Possibly acquiring from a prominent estate and wanted to get some opinions regarding authenticity before I lay out the cash. Thank you. 

The ball is a Brooklyn Ball Club Ball which I’ve never seen before and was suspect but as we know the Babe coached the Dodgers in 1938 and Gehrig was still alive. 

Thanks for your help. 

Tags: Babe, Gehrig, Lou, Ruth

Views: 776

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This community is extremely well informed - thank you for all of the input and assistance. 

If I could buy the hospital piece for $300 is that worth a gamble? What’s the potential upside? I’d throw away the Frangipani letter and send to PSA or, anywhere else that the community suggests to get a ‘real’ COA

High risk, high reward scenario. Only you can decide on that. I'm a risk taker at times. At least you go into this with your eyes wide open. Will the seller be willing to accept a return if it doesn't pass PSA?

The low price would cause me alarm. My first question would be why?

They really don’t know what they have. I told them I would do some research for them. 

I could try and have them agree to passing PSA. I like that. 

Could it be a $1000 item if it does pass PSA? 

I'd be surprised if the hospital piece was signed by Ruth. If it didn't have the Frangipani letter I'd feel the same way. 

+1. I have usually found out if it seems too good to be true then it probably is.

Steve, if it's a fake, what I'd sure like to know is how they faded portions of the ink in an absolutely technically correct manner, while flawlessly controlling the feathering of the ink into the paper that would be typical of paper signed on 70 years ago, while flawlessly forging Ruth's track for this period. I don't think a master forger, even one of or the best, could thoroughly control two of these elements, let alone all 3 to this unflawed degree without at least one tell throughout.

Again, I'm not defending Frangipani. I'm referring only to the ink and the paper.

If anyone here can point to a detail, a tell, a glitch in the ink, paper, or structure of the auto, and state, "this is off" or "this is suspect", you're a better man than me, Gunga Din, because I'm unable to identify a tell, based on the image.

Maybe in hand, that would change, but I'm asking if anyone can articulate what they perceive to be a tell for allegedly Ruth's 1944 signature, because I can't, and hopefully I can learn something.

Study some old Mark Hoffman forgeries. He was a master at making his own ink and while using era aged blank paper from old books he also had ways of aging ink and paper that fooled all the experts of the time.

The forgers out there today make him look like an amateur. They getting better everyday.

i won’t discuss what I think is wrong with it but the signature speaks for itself. Look at a few good Ruth’s for a few hours. Then come back and look at this one:The Frangipani COA just confirms it’s bad.

Thank you for the info Rick. I am thinking of these things a lot lately, and also with regard to vintage stage/screen/stage/rock stage.

I am not a sports collector but a quick check with RR Auction past results tells me a Ruth signature would be worth much more than 1K with a PSA cert.

I'd send good images to Leland's or Goldin Auctions and see if they'll take it on consignment before I spent $300 to authenticate it. 

Steve, I think we could all have one whale of a discussion about this piece if members were willing to offer reasons as to why they're convinced it's a forgery, from the technical aspect of only the piece itself.

I think it's worth discussing because if this is a forgery, the skill level of the forger far transcends the skill of any forger I've seen thus far, by a wide margin. And there's some highly skilled Ruth forgers out there.

If anybody is willing to state what they perceive as a tell, something about the signature, the ink, the paper, etc., aside from the Frangipani COA, that would be an excellent and appreciated point for consideration.

I agree with you, Woody. And Ruth is an important autograph to discuss. 

I don't think Ruth signed it but I could be wrong. I'm not an expert on Ruth and I'm not even a sports collector.

A few things I don't care for:

  1. Pen pressure seems a light light for him
  2. It's not signed with the speed and conviction like he typically signed.
  3. The U is a lot taller than most and the starting stroke of the U curves up more than most I've seen.
  4. The T-H connection is a bit awkward and not curved the way it usually is.
  5. Overall, the baseline of Ruth is not nice, smooth and bouncy like it is on most that I know to be good.

There are more things but those are some of the most eye-catching for me.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service