Ruth opinion on back of press photo

[4scuda]

This is on back of a press photo. The photo does not appear to me to be an original type. The photo back has a red stamp with a serial number and I have an original newspaper with the image. I assume this is not true autograph but I thought it was strange that someone would try to fake it on the back and not sell as a autograph.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Nobody was trying to fake anything. Somebody just wrote his name on the back as an identifier, which is more common than not.

[4scuda]

I just thought the r didnt look normal and was in the Ruth style.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by 4scuda

I just thought the r didnt look normal and was in the Ruth style.

I'd tend to agree. Looks to me like someone took an unsophisticated run as faking a Babe.

[swarmee]

It's definitely got a look as though someone was trying to fake a Ruth signature. Not close, but at least in the style compared to just writing his name (even in cursive).

[Bpm0014]

100% no

[jethrod3]

The photo looked original to me, but could have been Type II or Type III. And the writing and red number wasn't written on the photo itself, but on the board it was mounted to. I considered bidding on the photo, not the signature, but since I couldn't see the back of the actual photo, I dropped out early on.

[WhatsNext]

Nobody was trying to fake anything. Somebody just wrote his name on the back as an identifier, which is more common than not.

This is correct. I write my Rs similar to that one; it's not that unusual.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by WhatsNext

Nobody was trying to fake anything. Somebody just wrote his name on the back as an identifier, which is more common than not.

This is correct. I write my Rs similar to that one; it's not that unusual.

Agree