Help identifying issue PLUS real or fake? (three more)
 

I have a double whammy for the experts on the board today. I picked up these two cards in a recent collection I purchased, and I was looking for A) Some help indentifying this blank-backed Ruth card and B) Some consensus on whether this alleged '33 DeLong card is real or fake. It has a suspicious gloss to it as well what could be erasure marks on the reverse. At a minimum it also appears to be trimmed. I'm mostly a post-war guy but have been trying to learn more about pre-war cards. Thanks for your help. Rob
<p>
<img src="http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5369/rutha.jpg">

Ruth:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w517/w...?cardsetID=821

I have doubts about the authenticity of that Ruth, which would be a W517 if real.

Have you put a black light to them?

No, I don't have a black light. Any other dead give-aways I should look for?
Thanks.

The R333 O'Doul is a reprint
The borders are too wide even though its trimmed. Also the border should blend into the clouds where they touch, also the players name at bottom should be crisper with the holes in letters like "R" "A" should be larger and cleaner. The uniform is off color too.

this one is low grade but you can see the difference in quality and colors
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1933r333odoul.jpg



The W517-1 looks like its authentic (99.9997% sure :)). If its a fake Ive never seen that good of one before. The most common reprints on those will have "W-517" printed in the lower corner border (usually seen scuffed off), and the back card stock is white and smooth.

The Sepia versions of the W517-1 have a back like your color and also a more cream color. All of the authentic cards have a rough surface card stock, unlike the most common reprints which have a smooth card stock.

Sepia W517-1
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1931w517kellycin.jpg

I agree with what my fellow Frank has posted.

The dashed lines at the top of the Ruth are correct, sometimes reprints depict dots there. The lighter color at the lower left and lower right corners trouble me. If that cardstock was originally a white finish, and someone printed that brown Ruth on there, that lightening of the corners might occur as someone attempted to 'age' the reprint. A black light would go a LONG way toward resolving authenticity. A very modest investment with tremendous reliability. The dark frame looks correct. It's the light color on the corners that look wrong. It may well be fine. A bit of uv light is needed.

Another thing I didnt point out is the back has a subtle age discolor all the way around it, thats a good sign.

I went and read more in past posts, the common reprint have a glossy surface on front and a pure white back along with the "W-517" in bottom left corner.

FWIW, If I saw that Ruth on eBay with that scan I wouldnt think twice about buying it, Id buy it right away without looking further. No red flags to me.

the black light doesnt always work i have a fake d304 that doesnt glow under a black light.

Add my vote to the consensus on the DeLong; definitely a fake. The Ruth does look good. Since it is a valuable card if you are planning to offer it for sale send it to SGC and get a professional opinion you can use rather than doing a 'looks good to me but I don't know' listing--I hate those.

Thanks to all for your invaluable advice. I will be sending the Ruth card to SGC. I was 95 % certain the DeLong card was a piece of crap. There are several other cards in this collection that I admit I have very little experience dealing with. It's just a huge hodgepodge of stuff in boxes that I really haven't gone through yet. If you don't mind I will continue to post pictures of them on this thread if you don't mind offering up your opinions of what they are and real or fake.
Best regards,
Rob

Here are three more I am have trouble with. Can't even identify the player on the smaller card. The postcard is perhaps the Slatington (Pa.) High School team, but I have no idea of the year. Same goes for the Paul Andrews card. Any more info. about any or all of these is greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Rob
<p>
<img src="http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7386/net54.jpg">
<p>
<img src="http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/8907/net54b.jpg">

I think Andrews is an R313 National Chicle 'fine pen', and authentic. I think all of those are authentic. And as for a black light failing you, if the card fluoresces then it hasn't failed you. It is still one great test.

Cant add much more to help.

Andrews is a 1936 R313 and worth about $3-$4.

The generic card Ive never seen before but the glove looks 50's and the lefty throws a splitter.

The high school team Postcard has a NOKO stampbox that is said to be from 1907-29 so that doesnt help much in narrowing down the year.

http://www.playle.com/realphoto/phot...m655ujtf3qmne5

Agree with Frank on the id's. That little card is a bit of a question. It almost has the look of that ugly 1970 Carl Aldana set, and it may be an issue related to that (but not it exactly)--It is hard to see what is on the cap of the player pictured, any more info on it?
-Rhett

I can't make out any distinguishing characteristics of the cap insignia. Sounds like the only card worth noting is Ruth. Thanks again for helping me out.