Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on August 26, 2017 at 2:37am

Nope. Slant is off, quotes are off, "B" to "a" connection is off, the "invisible" connection (end/start lift point) between the first and last name is off, the "R" is off, the "u" to "t" connection is horrifying, the "th" is off, and the "t" is crossed from the wrong side, left to right instead of right to left. There's more tells also, those are the basic ones in this case, early or late in his career.

Also, what type of ball is this? The characteristics, from what I can see, appear to indicate a ball newer than 1927/8, around the time Ruth abandoned the quotes.

Permalink Reply by Bobby on August 26, 2017 at 1:53pm

You're much more an expert than I am, so I definitely defer to your judgment. The big question that arose for me, was the white ball with the barely legible autograph, and the ball in question are the exact same ball, from the same manufacturer (Bon-Tober International League) and the autograph is virtually identical.(from what I can make out) It carries a It carries a JSA LOA. However, from what I have seen and read in this forum over the last two days, I would tend to believe the majority of you guys and your observations over the third-party grading companies

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on August 26, 2017 at 2:18pm

80% of the Ruths out there are outright forgeries. Authenticated or not, they just don't know. What's painfully obvious is that the most consistently elemental feature that almost always signals a Ruth signature as authentic is overlooked by the majority of authenticators who have never studied newsreels of Ruth in the act of signing his name or this authentication error would be made far less often.

I say 80%, but what one must consider is that of that 20% that are not the work of more modern day forgers; that are period pieces, probably 15% or more are "secretarial". Ruth's wife, clubhouse guys, other players, like Lazzeri, Dugan, even Eddie Arcaro, Ruth's daughter, front office people, PR men, caddies, you name it, a lot of people signed for Ruth. And Ruth did sign a lot of items, but as generous he was with his signature, he wouldn't have stood a chance of fulfilling the staggering demand for his autograph, which probably outweighed anybody else's in history during his lifetime.

Permalink Reply by Bobby on August 26, 2017 at 2:40pm

Just saw this in a video of someone's collection. Is it a forgery?

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• IMG_5786.PNG, 3.2 MB

Permalink Reply by Bobby on August 26, 2017 at 2:41pm

It's in a documentary

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on August 27, 2017 at 12:34pm

This is a 50/50 based on the image. It's got enough of the right elements that it's either Ruth or one of his master forgers, there have been several. What I do like are the starting points of the "B" and the "R", typically Ruthian. The shape of the "e" and it's directional "link-up" to the "R", the 'e' ends in the right direction relative to the start of the "R". I also like the end of the "h", that little reverse motion to complete the slash of the "t", which appears to be written right to left, proper for Ruth to end the "h" with a little reverse stroke and then lift the tip to backcross his "t". There are a few little things here and there that I'm not crazy about, but not enough to immediately relegate this to ghost signed or a forgery, a lot of folks don't realize that Arcaro had Ruth's signature down really well and would sign things for him, as well as his caddies and Lazzeri that were sent to golf courses. Ruth spent a lot of time on the links.

This has possibilities that could be narrowed down more precisely by being able to examine the track in person, or closeups, like Bernie is able to do. That would also all but eliminate the possibility of this being reinked, which I may see signs of, hard to tell for sure.

Permalink Reply by Bobby on September 19, 2017 at 8:32pm

I am still working on this ball, while I value the opinions of others, I have found authenticated pieces that match my ball. The first pic is almost a mirror of the first name and the last pic is very similar of the last name. Both are authenticated. Thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 19, 2017 at 10:47pm

Which two are authenticated, Bobby? The first two??

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on September 19, 2017 at 11:27pm

I think his is in the middle, the top and bottom are authenticated by whoever. I am not a Ruth person, obviously I defer to you, but I don't like this ball. It doesn't look right for lack of words, it presents oddly, and with strange spatial...I just don't like it.

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 20, 2017 at 8:32am

The ball in the middle photo is a horror, reminiscent of a CC Ruth, though not quite as bad as that, may the Babe rest in peace. lol