That Babe Ruth guy again...
 

It seems like every other thread is Mantle or Ruth on here, lol.

Completely out of the blue today a friend of mine texted me that someone he works with found a piece of paper with babe ruths name on it. I guess the guy was taking out an old photo of his father to post on Facebook and this was behind it... I guess he didn't think much of it at first. And neither did I until I finally saw the photo tonight. My friend said the guy said his father used to be a mailman in the city years ago, maybe ran into Ruth in city one day?

This is no gotcha thread. My personal opinion after examining it is I think it is good. A bit atypical with the gap between the B and a but looks technically sound, likely later maybe 1940's? post career days?

I just genuinely want to hear some more opinions from the Ruth guys on here before talking more to my friend. I can possibly meet this guy this upcoming week and see it in person and get a better photo, out of the sandwich bag ;)

I think it's good too.

Thanks Jason

100% no good

What do you see making it bad?

Any other thoughts, comments from others welcomed... Thanks

Who the hell is B. Abe Ruth?????

Start with the amateurish "e"...

Sadly no good. Agree on gap and the e

Okay, appreciate the help and input everyone. I'll stay away and probably pass on the bad news to this guy sometime this coming week.

If anyone feels otherwise or things possibly good but atypical let me know. The gap definitely threw me off at first too, but thought the rest looked pretty close and ink seems fluid and aged (I know anything can be faked though). I haven't seen it in hand but can zoom in bit better on my phone with original cell phone pic my friend sent.


Also, if anyone thinks it might be good you can post here or PM, however you're more comfortable. I could tell the guy to pay to send to PSA possibly, but at this point maybe he should just save his money.

Thanks guys.

My friend was able to get some more better pictures today of it. The man also brought the old picture of his father that the signature was found behind. It seems like the Ruth paper was cut to fit in the frame.

Just figured a few more better quality pics couldn't hurt. I don't know this man personally, never met him. Just think if his story is true and it has been many decades behind the photo, would seem odd to be a forgery.

But again I haven't seen it in person or met the owner.

I appreciate all comments thus far.

.

IMHO, it's fine.

Thanks David

Look where the "b" connects to the "e" in Babe. The pen has clearly come off of the page after the "b" and then the letter "e" was written in separately. Ruth didn't do that....

.....nor did he make his "e's" like that, nor did he have that much spacing, etc.

As I said. I believe it's fine.

Please explain why the "e" is not connected to the "b". And I'd love to see another example where he does that. I'm being 0% confrontational. It's just a great learning experience for all I think...

Because that's not how autograph evaluation works. "That's not how any of this works."

It isn't a matter of "I don't like the 'g.' It's no good." In signing my own name, I have, at one time or another, fucked up every single letter. So have we all.

That Ruth was signed quickly, smoothly, and flowingly. I believe it's good.

That Ruth was signed quickly, smoothly, and flowingly.

^^^^ That's not how it works either. One can forge something "quickly, smoothly, and flowingly."

I'm not just throwing out some random opinion. I know Ruth's autograph, and consider myself as good as anyone there is. I don't come on here to argue. I've seen tons of rushed Ruth autographs. Show me another example where he picks up the pen mid-autograph.

I gave you my opinion, Brendan, and I tried to justify it. I'm done.

I'm sure you are "as good as anyone there is." So there is no need to start a pissing contest with me. If you truly "don't come on here to argue," then stop arguing.

Be confident in your opinion, as I am in mine.

Bottom line. If there is the sliest doubt of it being good. Just stay the hell away from it.

By the way. I do agree with Brandon on the e. I have never seen that before.

This one is interesting.
I will only say Brendan has pointed out a very obvious question in the signature.
I just went over every exemplar in my Ruth files and did not find one instance of that "be" combination written like that.
Whoever signed it lifted the pen at the end of the b and then placed an e there.
As Shelly has stated, this one is a pass.

Boy, ....i appreciate everyone's responses so far.

I'm going to try and meet the owner soon and get some close up pictures myself , under some.good lighting hopefully. I thought maybe the be has the little loop, or hook on it that he does on a number of authentic examples. Maybe seeing some really close up pictures of that will help everyone see whatever is going on there more clearly.

Hopefully this week I can get some better pics.

Thanks all

I generally live by this thinking as well. But it's tough to give the right advice to the owner when one like this presents itself in person to a close friends boss/coworker . I'd like to at least point him in the right direction.

This is a tough one.

Hopefully I can see it soon and shed more light on it.

Here's a Ruth example I pulled from a scrapbook several years ago, there were hundreds of autographs in it almost exclusively from the 1930's to early 1940's, but only a handful of sports related ones. Am going to try to see if I can find a better closeup on my old computer. It won't be easy to see in this image, but I am almost positive I made a mental note of it having a pen lift and not the loop on the b-e connection. If I find the closeup I will post that as well

Thanks Jeff would love to see close up.

These are some more different "b-e" variations I found searching the web...

Found the closeup...

I think the E in the OP's post may not be a stop and start, but a small loo. If you look at the other 2 I used in this photo you can see variations of the same formation. The end of the B end. He then reverses flow and makes a imperceptible loop that come back to start the top of the "e". Because the ends of the 2 letters are so close, the loop is hidden by the ink.

I put 3 similar b-e's together.
The top "e" shows the loop that I describe more clearly as there is more space between the ends of the B and E. The bottom 2 have the 2 letters so close that the loop is hidden.
Now I am not expert enough to opine on the entirety of the auto, but, IMO, the b-e is not as different as it might seem.

Yeah. What I said. ;-)

If you truly "don't come on here to argue," then stop arguing.

Fair enough. I was never arguing. Sometimes it can seem that way when not in person, but I wasn't. I just think there are too many questions in this signature to feel 100% safe buying it.

Thanks for those pictures Jeff.

I was able to go meet the owner today and see it first hand. Tried getting some better pictures...

Bear with me.

...The man said his father was born in 1922, joined the Navy at about 18 years old C. 1940. Died in 1989. The photo was has been in his possession since the father passed, so close to 30 years. He assumes the signature must have been in there for decades prior to that as well and that his father must have forgot about it. The piece of paper is a bit over 4" long with signature aprox 3.5" long.

The pen was never lifted in the "b-to-e" transition. It is a small, partial loop.
As I said, the Ruth is good.

Thanks David , That's what I thought I was seeing as well.