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.
Zero chance that Frangipani was 50% ever. I personally have never seen his letter with an authentic autograph of anybody. I’d question the authenticity of his own signature on the letter(COA). I think it’s a rubber stamp.
I’d bet a paycheck that he has never had the chance to authenticate an authentic Babe Ruth signature.
I couldn't agree more. Frangipani alone doesn't necessarily mean fake. What it does mean is that you could have arrived at the same conclusion that Frangipani did, real or fake, by flipping a coin.
What I can tell you is that the style is proper for 1944. No tells. No shakes. No weaknesses. I see no red flags in the track itself. Not for 1944 anyway.
Now, what it could be is a copy of an authentic 1944 Babe signature transferred in some way by a forger who does well above par work, even nailing the way the ink and fold intersect. Anyone remember the Marilyn Monroe "white glove treatment" Carlton the Doorman forgery copied brilliantly from an authentic piece?
Also, the ink has the right ebb and flow for Ruth's hand! The pen held at the correct angles, the path of the pen and the way and where the ink fades and then becomes bold again totally proper for this signature from this period.
So, this may be a case where Frangipani flipped his coin and it landed heads.
At any rate, the paper and ink should be looked at in person to be 100% sure, which is why I couldn't get closer than 80/20.
That's an Operation Bullpen Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig signed ball.
The Ruth that bad for Operation Bullpen? I didn't know there were any Ruth forgeries associated with OB that were that blatant. I thought the people they investigated and collared were all more talented than that!
Greg Marino penned tons of Ruth cuts and baseballs.
Here's an interesting comparison. Here's a 1944 Ruth sold by Heritage (authentic).
Compare especially the Babes in the two signatures. Slightly different, but extremely close. More important than the details of each letter, which are right on the money, the pressure on each part of each letter, flawlessly typical of Ruth's hand. I don't see how it would be possible for a forger to mimic the details, the pressure, and the relative ink fade to this degree, even if he had 1000 of these blanks to work with and tried, tried again, like they do with blank paper (cuts).
I'm not defending Frangipani's abilities (or lack of them), but commenting on the piece itself.
In comparing these 2 (hospital vs letter), I see big differences
angle of the "e"
kink in the "e"
angle and structure of the "R"
overall it does not feel right and looks awkward. I just don't see them as "samey"
This is my observation only based on the ink and my very limited study of Ruth sigs.
Now take the COA and the price of $300 and I like it even less
If David has access to buy this, I'd be sending this out to as many TPA's ASAP and get some answers ASAP. If this is real, it's a great score, but I would be pressing the issue of asking anyone and everyone first.
Cat, which kink of the 'e'? That's the third time I've heard mention of the "kink" in the 'e' as being off. Which part of the 'e' are you referring to? The top, the middle, or the bottom/final upstroke?
You’re right Steve. Even without the COA I knew that was a forgery from the same era. I’ve seen tons of them just like this one. EBAY has hundreds of them all over the place back then.
I agree with Rick.
Frangi was NEVER 50%.
I have never observed on authentic autograph with a COA from Frangi. Not one.
I assumed it was utter incompetence, rather than the outright aiding and abetting of fraud.
What do you think of the Ruth hospital piece? In and of itself?