Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Craiger on August 13, 2013 at 8:12am

Unfortunately FAKE!!

A few years back I purchased 3 Ruth checks that looked EXACTLY like that one you have pictured.  Made out by the same person and endorsed on the back.  They look picture perfect.  So I felt good about the investment.  That was until I submitted them to PSA.  I paid $300 for authentication and they all failed.  I could not figure out how they did not pass.  I even then took them around to some dealers at a show, and they all looked at me funny, and showed no interest.  To this day I don't know what the red flag was.  After swallowing my $7000 loss, I contacted a lawyer and went after the guy who sold them to me.  Long story short, seller took the fake checks back and gave me other stuff to make up for the fraudulent deal.  In the end I did ok, and recouped my $$$, but I learned a hard lesson on fake Babe Ruth checks.  The seller was from central Pennsylvania. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on August 13, 2013 at 8:30am

Actually, I already knew it was bad when I posted the picture but like you I wanted to know what I was missing. Unfortunately, for me I bought this off Ebay about 5 years ago with no authentication because I thought I knew the GH Ruth signature well and the fact that it was clearly cancelled made me even more sure.  I sold it on Ebay for a decent profit with a lifetime guarantee. The winning bidder was actually a Chicago Bear offensive lineman. About 9 months later, he contacts me and says the check failed PSA/DNA authentication. I couldn't believe it but he sent me the rejection letter and I refunded his purchase price. I still doubted the decision so I paid JSA to look at it and they also rejected it so that was that. It still looks good to me and one other member of this forum has already given his thumbs up to it. However, I know for sure why this one failed. JSA told me that the fading of the red on the front of the check came from erasures. The original check was made out for $5.00. Someone took a black fountain pen and filled in the George Herman Ruth and changed the $5.00 to $500.00. If you look close, you can see  the slight difference in the color of the ink. However, whoever did the forgery has it down pretty good. Expensive lesson learned for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craiger on August 13, 2013 at 8:16am

After looking at the check again, I am almost certain that this is one of the fake checks that was sold to me, or at least from the same forger who manufactured these checks. 

I wish I knew what the red flag is, can any expert on Ruth sigs help us out with that  question?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on August 13, 2013 at 8:40am

My guess is this is likely one of the checks you originally purchased. I don't remember the seller's ID but I think he was in PA. He probably just listed it on Ebay after he refunded you and took what he could get for it. I purchased it on a buy it now for $1500 thinking how smart I was to find someone willing to sell a Ruth check for a thousand dollars under its value. Guess what I really found was a crook smart enough to get $1500 out of something worthless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles O'Brailey on August 13, 2013 at 8:52am

Randy, do you still have that check?  It would at least look good as a display item.  It is actually a pretty successful forgery, as bad as i hate to say that

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on August 13, 2013 at 9:51am

I agree. I have handled many Ruth checks over the years and really had no questions about the authenticity when I purchased it. I also thought the fading of the cancellation stamp was normal and gave it even more credibility. However, both PSA/DNA and JSA rejected it and upon close observation on the obverse, I can see where it appears the $5.00 was changed to $500.00. I have seen exemplars that virtually match the GH Ruth endorsement on the reverse and had they not noticed the problem on the front, they might have authenticated it but my guess is they probably saw something in the signature that originally caused them to check the obverse more closely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on August 13, 2013 at 9:45am

With everything that is out there on Babe Ruth forgeries, including baseballs authenticated by every reputable TPA that sold for tens of thousands of dollars, I am hesitant to offer any opinions on Ruth items.  The forgeries are that deceiving.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craiger on August 13, 2013 at 10:00am

I'm going to take a guess and say, this may be a Marino forgery that slipped through "Operation Bullpen" and is still floating around fooling collectors.  We all know that Marino was super skilled, and an artist.  Cant say this for fact, but I suspect that may be the case. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on August 13, 2013 at 11:42am

I have seen many of Greg Marino's forgeries and for the most part I think they are pretty bad... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craiger on August 13, 2013 at 10:04am

That also makes me wonder about every GH Ruth signed cut that I have seen clipped from a check.  I am sure I have seen those cuts in both Upper Deck and Topps autographed issued cards.  REALLY MAKES ME WONDER! 

Also, if we were talking about a cut, we would not have all of the red flags mentioned, as none of them related to the signature.  The red flags were all about the check itself, and the alterations made to it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on August 13, 2013 at 11:12am

I agree totally. My guess is had this one been clipped and submitted simply as a cut, it probably had a  chance of passing although if it is a Marino forgery, they likely had many examples to compare it to and  would have rejected it.

This one did pass 2 of the lesser online authentication services that give an opinion looking at a scan.

As to your observation about the UD and Topps cut signature cards being questionable, that is a definite. We all know that the 4 autograph cut card with Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, and I believe Wagner that sold on Ebay for an unbelieveable $80,000 or so a few years ago had two forgeries on it. All of the top authenticators agreed  after the HBO show broke the story with the actual forger that 2 were indeed bad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on August 13, 2013 at 10:18am

Ruth is not my specialty, but I would speculate that this is the type of forgery that is identified because it has a certain "look."  It **may** not have any clearly identifiable flaws and it could very well slide by undetected in ones and twos.

But, when seen as a group, the "look" becomes apparent and the fake style is identified.

Looking at it myself, the signature is certainly not "slow" or "labored," but it does look a tab bit deliberate.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page