The Babe - Real, Clubhouse, or Forgery?

[Shoeless Moe]

appreciate anyone and everyone's input

[Bpm0014]

Can you get a picture of the ball/stampings? What year is the ball from?

[Shoeless Moe]

B, here you go...Ball looks to be from 1925, only year that Reach logo & Ban Johnson combo.

[Shoeless Moe]

Over 200 views and no one has a thought. Interesting.

Leads me to believe this one then could go either way.

Or the experts we once had are now dead or got out of the autograph game and have moved on to scrap-booking.

Anyone not dead or not into scrap-booking and fairly familiar with Ruth's signature can now go with these alternatives to Good, Clubhouse or Forgery:

A. Looks more good then bad, but don't quote me on it
B. Looks more bad then good, but don't quote me on it

[frankbmd]

C. Both of the above
D. None of the above

[Bpm0014]

This one is tough. Especially because it is faded and tough to see. The autograph has clearly been on the ball for a long time. It also has some characteristics of an early Ruth. But the first set of parentheses are too spaced out and too linear. And the "R" comes down a little far and the "h" is a little pointy. However these 2 things (sometimes) are also characteristics of an early Ruth. Although slightly atypical, it wouldn't surprise me if this was an early Ruth. That's why I asked to see the stampings on the ball.

Gun to my head, and without the ball in hand, I'm going to go out on a limb and say A. But, it's not one that I would buy for my collection. You could send this to PSA 20 different times and it would probably come back with 5 goods and 15 bads.

[1880nonsports]

I would have thought what appears to me as a poorly executed "B" indicative in part of a clubhouse/forgery......

[Mr. Zipper]

One thing I have learned about offering opinions on chat boards is to never guess.

And never write, "I can only see a little of it, but I think it may be okay." Because that will quickly become, "Steve said it's okay."

There is no upside to offering an opinion on a barely visible signature, unless it is so grossly malformed it's obviously bad.

I suspect many other knowledgeable collectors feel the same.

[Shoeless Moe]

Good info all, and makes sense, thank you!

[Shoeless Moe]

to compare against

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

One thing I have learned about offering opinions on chat boards is to never guess.

And never write, "I can only see a little of it, but I think it may be okay." Because that will quickly become, "Steve said it's okay."

There is no upside to offering an opinion on a barely visible signature, unless it is so grossly malformed it's obviously bad.

I suspect many other knowledgeable collectors feel the same.

+1

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

One thing I have learned about offering opinions on chat boards is to never guess.

And never write, "I can only see a little of it, but I think it may be okay." Because that will quickly become, "Steve said it's okay."

There is no upside to offering an opinion on a barely visible signature, unless it is so grossly malformed it's obviously bad.

I suspect many other knowledgeable collectors feel the same.

I would never speak for anyone else, but personally, I have grown weary of opining.