Move along.......

[Brian Van Horn]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-ca...item259d6dcf6a

[Eric72]

I guess I'm getting a bit better at this. Not only does that look fake to me, it's an obvious fake. Part of Babe's left foot is missing and the area between the photo and border is much too wide.

[clydepepper]

Are we Sure?

Obviously, the second and third are reprints...

BR1.jpgBR2.jpgBR3.jpg

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Are we Sure?

Obviously, the second and third are reprints...

Attachment 174663Attachment 174664Attachment 174665

Yep.

[clydepepper]

Brian- besides the obvious odds against it, what exactly are you seeing?

I want to learn how to detect these things.


p.s.- I have not bought a lottery ticket in several months.

[nolemmings]

Oh, we're sure.

Two free bits of advice to those thinking of buying a 1916 Ruth. First, 95% or more of the fakes are blank-backed, mostly because the licensed reprints all came blank-backed and the ads (fonts) are very difficult to correctly reproduce. Second, buy one graded by PSA or SGC (probably Beckett too), even if just deemed authentic. I would estimate that more than 99 1/2% of the raw blank backs you see are reprints or outright counterfeits, and while PSA famously got this card wrong once, the grading companies know what to look for here and presumably will stand behind their work for even this very high dollar card.

In short, the odds of you finding an authentic blank-backed Ruth, even a beater, are very small. Even if you stumble into an old antique store or estate sale where this truly is buried in some dust-covered book that looks to have been unopened for decades, remain highly skeptical, as this card has been reprinted so often that I expect the number of fakes to catch the number of '88 Donruss cards some day.

[Section103]

That uniform corner rounding isnt a guarantee its a fake, but its a huge red flag.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Section103

That uniform corner rounding isnt a guarantee its a fake, but its a huge red flag.

Yeah, I see that now....can't believe I did not notice..

Don't worry, I was never considering purchasing the thing.

The last time I bought a raw high-dollar card, it was a Paige rookie that PSA declared as altered.

Otherwise, it's PSA-5s or better for me.

Thanks for all the input.

[nolemmings]

The first thing to look for is the gap. The black line that frames/surrounds the photograph is very thin, yet the space between it and the photo is roughly the same width as the frame-line itself on an authentic m101-4/5. If the gap is of a width 3-6 times the width of that frame-line you need look no further because you've got a fake or reprint.

Some counterfeits have managed to defeat this tell-tale sign, so next look at the shoe. His raised foot should show a good portion of his shoe--at the heel, along the side and the front. Reprints and fakes cut off at the sock line, with maybe a hint of shoe only showing. That should do it.

I have seen at least one fake that was dangerously close, at least as a scan. It was a copied photo of a legitimate Ruth (I located the original from an auction house catalog) but it had a problem or two that gave it away. I also suspect that in hand the stock would have been noticeably different to the touch and/or that the "card" itself would be off where you could tell rather easily.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The first thing to look for is the gap. The black line that frames/surrounds the photograph is very thin, yet the space between it and the photo is roughly the same width as the frame-line itself on an authentic m101-4/5. If the gap is of a width 3-6 times the width of that frame-line you need look no further because you've got a fake or reprint.

Some counterfeits have managed to defeat this tell-tale sign, so next look at the shoe. His raised foot should show a good portion of his shoe--at the heel, along the side and the front. Reprints and fakes cut off at the sock line, with maybe a hint of shoe only showing. That should do it.

+1

Todd,

Thank you for stating, with more clarity and much better detail, what I was trying to say in post #2.

Best regards,

Eric

[Leon]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Yeah, I see that now....can't believe I did not notice..

Don't worry, I was never considering purchasing the thing.

The last time I bought a raw high-dollar card, it was a Paige rookie that PSA declared as altered.

Otherwise, it's PSA-5s or better for me.

Thanks for all the input.

Instead of PSA 5s I suggest you consider collecting baseball cards not holders, but that's just me and how I do it. If you really want some PSA 5 holders I am sure there are folks on this board who can send you some holders that say that on them. Don't blindly trust any TPG.......but good luck in the hunt!!

btw, what Todd said above is spot on.....99.99% of SN Ruths on ebay are fake

[e107collector]

That's a crappy reprint.

Also, why would you sell a potential 5 figure $$ card, ungraded? Also, they always seem to find a babe ruth rookie and 1952 topps mantle rookie at all of these "estate" sales.

Here is a page on the Net54 board, showing some good info on how to detect fake Ruth rookies in comparison to authentic ones:

http://net54baseball.com/forum/conte...tingfakes.html

Tony

[danmckee]

The gap between the picture and the frame is too large.... dead give-a-way.