Help Needed regarding bad Babe Ruth auto

[Westsiders]

I'll try to make this long story short....just looking for some advice on how to proceed next.

My 12yr old son is a huge baseball fan...and a huge fan of Babe Ruth. And let me say that at the time, I was not up to speed on Ruth autos.

Last October, I purchased a Babe Ruth/Charlie Root cut auto card...a legit 1/1, as a Christmas present. It was the chase card, and featured on the cover of each box (Tri-Star Signa Cut) Ruth auto 44.jpg

The fact that this was the cover card, and still advertised on the Tri-Star website, I felt that it significantly added to the value of the card, and to the excitement level of my son opening the box with the cover card inside.

After receiving and studying the card in depth, I developed some serious concerns about the authenticity of the Ruth. I contacted Tri-Star with my concerns, and they assured me that it was authentic.

After doing further research I found out that this particular auto (prior to it being inserted into the 1/1 chase card) was featured on the Hauls of Shame website as one of the most suspected forgeries (and I believe the tip was provided by Net54...which is how I originally found this forum). The cut auto itself is known as the "Blarney Stone" Ruth.

After raising all my specific concerns, in addition to the Hauls of Shame posting, I again contacted Tri-Star. This time, they seemed to take me more serious. Although the auto was JSA certed (which was shown on the Haul of Shame website), I was still very skeptical. I told Tri-Star that I would like to send the card to PSA/DNA (at my expense) and if they deemed it authentic, I would be completely satisfied. They said they would look into it a get back to me.

In the meantime, I submitted it to for a "quick opinion" on (2) occasions, and both times it came back as "unable to render".

A short time later, I received a call back from Tri-Star saying that they would be happy to issue me a replacement card, saying that they wanted to get this Blarney Stone card "off the market" and to alleviate my concerns.

As asked, I shipped the card back to Tri-Star. A week later, I received a call saying that it would be about (4) months before I received the replacement card. With this being a Xmas gift, I wasn't thrilled with the lengthy delay.
After explaining my displeasure and concern about the quality of the replacement auto, they agreed to send me photos of the auto prior to me agreeing to it as a replacement.

Fast forward a few months, I receive a photo of the replacement Ruth auto. With the help of Net54 members, this supposed replacement auto was an exact match to an auto featured on an collector's forum website as a forged Ruth auto. babe-ruth-side-by-side-comparison.jpg And on this website, the collector's unanimously agreed this to be a forgery.

I ended up telling Tri-Star the same thing: If both JSA and PSA sign off on this auto (at my expense) then I'm happy with it. They indicated that they would replace it with a different Ruth auto, but they have been extremely slow responding to me.

Sorry for the length, but hoping that someone can point me in the right direction. Bit skeptical about two highly suspicious Ruth autos.

Thanks.

[travrosty]

But if the blarney ruth was already certified by the other firm, why would they want to get it off the market, i don't get it???????

You know why an unable to render decision was given?, probably because they were familiar with that auto, knew that the other company has certed it , and didnt want to go on record as opposing the other certification, fearful that the other company might do the same to them in the future, and then we have authentication wars, so they did the diplomatic thing and said "unable to render" (unwritten policy not to cross the other authentication company). That is my theory.

why unable to render??? Don't they know Ruth autographs??? They give opinions on hundreds of other Ruth's, why not this one? Is it that ambiguous? How many other exemplars do they have that come somewhat close to this one that they can't figure it out? Of course the answer is none, so the honest answer of "likely not authentic" on a quick opinion is missing because they can't cross Mister Big on the other side.

That's why it is all a big scram!!! My opinion of what I believe is going on because all the big items get double certed, even if they are no good, and maybe this one was just a bridge too far for Mr. West Coast to double cert without getting laughed out of the hobby, but they couldn't say no good either. If I had certed it instead of Mr. Big on the East Coast, Then West Coast would have given it a quick opinion of "likely not authentic", but I didn't so they equivocated. (Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.)

If Mr. West Coast doesn't agree with my assessment, please come on here, tell us the name of the boy who gave the quick opinion, the exemplars they used to come to the unable to render decision, along with a point by point assessment of the autograph comparing to their exemplars that justifies the unable to render decision. Along with a notarized affidavit stating that they had absolutely no prior knowledge that this Blarney Ruth had been previously certed by Mr. Big of the East Coast. Think they will do it? If they do, I will abandon my theory and give them credit.

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by travrosty

But if the blarney ruth was already certified by the other firm, why would they want to get it off the market, i don't get it???????

In my opinion, they wanted it off the market because they realized that it wasn't authentic.

I presented them with a detailed summary as to why I thought it was bad...including many examples of authentic Ruth autos.

At first, they relied on the JSA cert...telling me that if I had an issue with the cert, I should contact JSA directly (which I did...another long story).

After presenting Tri-Star with all the evidence, I asked them contact one of their connections at PSA to get a quick "off the record" opinion on it. I don't know if they actually contacted PSA, but a short time later, I received a call from Tri-Star offering to replace the card.

In short, I think Tri-Star was/is attempting to do the right thing in replacing the card. But when the second Ruth auto also seemed suspicious to so many in this forum, it left me a bit more confused.

Overall, Tri-Star's customer service has been pretty good up to this point...but this process seems to really be dragging, and they have become increasingly slower and slower to get back to me.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Westsiders

In my opinion, they wanted it off the market because they realized that it wasn't authentic.

I presented them with a detailed summary as to why I thought it was bad...including many examples of authentic Ruth autos.

At first, they relied on the JSA cert...telling me that if I had an issue with the cert, I should contact JSA directly (which I did...another long story).

After presenting Tri-Star with all the evidence, I asked them contact one of their connections at PSA to get a quick "off the record" opinion on it. I don't know if they actually contacted PSA, but a short time later, I received a call from Tri-Star offering to replace the card.

In short, I think Tri-Star was/is attempting to do the right thing in replacing the card. But when the second Ruth auto also seemed suspicious to so many in this forum, it left me a bit more confused.

Overall, Tri-Star's customer service has been pretty good up to this point...but this process seems to really be dragging, and they have become increasingly slower and slower to get back to me.

The problem that some insert companies are facing is the increased prices every year for these cuts of the famous and desirable hall of famers, ruth, cobb, wagner, etc.

most of these companies try to get the cheapest ruth, cobb , wagner, mathewson, cy young they can find obviously. since they are not autograph experts themselves, they find one with a cert from the big two. this blarney ruth fit the bill, had a big two cert and probably cost less than other ruths.

they should find a textbook ruth and shell out the full retail for it if they wanted to avoid controversy, but that';s just not the way it works with companies, they wants to squeeze every dollar, and unfortunately, authentication suffers sometimes because of it. I hope you get a dead-on ruth for your troubles. east coast authenticator isnt going to give you much help in this matter. i would love to see exemplars that match up to that blarney ruth.

[David Atkatz]

Without taking a stand as to the authenticity of either of the two side-by-side Ruth signatures you presented above, I must ask you, why do you feel they are an exact match?

As far as I can tell, there's not a single letter formation that matches.

[mighty bombjack]

Haven't we seen that Leaf was fooled by a forged alphabet cert, leading to a forged auto being put into a Leaf card and then slabbed by Beckett? Perhaps the same happened to Tristar. Could be that these forgers found a new ready market in the card companies, who have deep pockets but are easy targets due to their bureaucracies and desires for wholesale prices?

[Westsiders]

Sorry David....I should have explained it better.

The side-by-side comparison is from a website...featuring the bad Ruth on the left, vs. a good Ruth on the right.http://www.collecting-autographs.com...ntication.html

The Ruth auto on the left was offered as the replacement auto. So the exact match is between the replacement auto...and the Ruth auto on the left. And the match itself was discovered as result of some good detective work by members of Net54.