Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on October 28, 2019 at 6:22pm

Like Steve said, I wouldn’t say we have a resident Ruth expert.  However, I believe Christopher Williams, Terrier, and Randy are all very good with Ruth autographs.  

Also, Steve gives good advice about checking with eBay (and maybe PayPal too) about whether their guarantee stays in effect if you remove the item from the frame. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on October 28, 2019 at 6:24pm

what are their usernames?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on October 28, 2019 at 6:30pm

Just as printed above except Terrier is terrier8HOF.  Also, you might ask Steve Zarelli to take a look.  He’s into Space autographs, but he’s a baseball guy too.

Randy doesn’t comment very often, but I know he has bought and sold several Ruths over the years.  He’s definitely got experience.

And these are definitely 3 competent and high-quality members.

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on October 29, 2019 at 8:02am

JSA will authenticate the autograph in the frame.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on October 29, 2019 at 10:47pm

James wrote: "I’m concerned that it could even be a reproduction of an authentic Ruth."

It's definitely an authentic Ruth track. I haven't a doubt in the world about that. This is not forged. Even the greatest forger in the world would need as many pieces of medium as tries necessary to produce a perfect forgery.

The only thing that could be is either an inked, hand-signed Ruth, or a copy of a Ruth, somehow mechanically transferred to the medium. Let's remember that I stated that when the verdict comes in and it's mentioned again that we really don't have anyone here who knows Ruth. ROFL.

And you need to examine the piece in hand to determine that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on October 28, 2019 at 6:36pm

Did you guys notice the Carrie Fisher is stamped by Global?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on October 28, 2019 at 6:37pm

yes I did, very suspect

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on October 28, 2019 at 6:38pm

Not giving an opinion on the Ruth, but when discussing the elaborate framing and matting, I think most unscrupulous sellers know that buyers won’t remove the item from the display to verify it isn’t a copy, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on October 28, 2019 at 6:40pm

That’s a very good point, Steve.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on October 29, 2019 at 3:13am

Datitguy,

Until the authenticator sees the autograph in person or at least a sharp, large image out of the frame, they can't give a truly reliable opinion. 

But that aside, the person you bought it from got it at an auction for $950 with a fancy frame (it's not museum quality, so it probably cost $100 or so). The auction house typically takes a third or more between buyer and seller commissions, so the consignor probably got $600-$650. Subtract $100 or so for the frame and the consignor probably netted $500 or so.

The consignor almost certainly set a reserve price for the Ruth in the auction. He's obviously in the autograph business, so he must know what real Babes are worth. If he thought it was real, the reserve would be well into the $2,000s on the low end. 

The consignor needs to make a profit too, so one these things had to happen:

• The consignor either bought it from someone who had no idea of the value and sold him a genuine Ruth for probably $200 or less, or sold him a forgery and knew it, or the consignor forged the autograph himself.
  
  
• If someone sold the consignor the Ruth and thought it was real, they either inherited it, found it, got it as a gift, bought it from someone who also had no idea what a genuine Ruth is worth, or knew it was a forgery.
  
  
• If the consignor and the sources thought it was real, all three of them have no clue what a Babe Ruth autograph is worth and sold it for pennies on the dollar.

How likely is it that none of the sources thought they had a genuine Babe Ruth and didn't take a half-hour or less to find out what it's worth?

And why did the person you bought it from sell it to you for $1,150 if he thought it was genuine?

No matter what a TPA says, the odds of that Ruth being real are extremely low if you think about it.

TPAs make mistakes, even when a top-notch authenticator determines authenticity. 

In fact, I don't think that the comparison Ruth I posted from PSA Autograph Facts is likely real. The base of the second 'b' of Babe is way too high. I don't even know if I've ever seen that. I don't like the 'r' and 'y' of 'Sincerely' either.

But the real telltale for me is the feathering of the ink. That's typical with fountain pens on old paper. That it's signed on a nice, blank piece of paper with no ageing makes me suspicious too. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on October 29, 2019 at 7:46am

I have a big problem with this... Nothing was mentioned about the feathering days ago.

While I agree, and noticed one item sticks out.. And that is the fading of portions of the autograph. Particularly in the Y, and the R of Ruth.. I am not sure how that would be done other than age. I also researched extensively the forgeries of the Operation Bambino report, that uncovered a lot of excellent Ruth forgeries by the same hand. None of those tells of that particular forger are present here. That forger would define the R in sincerely in a nearly identical size as the E's. Ruth would according to authenticators would always make his R a discernable R, which is present here. I agree on the Y, that is concerning.. But that is the only tell I can see in the rest of the autograph. I see differing amounts of pressure also, which is not present in many forgers hand. Usually forgers have equal pressure and flow from "working".. I see a lot of things I like, and one or two things that make me scratch my head. I don't if it's authentic, I hope it is. 

Everyone thought this was authentic before they heard the price I paid for the item. I agree it's concerning.. Now today, all authentication companies are trash?? Basically no matter what PSA, JSA, or Beckett says this is a forgery because the guy sold it for $1150? 

At this point, even if JSA returns an opinion of genuine I might flip it for profit. 

But this is the second 180 I have gotten on this forum. The other was for a Williams, and someone said no good. And I asked why to learn the "Tells" of a Williams forgery because Beckett Authenticated, and suddenly we were just talking about just the photograph and not the signature. 

I am little confused an perplexed. If no one trusts Beckett, JSA, or PSA, and the amount of times people flip on a Ruth here.. Why would anyone buy one.... I sure won't in the future.. 

Basically I said all of that to say this.. Either you think it's genuine or it's not. If you think it is, own it from start to finish. Anything else is flakey. And that is not to blame anyone, I knew I was still taking a calculated risk. But I am little appalled by how quickly some people flipped on this.

I once got a deal on a Tom Brady for $400. I knew it was genuine 100%, I have studied his autograph. When the gentleman accepted the offer for $400 I didn't question my opinion for one second. I got it for a third of what it was worth. And ended up getting it authenticated and sold it for hundreds more than I paid. 

With all that being said... I get the Ruth on Thursday, I will be able to inspect in person then.  I will also be removing it from the frame for authentication, and will post additional pictures. If it proves not genuine I will only be out the $200 authentication fee. And this will be an excellent case study for this forum in the future. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on October 29, 2019 at 8:30am

I never said the autograph was real. I didn't give an opinion, because I was not sure one way or another.

I said I had concerns about "Sincerely," especially since I found a very similar example in PSA's database, but that didn't mean the piece was likely not real.

Then I posted the exemplar from PSA that had it. The exemplar wasn't the topic of discussion and I assumed that it was likely real until last night when I noticed the feathering, so dI then spent more time with it.

Datitguy, I wrote the post you're responding to because you introduced more information and the framed image. I explained how unlikely it was that the autograph was real based on that new info.

In autographs like almost everything else, opinions can change. There may be new info, someone may have noticed something they didn't see before, etc. You introduced new info, and I went from not being sure to realizing that there's virtually no way that it could be real based on the additional info provided.

What you do is up to you.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page