Need Help with Identification of Ruth

[mdufrain]

Looking for some expert advice. I have posted before but the saga continues. This Babe Ruth came from my grandfathers estate and I got when my grandmother passed in 1987. He died in 1962. He was in his late forties. Anyway I sent this in to SGC as a possible 1929 kashan publication but it was deemed questionable a couple of years ago. Now it's obvious to me that I have picked up a real one that the kashin is much smaller and a different paper stock. I had a dealer at a show in charlotte tell me it was an old reprint as well produced prob from the era. Worth $15 to $20. Fast forward two years and I'm digging thru my standard catalog on a Sunday and I spot this. It looks the part. Measures exactly the same width and almost the same height. I'm still not convinced mine is a reprint. This is heavy like a photo which matches description as well. Please take a look. I'm fine either if it's real or not but of course I would like to think that it's legit. Hoping someone with some real knowledge here can help me out.

[pencil1974]

But it looks to be the 5x7 Kashin premium that was a photo and not printed. These used the same Kashin image but different text for the NY Americans section on the bottom right.

Have you tried putting it under a black light to see if the paper stock lights up a bright blue or a dull brown. Dull brown tells you that the paper doesn't have brighteners that were used starting in the mid-40's and more prominent in the 50's and still being used today. That is where I would start to at least get that question solved about the potential era that it was made in.

Hope this helps some. Good luck and feel free to PM me or email me at pencil1974@yahoo.com if you have any other questions.

Added- It would be good to look under a loop to. I have a 30x loop I use for work as I'm always checking specs of printing being a Creative Director for print and packaging for Fortune 100-500 Brands and have to know everything there is to know about printing process and paper stocks from around the globe, fun stuff but it helps on the this side of things just from the knowledge that I've gained doing it over 21 years now.

-Brad

[mdufrain]

thx Brad, I couldnt fnd any comps on VCP but found an example that sold in mile high in 2015. Certainly looks the part. I'll see if I can check the black light trick. Stay tuned.

[JollyElm]

On a side note, what in heck kinda shirt is that guy in the background wearing?? Looks like he's about to take the stage in some sort of light-up LED costume.

[ValKehl]

Mdufrain, I don't know if this will be of any help to you, but my R316 Kashin photo of Sam Rice measures 4-7/8" x 6-15/16". It was already slabbed by PSA when I acquired it - you may want to have a go at submitting yours to PSA.

[mdufrain]

Mine actually has the exact same measurement and the photo stock looks exactly like yours. So few that I see graded so I think off to psa Mr. Ruth goes.

[Leon]

Here is one from my first collection, no longer mine. The large scan is on purpose.
It is hard to tell from the scan if yours is good or not but I don't see anything that jumps out at me as bad. Yours could be a bit more grainy than this one but that could be the different pics of the cards. That all said SGC knows what to look for and all humans can make mistakes.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I gotta say I'm not thrilled with the apparent over-exposure in the OP's card. In Leon's you can clearly see small details in white backgrounds like the pinstripes on the uniform on his right leg etc... sometimes that's a sign of a reproduction. They try and avoid it getting too dark and that's the result.

[mdufrain]

Is there a difference between the premium and 5 x 7 photo? When I submitted to sgc I told them I thought it might be a premium. I had not seen the 5x7 listing of the set until today

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mdufrain

Is there a difference between the premium and 5 x 7 photo? When I submitted to sgc I told them I thought it might be a premium. I had not seen the 5x7 listing of the set until today

Not really different than a photo visually but they are on heavier stock....

[pencil1974]

Scott that could be simply the photo that was taken being blown out if its being taken with a camera on a phone. They tend to adjust to the bright side automatically. Not saying its the case but a possibility.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I agree, it's why I didn't say anything was definitive, but it does bother me, and I will point out that the image in the price guide, in the same photo as the card itself, actually shows more pinstripes.

[Leon]

I should mention that I had a board member, I think it was B. Pencil (hi Brad), send me one of these, or another card just like it, and it was an obvious reprint to me. However, I couldn't convince the other party (and I think it was Brad) it was so just went on my merry way. No doubt that specimen I looked at was not real, imo.....So there is at least one fake out there that is sort of close to looking real. The stock was all wrong on it. It looked like a Kodak type print to me (the whole thing was too uniform).

[pencil1974]

Hi Leon, yes I do have one that is not known but is not on any type of post-1940 paper and definitely not Kodak type of paper. The printing technique is also right for the era. This is industry knowledge of printing and paper not just my idea of what I want to believe or not.

So I would hesitate to say that anything is a reprint without fully knowing the context of how it was made. . I appreciate baseball/collecting knowledge which is great but you are talking a field that I help produce billions of dollars for companies and know the ins and outs of because I have to.

Now if someone wanted to make their own 1/1 item on archival paper, pay for printing plates, press set up and press time and happen to have an original negative to make the artwork from then yes I agree and see where mine could be a reprint but would be probably more expensive than what a reprint is worth. Just simple math it doesn't make sense.

I also know that in my field have a different proofs made that I will pay a lot of money for. I probably have at least 50 Marlboro packs that were made that are 1/1's full functioning packs that are around $500 each to make to make sure that I like the color of sunshine ink or the soft touch. If I don't they never make it to market. 100 years years from now or probably way sooner this may end up in someone else's hands and they will not know what the hell it was or what it was used for as there nothing indicating it as a proof. So if from my point of view as CD I would want to see different options/costs before I picked a direction to go. Not saying mine is a proof or that this is but unless your sitting in the room when the pressman brought it in or sales team/art department or whom ever there will always be open questions.

[pencil1974]

Here is mine for context. Mine is actually printed and not a photo. It also looks like its modern until you run a black light test on it.

The paper behind is just stock white 92 copy paper. The postcard is a mid-30's-early 40's Japanese postcard for reference. So yeah it's still a mystery to me. Sorry didn not me to hijack the thread.

[mdufrain]

No black light and a pretty elementary magnification. Here are some more pics to see if that helps.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pencil1974

Here is mine for context. Mine is actually printed and not a photo. It also looks like its modern until you run a black light test on it.

The paper behind is just stock white 92 copy paper. The postcard is a mid-30's-early 40's Japanese postcard for reference. So yeah it's still a mystery to me. Sorry didn not me to hijack the thread.

We can agree to disagree. The printing is way off. I believe Yours is a current type reprint. I have seen and handled dozens of items on similar stock. The front of the paper is very, very uniform and not like any vintage (pre war) card I have seen. At least not any real one. Just send it in and see what any grading company says. Here is a Lobby card I won on ebay recently. The seller said it was period and vintage. When I got it (and still have it as he said to keep it) I knew it was a more recent reprint. It is on the same type paper as your Ruth. He sent me a refund and didn't want it back.

[vthobby]

I though the EXACT same thing Leon!

Off to PSA it goes........if you want to waste another $75 or whatever else it costs to have them tell you the EXACT same thing.

SGC is reliable on these sort of things and to think that PSA will slab it is naive at best.

Good luck!

Peace, Mike

[pencil1974]

Did you black light yours Leon?

I get what your saying but your dismissing what I am and your making it sound like you know more about something than I do. Which I beg to differ, as you say we can agree to disagree.

Mine was sent to PSA and got an N9.

N-9 Don't Grade - When we do not grade an issue. The cards may be oversized or an obscure issue.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pencil1974

Did you black light yours Leon?

I get what your saying but your dismissing what I am and your making it sound like you know more about something than I do. Which I beg to differ, as you say we can agree to disagree.

Mine was sent to PSA and got an N9.

N-9 Don't Grade - When we do not grade an issue. The cards may be oversized or an obscure issue.

You are right, I am being too dismissive. My mistake and apology on that. It is my opinion the premium is on a vellum type paper not put out until later than the 1940s. But I could be wrong as I am human. If it gets identified as something more period (contemporary to the originals), I will say I was wrong. I have been before and will be again!!
Please PM me and let's see if we can get to the bottom of it. I have an idea.

PS. to answer about the black light, I am sure I did it to your card but it wasn't conclusive to me. More times than not, in my experiences, fluorescing doesn't tell the story. It can, and does, but not most times.

.

[Snapolit1]

Classic post.

1. OP: What do you guys think of this? I don't know what to make of it.

2. Reponse: I don't know. I see a few issues. Not sure. Probably not.

3. OP: Hey, don't see what you are talking about. I think it's real and I'm submitting it.

Always wonder what the point of these colloquies is.






is.

[pencil1974]

Thanks for the PM Leon, I appreciated that.

I don't want to get away from the original point here about the OP's item. I think your right on just sending it to PSA and find out what they say. Like I mentioned mine got an N9 which made me think they didn't know what it was either as if it was a straight reprint then I would have assumed an N4 (which has happened a few times, lol) and kept my money instead of giving a refund.

Hopefully the OP will get a more definitive answer on his.

[pencil1974]

I would say Steve it's exactly what you defined it as. A gathering for discussion. It's ultimately up to the OP on what they do with the information given at that point.

[mdufrain]

I appreciate several of the responses for helpful feedback on this. I was convinced that I was going to send to PSA as a 5x7 photo 1929 R316 due to exact size and comparisons to the examples classified as 5 x 7 photos, but now I am unsure on which way to go as I am already out $100 from my SGC submittal a while back. I am not a naive collector. I have quite an extensive collection which is 25% pre war and about 75% 1950's through 1960's but this is a bit out of my knowledge base. Again thanks for all of those whom have left positive comments.

[JackR]

Got this one a while back...SGC calls them "Premiums," PSA calls them "Photos."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JackR

Got this one a while back...SGC calls them "Premiums," PSA calls them "Photos."

That is very nice. It is both a photo and a premium in my opinion. I count them as cards, others probably don't.

For the record, Brad's card discussed in this thread was checked again and is in fact a later reprint.....1970s or newer, probably.

[JackR]

Thanks, Leon. I think they're cards, too. I guess some folks might call the '53 Bowmans "photos!"