Need some help on early Babe Ruth

[btcarfagno]

I am not very comfortable with Ruth in general, but especially so his early signature. This one dates to 1920 or so (supposedly).

I am not a fan of the "B" but to me, the rest looks pretty decent.

Thanks for any input.

Tom C

[w7imel]

Its amazing how all other signatures have all but faded away but the Ruth still remains.....No expert but I wouldnt buy just for that fact alone

[MacDice]

Agree with what w7imel said. Was thinking the same thing.

[sbfinley]

The 1920 date would be right as it was the only year he played with Thormahlen. I'm about as qualified to give an opinion on a Ruth as I am to pilot a plane so I'll only say that nothing screams fake from what I see. The Thormahlen is spot on, the Ruth I could go either way. If the rest of the ball matches up I'd be more confident.

Originally Posted by w7imel

Its amazing how all other signatures have all but faded away but the Ruth still remains.....No expert but I wouldnt buy just for that fact alone

The only other signature visible above in a completely different pen.

[Bpm0014]

I'd like to think that I am very comfortable with Ruth, but not necessarily his early signature. There are a couple of things that are spot on, and a couple that are off. Could it be simply because it is an "early" Ruth? Maybe, maybe not. There are so many "ifs", that I wouldn't buy it. I love to give my opinion on Ruth's signature because I'm fairly confident, but I have zero to offer on this one. Too tough, too early of a sig, too many questions....

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

I'd like to think that I am very comfortable with Ruth, but not necessarily his early signature. There are a couple of things that are spot on, and a couple that are off. Could it be simply because it is an "early" Ruth? Maybe, maybe not. There are so many "ifs", that I wouldn't buy it. I love to give my opinion on Ruth's signature because I'm fairly confident, but I have zero to offer on this one. Too tough, too early of a sig, too many questions....

Thanks to everyone.

This is exactly where I am on it as well. The fact that it is a different pen is certainly a yellow flag at least, but isn't a disqualifier for me. I, too, see a lot to like, but also (like the "B") some things that I am not comfortable with. I am trying to look closely to see any signs of tracing as well.

Another panel has a Carl Mays that is spot on, but agin is in a different pen than the Ruth.

I am just not sure on this one. The price will likely keep me from getting it, but I could possibly still be persuaded if anyone with a valued opinion thinks it is definitely good.

My thoughts mirror those of Brendan pretty much exactly. I have some confidence with the more plentiful Ruth signatures but one this early I'm just not on solid footing.

Tom C

[Duluth Eskimo]

Tom,
I find it funny how some people on this board are so outspoken on Ruth signatures, but are silent on this certain items like this ball. People seem so afraid of being called out for being wrong that no one wants to comment on something that's not right on. I don't understand why certain people feel the need to be right all the time. Maybe you have received some private emails, but I doubt it.

[w7imel]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

Tom,
I find it funny how some people on this board are so outspoken on Ruth signatures, but are silent on this certain items like this ball. People seem so afraid of being called out for being wrong that no one wants to comment on something that's not right on. I don't understand why certain people feel the need to be right all the time. Maybe you have received some private emails, but I doubt it.

+1 I would love to hear some opinions from the experts about this ball. I admit I know nothing close to them about this subject I always enjoy learning the ins and outs of things like this.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I'm about as qualified to give an opinion on a Ruth as I am to pilot a plane so

Well, as it happens, I am qualified to pilot an airplane, so...

It's a perfectly fine early Ruth signature.

[w7imel]

Thanks David!!!