1922 "BABE" RUTH HAFFNER'S BREAD baseball card

[paskar]

Hi.
I'm new to this website and posting on this forum. I came across this baseball card recently and I appreciate any feedback and/or thoughts regarding this card. I've put it under a black light and it doesn't illuminate. The card is 2" width 3 3/8" length. The card hasn't been graded yet but I plan on sending it in. Could this card actually be authentic? It seems like a rare card from what's said online. Thank you and I appreciate your time and information.

[Stonepony]

I defer to Brian

[rjackson44]

dont waste your time

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

I defer to Brian

Nice.

[paskar]

Haha. well, some others have said the same thing not to bother that it isn't authentic. I guess the bright side of that is it will be cheaper to have it graded if it's not real. I'm hoping it is however. I mean, it passed the black light test, it has the right dimensions. I don't know. It could be real. I know it's a rare card if it happens to be real. It could be.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by paskar

Haha. well, some others have said the same thing not to bother that it isn't authentic. I guess the bright side of that is it will be cheaper to have it graded if it's not real. I'm hoping it is however. I mean, it passed the black light test, it has the right dimensions. I don't know. It could be real. I know it's a rare card if it happens to be real. It could be.

Compare the graininess to other Ruth cards, that are on similar type cards. Your Ruth looks way too grainy for my liking. Tough to be positive from a scan but that was my first thought.
.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

Compare the graininess to other Ruth cards, that are on similar type cards. Your Ruth looks way to grainy for my liking. Tough to be positive from a scan but that was my first thought.
.

I agree with this. Plus, I ascribe to the theory that if it’s too good to be true, it’s too good to be true. But I agree, if you buy it for cheap enough and it comes back fake (not that PSA can always tell the difference), you aren’t out too much. Plus, there is a chance that PSA incorrectly grades it as authentic; they have made worse mistakes in the past.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by stonepony

i defer to brian

lolol

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by calvindog

lolol

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card. Oh, wait. That's the proper procedure. Oh, so sorry. I'm guilty of being accurate. I'm so ashamed. Wait. i can't go to a church. I'm an Agnostic. Oh, the credit, the credit, the credit. Still, there's the accuracy. I'll rest well.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card. Oh, wait. That's the proper procedure. Oh, so sorry. I'm guilty of being accurate. I'm so ashamed. Wait. i can't go to a church. I'm an Agnostic. Oh, the credit, the credit, the credit. Still, there's the accuracy. I'll rest well.

I suggest you get back on your meds.
.

[RCMcKenzie]

Paskar, can you say where you found it? It might help others chime in with opinions. It does look grainy. The one in HA looks a little grainy, but clearer than yours.

See this thread with information on the Ruth with this back.

www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2170652

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Leon

I suggest you get back on your meds.
.

LOL!

Never skipped them.

Happy Holidays.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card.

You misspelled "because a dealer didn't gesture in the direction of the card and tell me that it was a reprint."

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

You misspelled "because a dealer didn't gesture in the direction of the card and tell me that it was a reprint."

Thank you for the endorsement.

Happy Holidays.

[paskar]

That's interesting. the same markings on the back of the card. Some of the markings seem to be coming through from the image on the front but the 2 dots you circled aren't from the front image. the centering issue as well. could it be copied and still be on a card that wouldn't illuminate under a black light?

[Lucas00]

I'm suspicious of the black print defects on the back being very uniform (I assume this should differ but I can't find two of the same cards from the set to compare). Look to the left and the dots are identically placed, same with the right below home plate. Also the overall image like Leon said is just lacking about 30% of the shadowing it should have.
I'm also suspicious of how they seem to have the exact same centering, that is very unlikely.

[terjung]

I think you are right, Lucas. The same thing could be said for the front... about crotch height, midway toward the right border as well as the discoloration extending down through the bottom border from the left side ground level to the name block. Far from definitive, but those would be some of the things I'd expect to see from a scan/print (or Xerox, if you will).

[mrreality68]

I agree with the others that it seems suspicious and most likely a fake.
But if you are willing to roll the dice and send to PSA or somewhere for authenticating and see what happens, as Ryan says go for it.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by terjung

I think you are right, Lucas. The same thing could be said for the front... about crotch height, midway toward the right border as well as the discoloration extending down through the bottom border from the left side ground level to the name block. Far from definitive, but those would be some of the things I'd expect to see from a scan/print (or Xerox, if you will).

Exactly. There are at least three print marks on the front that match up perfectly with the two Ruths shown here, and none of these are found on the PSA 1.5 Ruth. The discoloration is also lacking on the PSA 1.5 Ruth.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I'm suspicious of the black print defects on the back being very uniform (I assume this should differ but I can't find two of the same cards from the set to compare). Look to the left and the dots are identically placed, same with the right below home plate. Also the overall image like Leon said is just lacking about 30% of the shadowing it should have.
I'm also suspicious of how they seem to have the exact same centering, that is very unlikely.

Yeah, it looks like a copy of the HA card. Look at the vertical line on the back under the word "plate" on both cards.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Yeah, it looks like a copy of the HA card. Look at the vertical line on the back under the word "plate" on both cards.

paskar,

Send it in for grading. There is one long, and I mean long, shot that these two Ruths were produced on the same machine within a short period of time thus the same flaw. Highly unlikely, but......... I would suggest PSA only because you could compare it to the SGC sample if it passes inspection.

[jcmtiger]

Get it graded, but the square corners bother me.

[JeremyW]

Save your money. The matching stains on the back confirm that it's not legitimate.

[Lucas00]

Looking back through some old posts as I couldn't sleep. And was wondering if Paskar ever reported in with his grading results on this Ruth. Seems like the outcome was not a good one.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Looking back through some old posts as I couldn't sleep. And was wondering if Paskar ever reported in with his grading results on this Ruth. Seems like the outcome was not a good one.

I think it possible that JollyElm has already coined a new hobby word. If you get a negative outcome from a grading company in regards to the authenticity of a submitted card, you just received a 'Big-Tayto-Loaf'.

Sorry Jolly for stepping on your word turf.


Brian