We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
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.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ITguy1984 on
-
Well most of it isn’t opinions. Most of it is bull crap.
on another thread, everyone thought it looked good till they heard I got a deal on it and who purchased it from the estate. Not much integrity there. Woody is the only one that has stuck by his opinion from day 1.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on
-
I find a lot of opinions ARE bull crap.
-
-
I value every opinion If the person is knowledgeable. I meant all the side discussions and not the opinion of the authenticity of the piece
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
You seem to use this site a lot for bull crap opinions
-
-
I apologize that’s not what I meant. I conveyed that wrong...
I meant most of the content in this thread is discussions and not yes or not it’s genuine.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
Datitguy84, I'll refresh your memory:
Show me where I said it was real.
What I said is that I didn't trust "Sincerely", mostly because "ere" was atypical—I found no similar examples—and the "y" was not unknow but quite atypical as well.
Then I said that while the shape of "Babe Ruth" looked pretty good to me, I was extremely concerned about the degree of ink bleed. That's a well-known characteristic of being signed on old paper.
I said that I thought that the signing characteristics of the signature were so close to a real one that it was "beyond my paygrade" so I would not give an opinion on that. A seasoned expert needs to see those.
So when you said that everyone thought it was real at first until you told them the price, that is untrue.
Regarding your reported expert opinions:
You claimed that 4 experts said it was real. Please please post the complete email exchanges, yours and their replies back, to see what was said. Did Lelands and Reznikoff say it was real? Or did they say that it may be real, perhaps ask for you to send it in for consignment consideration, etc.?
And why, when you said that the 4 experts you showed it to said it was real, did you not say that you had BAS look at it again and they thought it was not real—until I asked?
Regarding other things:
You pointed out that Woody did not change his mind on authenticity and others did once they found out what you paid, etc. and he still maintains that it's real, and that says a lot.
You go to the doctor for a sore throat and he gives you antibiotics, thinking it's a bug. You see him again because it hasn't gone away. He says he's concerned it may be esophageal cancer and refers you to an oncologist for testing. Are you going to disrespect him for his change of opinion?
You said that some people thought the Ruth was real until they heard the source. Take a look at this filet mignon:
Mouthwatering, isn't it?
Where can you get it?
Hannibal Lecter's Steakhouse.
-
-
+1 I'm not even really following this and I remembered what you said Steve. Lector indeed! LOL
-
-
Then my apologies Steve if I misinterpreted.
But it seemed like there was a lot more opposition when the price paid was revealed and that it came from Kevin Martin. Which I think should not judge the authenticity of an autograph, so many factors cam come into play. And I found out the reasoning why with an afternoon of research.
Richard Simon, thought it was authentic. But he thought the Baldwin City Post mark was strange.
Steven Koschal believed the signature to be authentic. Nothing else was offered.
John Rezinkoff said he thought the signature looked okay on his first reply. Then later said after looking at additional scans on a larger monitor he had concerns. I indicated that in another post. He said send it off for physical examination from PSA
PAAS believe it not to be genuine. The most firm stance I have seen thus far.
Lelands believe it to be authentic, but recommended I send it off to JSA.
Beckett said Likely to Pass Authentication, then unlikely to pass authentication, to unable to render an opinion.. They flipped on it three times.. When they first issued the unlikely to pass I called and asked if it was an obvious forgery.. Because at that time it hadn't been shipped to JSA. They said they didn't know and most of their staff was at shows.. Some things not passing the smell test with them.
I submitted two quick opinions to PSA, one with better scans.. Both returned unable to render an opinion and to submit it to the office.
Sport Investments in Cincinnati, they came on referral for examining Ruth's. They said it was authentic.
It would take me a bit of time to post scans of all the emails.
-
-
I would discount the first two. Nothing else to say here.
-
-
I will give you Koschal. I later read he’s a bit crazy these days
I haven’t heard one negative thing with Simon.
-
-
Bookends, tag-team. From experience. Nothing more to say.
-
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
