Is it me, or does this look awful?
 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Early-1930s-Babe...item2c5c47e944

Maybe Babe imbibed excessively at the Blarney stone? :p

Scott - how dare you question this full LOA by JSA - This Ruth is a JOKE - thats why it's 2000 - People by the cert not the autograph.

I have been a lurker in this area, as its out of my financial range, but watch Chris' videos, see genuine examples, read Richard's posts, etc. I can't imagine there being a CHANCE that the Ruth is accurate in that signature.

Sometimes, advertising and such gets your name out I guess, but it doesn't always make you a better authenticator, as appears to be the case here.

yes your butt does look bigger

I've got news for you guys. That Ruth is genuine.

(And as I'm sure you're all aware, I'm the last guy to be defending a third-party authenticator.)

David beat me to it (although this just might qualify as the singlemost atypical--yet authentic--example).

The characteristics are all there. It just isn't a pretty Babe. But I agree that it is a "Babe."

Really? Thanks Guys, Chris, Jody and David, and Mr Murphy..ugh.. Why does the R look so bad? just sloppy? I like to learn.

It's signed on the back of a matchbook cover. During Ruth's lifetime, matchbook saddles (the top portion of an intact matchbook) were rounded, not scored/squared off as they are today. I surmise that somebody handed Ruth the matchcover and he held it in the curve of his hand while signing. With no solid backing to provide proper counterpoint to the pencil pressure, any number of odd, spontaneous anomalies may have occurred. In this case, the "R" took the brunt of it.

Makes sense. THANKS!!