Babe Ruth opinions?
 

I am looking to add a babe ruth autograph to my collection at some point. I am nervous because of secretarial signatures being mistaken as the real deal. Do any of you know how to spot the difference between an authentic and secretarial or forged?

Ill post a couple photos and maybe you can give your opinions on if they might be real or fake.

each photo is a different item. One has a coa from EAC Gallery and one has a LOA from Frank Garo. I dont wanna say which ones have the "authentication" because in a way thats irrelevant.

So, thoughts on the photos? Advice on how to tell whats real and whats not?

The two cuts are forgeries. Bad forgeries. The last two baseballs are good. The first ball is so worn that it's really impossible to tell. (But I have never seen a forgery so worn.)
And, finally, Ruth's "secretarials" are well known, and never mistaken for genuine by the experienced. It's the forgeries you should worry about.

David, can you maybe explain why they are bad forgeries? What should I look for to help tell the difference between whats real and whats not?

The first cut looks like it took an hour to write. It's written so deliberately and slowly. That would tip me off right away.

No comment on the second one.

Very amateurish forgeries on the cuts.
Mr Garo and I usually have differing opinions.

Does Garo have a bad rep?

Nevermind in this-I found a good thread here all about him.

Ok, so on the baseballs in the photos, one of them has the LOA from Garo.

First baseball is 100% not good.

Both cuts are horrible.

I have serious doubts about the green? signed Ruth.

Would need to see the last one a little closer.

Although it's entirely possible that the green ball WAS authentic and was subsequently traced over at some point later on... It's just a very, very, very atypical color (blue-green) for a Ruth signed ball. In addition it is also very bold for a 90 year old ball. I can see that Gehrig has signed a side panel. Would love to see a pic of that signature as well.

IMHO the green Ruth is fine. (And part of the reason it is bold is that the ball has been coated.)

IMHO, if real, the green Ruth is NOT a "playing days signature". In all likelihood it is from 1935-1945. More toward the latter years. A small window for Gehrig to sign as well. But not impossible....

here is a photo of the Lou

I do not know anything about Gehrig's signature, just Ruth. One would assume that if the Gehrig is good then the Ruth is. It could be just the shellack (or maybe traced) is the making the ink bleed.

if its traced, does that ruin it as far as value and authenticity?

Yes. A traced ball would carry some value to some people but it would be a fraction of what an untraced ball would sell for.

Now that I've seen the Gehrig....it is not traced.

Have no idea what happens on an old baseball but usually if you buy old paper to produce a forged cut, new ink will always bleed into the old paper.

Just a heads up (though I'm sure most already know this), but there are some very real looking Ruth reproduction baseballs out there. They look fine from scans obviously but are just printed on signatures. They are very deceiving from just a photo because the signature looks as it should, but it's not. There are ones with Ruth and Gehrig like this one. With enough digging you can usually turn them up and make sure it's not a match for one. They always looks a little weird in the ink coloring as well. Short of finding an exact match of the signatures it's hard to tell without seeing them in person.

Jeff is 100% Correct! The made up balls look just like the ball in this thread.

That ball looks printed to me.

I'm on my phone so it's hard to see both of these together to tell if it's a match until I make this post, but here's an example of a known replica style of Ruth, next to the one the OP was inquiring on.

Here's another replica. I think this one is probably an exact match (I think the last one is too, but a little different thickness in the ink they used to print it, and a little different angle)

It does look similar-no Gehrig on it though...

And thank you all for the replies!

I think the two I posted above are matches :)

So with all that has been said, who here would Buy this ball? What would it be worth if a print? If authentic?

Personally, I'm so torn! Not sure what to do.

I'm no autograph expert, but that Lou Gehrig looks like it has like twenty something letters in it, no??

No.

And again, these blue-green "printed" signatures are later in life Ruth signatures 1935-1945. Thus.....these balls with Ruth and Gehrig on it would make them highly improbable. Nice work Jeff.

Indeed. Tremendous work by Jeff and the knowledge sharing that will help the community at large. Really good stuff to out these.

Tom C

I wouldn't buy anything posted.

You guys saved me some money! Thank you!

And I'm shocked Frank Garo signed off on the ball! How could he not tell it's printed and not signed? I guess maybe he might not have examined it in person.....

Like I said earlier, I have disagreed with Mr Garo.
Shocked? Guess maybe?
Perhaps you should ask him.

The last baseball in the original thread is up to $6000. Is someone getting fleased or is the concensus that's the only good one? Looked good to me, it was the description that had me thinking otherwise, 42 bids and has a Garo authenticity as well

I guess the possibility exists that it was the ball used as the pattern for making the printed replicas, but I'd have to have a lot more info and ball in hand before I'd trust that to be true.

I think I decided when I go to buy one I will get one already PSA or JSA authenticated.

I am willing to even just buy a cut auto- doesnt have to be on a ball.... as long as its real...ill keep searching!

Thanks again for the discussion guys!