We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

The much debated Ruth removed from the frame

Decided to start a new thread... Local memorabilia shop confirmed live ink and we removed it from the frame. It was processed in the mail in 1937 based on the reverse side. Took a few more photos before we packaged it up for JSA

the shop owner who’s been doing this for 40 years. “I strongly believe you got lucky as hell.”

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 5:13pm

LOL! They can and do.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 5:22pm

Obviously, I can lay no claim to any Ruth knowledge, but I don't like what I can see as far as physical attributes. YMMV.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on November 13, 2019 at 5:30pm

Again, what I stated at the start is that forensics will determine the authenticity for this piece. This was obvious from the start. Experts/professionals are going to be reluctant to pass it without physical examining it first hand. I wouldn't. IMO it's Ruth's track. How it got there is the question. Ruth? Or other?

Do I doubt the OP's sincerity and commitment to the truth? No. Not after 50 or so fairly involved PMs with the OP about the technical aspects of the piece, back and forth, none of which any exchanges whatsoever seemed at all disingenuous to me.

As stated, there's a whole lot of other ways to scam $1800 out of autograph collectors than spending the amount of time and money that the OP did on this piece to what I believe is, sincerely get to the truth about it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 5:34pm

I thought you had an opinion on this? I would pass for several reasons.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on November 13, 2019 at 6:43pm

Yes. My opinion was clearly presented and never once with any deviation. To summarize: A genuine Ruth track if handwritten, but whether handwritten or transferred/imprinted in some manner to be determined by in-person forensics.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 6:50pm

My memory must be going. I recall a slightly different last post where you left it at 50/50 in stated terms, to be decided by forensics...

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on November 13, 2019 at 8:08pm

At some point you think basic common sense would prevail. I have researched the origins of this signature relentlessly and attempted to have as many knowledgeable authenticators evaluate it as possible to verify its legitimacy. Why? Because I want an authentic Ruth to display. And if I ever do have to part with it I want to make sure whoever purchases it from me is getting a genuine piece that I can stand by.

now let’s show those pesky facts.. I turned this offer down. Why? Because I didn’t want to sell it, I wanted the opinion of PSA with better scans. And did not want a predetermine outcome because Kevin Martin purchased it from an estate, and his name is not reputable among TPAs. I wanted the piece to be judged based on how it appeared and visibly evident provenance.

As I stated, I purchased it for $1100. Don’t you think if I was trying to sell a forgery or thought it was a forgery that I would of taken the $700 profit and run. The very aspect that I declined this, and removed the auction, which is verifiable, once I received the quick opinion destroys Steve’s narrative.

I’m sure this will be met with silence.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 8:31pm

No, not silence, not here. As I said, anything with this much around it, like that cloud around Pigpen in Peanuts, that causes this much digital ink, opinions, money and yet still unclear - why bother? Is it a winning game?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on November 13, 2019 at 8:43pm

Because the invest is still significantly less than the return of being genuine. That and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed researching Ruth, his signing habits, and his signature. I’ve had a lot of fun digging into the signature and the provenance

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 6:57pm

Foresnics could show the ink is indeed under the cancel, but only a trained seasoned eye will know that is Jackie Gleason and not a signing secretarial such as Pat Saddleman or other.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on November 13, 2019 at 7:31pm

If "forensics" showed a Gleason was indeed under the 1953 ink cancel as on my posted example and I deemed it a very close secretarial by Saddleman I would dispense with the forensics. They are good, great, to a point. They have a rep for some reason or other.