How high will this go?
 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-au...#ht_115wt_1120


The signature is beyond my threshold of knowledge to determine "good" or "bad" The bidding is also somewhat suspect with a new member "leading the pack"

Any guesses on final value?

Is this real? Can it get a TPA cert? (2 different questions here)

Full disclosure: I am not bidding on this in any way shape or form, just observing.

Good and it will get a cert if submitted

I dont think it is authentic.

I agree with Shelly that it is probably not authentic ( I would not have bid on it), but I bet it will get certed as HOFautos posted.

Looking at other Ruth Autographs the word sincerely is way off looks more like
Sincrrrly

Fairly confident it's good.

No chance this is authentic.

edited to add: I agree that it will almost certainly get a cert if sent to PSA or JSA.

It looks like Siiicrrrly to me. No opinion on the autograph as I know nothing about them.

:):):):):):)

Final outcome
 

Item went for $3449. Add $300 for a TPA + S&H.... $3800

There is another item on sale by the same seller, Ted Williams photo

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ted-Williams...item19fdee211f

The "E" in the Ted seem to be very close to the address on the Ruth postcard (Elk****, In....)

Makes one wonder if Ted was the one addressing the Ruth postcard as well.....

Oh well

No judgement good or bad from me, but whoever signed this (The Babe or not) did a pretty good job of it. The ink flow and pressure points sure look close to the exemplars I have seen magnified.

I always saw the same thing when reading the Babe's "Sincerely" notations, but then realized that his cursive "e" and "r" look nearly identical. Not saying this piece is good or bad, just pointing out Ruth's penmanship, and the fact that he did know how to spell "sincerely". :)

The problem with this, and as we've seen before on this forum, is you could very likely be viewing a high quality laser printed copy of the real piece, which would explain the flow and pressure looking correct when viewing online.

His 'e' and 'r' do not look alike. They only look alike to us because we no longer write small 'e's like some did back then.

Actually, Scott, in his "sincerely,' the "e"s and "r" are almost always nearly (but not quite) identical.

With Ruth they are two different letters, with forgers they are both 'r's. To me this is glaring, but obviously it isn't to most people, as many collectors think such forged Ruths are authentic.

They are two different letters in this example, as well.

Okay, thanks for your opinion David.

I saw the 1984 Topps Rose has a buy it now of $450. I wonder if this guy is related to the $85000 Jeter Man.

The Rose sig is good though.

One last thing: David knows a lot more about Ruth autographs than me, as he's seen a lot more of them than I have and has been looking at them for a lot longer. This is a GPC, which is good. I should not have been so adamant about it being bad, but I am definitely adamant that I wouldn't personally acquire it. There are many, many genuine Ruth autographs out there, but because of all the forgeries (many more than good ones), and how good the forgers are getting, when I see certain characteristics on a Ruth I personally don't generally look further, and I'm sure that as a result I have given up early on some legitimate ones.

Better safe than sorry when spending $3,000+