours before the auction closed. That bidder placed a bid at the starting price of $750. That was the only bid he placed. His bidding history shows that he has placed 5 bids total in the last 30 days, on 5 different items: 1 bid per item. The lot was then auto-bid by eBay up to $760.

The next bidder bid $780 in the final minutes that was the only bid they placed. They placed 75 total bids in the last 30 days on 49 items. Not as blatant as others but still an oddly low amount of total bids for 49 items. The lot was then auto-bid by eBay up to $790.

The next bidder bid $1,377.77, almost $600 more than the last bid. That was the only bid they placed on the Babe, but that's not surprising. They placed 181 total bids in the last 30 days on 181 items: 1 bid per item.

Notice the next big jump in bids, from $1,453 to $1,801: almost $350 when a $25 increase in bid is all that's required. That bidder has placed 540 bids in the last 30 days on 540 items: 1 bid per item.

This is blatant shill bidding IMO. 

+1!

Do you claim that these bids are fabricated? The winning bidder will or will not pay? The seller will or will not receive money? 

Looking at the history of the bidding and the bidders, what do you think, Daniel?

Amazing how many ruths the seller has sold in the past.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what is the problem with the bidding history of this auction. All the bidders came in the last hours of the auction? That's normal. The bidders who have 181 bids on 181 items and 540 bids on 540 items have tens of thousands of feedbacks. What should I infer from all this data? All this data tells me nothing.  

Daniel,

The Babe Ruth's bidding history is classic, obvious shill bidding. It's common for shill bidding accounts to have positive feedback for every winning bid. Why? To make the accounts look legit.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Steve Cyrkin Community Mgr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service