"......lil' help"
 

So since I'm not getting any replies from anyone in the Chicagoland area where I can drive it over to them, is there anyone here who is confident they could tell if it is real or fake if they had it in their possession?

I prefer someone who is certain they could, if in hand, and then prove why it is or isn't. Not just "doesn't look good", or "it has that look", or "yah I think it's good."
I need certainty, one way or the other.

I will pay for shipping to and from.

PM me and give me a little info how you are going to prove or disprove, and/or if you have similar pieces from that time frame.

His Net54 username is drcy

It's unusual that an image of a new discovery from an antique dealer would already be a stock image for t-shirts and posters and coffee mugs at a large online print shop. The print shop found the only other one known back in 2019, and without fanfare, used it for pillow cases? Do they still have their original?

That would be highly unusual. It looks like that seller takes copies of a wide range of rare items and turns them into pillow cases. Here are a few more Ruth pillow cases you can have made, along with examples from a few auction houses. The fact that this seller sells copies doesn't delegitimize original items. One could argue that it's actually a rather impressive archive of a wide array of images.

Ruth Baseball Game
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://loveofthegameauctions.com/lot-10015.aspx

Ruth Award Certificate
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c.../50023-50135.s

Ruth Membership Card
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ling-envelope/

Ruth Old Gold
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://goldinauctions.com/magnifice...v-lot9948.aspx

I'm not thinking any of the above items are fantasy pieces. All of them appear to have been loaded in 2019, so that doesn't change much.

Wherever that seller got the image of the item in question, it is different as can be seen with examination. If that seller did save an image of a fantasy item, it's odd no more examples can be found. The source of the other image is rather interesting. Looking at them next together and examining the red print shift and print flaws, it appears that neither is a modern digital copy of the other. Even the tab alignments vary, but remain consistent.

Just PM'd him. We'll see. Thanks Jobu!

Here's the coffee mug. Doesn't the image appear to be in mint condition? If this piece is newly discovered this week on ebay, how did the print shop already have the image?

So many questions, this thread is really interesting. Just based on its appearance, which to my eyes just doesn't look naturally aged or toned, I'm pretty sure it's a fake, but where did the forger get that fabulous image to copy if nobody here has ever seen one? And as many have pointed out, if they put it together themselves, where are the things from which they amalgamated to create this, and what a lot of effort (and skill) to go to to make $500 or even a grand doing it! What about the seller? Have they been contacted to try to get an answer about where they got it? That mug is great, by the way, I wouldn't mind drinking my coffee out of one. But where did THEY get the image?

Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be newly discovered. Relatively unknown sounds better, if it checks out.

A test is to look at the other stuff the seller sells. If it is also antique stuff that appears authentic, that means the seller appears to have a running knowledge, feel and experience for old stuff.

When I would buy expensive rare antique photos on eBay I would always check what else the seller sold. If he sold other photos that I knew were authentic that was evidence the seller had knowledge about what he was selling. From the variety of other antique photos the seller sold and the knowledgeable ways he described them, you could quickly identify a seller who knew old photos.

On the flip side, if the seller is selling nothing else remotely related to the rare item or a lot of cheap reprints and fakes, you know you should have strong skepticism.

I'm not really sure that really helps in determining the authenticity of this piece. Yes if the seller had a Feedback of (0) or even (18) that would be a HUGE flag. OR......if they sold Fakes as you mentioned, but that is pretty much a no-brainer with sellers to avoid and doesn't apply here. His Feedback is like (1800) and no history of fakes.

And just because they sell antiques I don't know that would qualify them for knowing if this piece was fake or real. They can't know every category of item. Shit Rick Harrison has bought a few fakes, and while some may not like Rick, I feel he does have a wide array of knowledge. And I personally have great knowledge and can tell Real vs. Fake on vintage baseballs & vintage tickets, but i couldn't guarantee a Real/Fake autograph or vintage W.S. pin. So this seller may know some antiques, but not others. So again sorry, but I can't get on board with the knowledgeable antique seller theory. It's very hard to know all baseball memorabilia.

I thought you, since you wrote on Fakes/Reproductions would know from the material, the coloring, the printing, the aging, etc. that you spoke of in your very interesting book that Bryan mentions (and provides a link to) in Post 46 of this thread?

[QUOTE=Shoeless Moe;2103536]I'm not really sure that really helps in determining the authenticity of this piece.

Of course it helps Drcy is pointing out one ( And there are many tests ) to help YOU determine if it is real. Bob F
Who collects Advertising signs, I am sure could give you many other tips for YOU to decide if it is real. And many on this thread have offered tests to help such as Black light, examining under a loop. Now I understand all of these test require knowledge of what to expect and I know from experience that some sellers of fakes are very very good at what they do. But you came on here asking for opinions.. and some gave that. But some took the time to offer direction on how to narrow down some facts about the piece. Black light bulbs work in any desk lamp and dark room. Loupes are easy to buy and inexpensive. ( But you backed off both suggestions)
Then there is reseach if this is a fake then what is the root image that gave the person developing the fake inspiration? Because successful fakes often make you think it is very close to an item or items you have seen before.
Are there others using this image on recent items (Yes).
All of these tests add up to a more informed opinion. To test ink or materials in a lab is way beyond most folks reach. But the feel of paper, examining the glue. All the things Drcy wrote about in that book. Looking up on youtube how to age paper so that it is easier to see when these techniques are used. All of these things can help You determine real from fake.
Just like you learned cards and tickets by handling them over time paper is still paper. And I know good fakes can be printed on old paper. But real items check every box as real. Items that dont I stay away from.

[QUOTE=bigfanNY;2103638]Thanks Jonathan. I'm still working with David as he just emailed me within the past hour to send him pix and I just now did that. I will post those here too. I have not backed off from a loupe or black light, I just do not have either. Like I said I'm up for paying shipping to and from or paying for someone's opinion. I just want this over with one way or the other, fake or real.

Now that it is in hand he are some pix
 

let me know if anyone sees anything good or bad. If you want larger pix(Net54 has a max. DPI), pm me with a personal email and I'll send them to you.

and
 

more...

and
 

last 2...

I notice when comparing the coffee mug/towels pix if you look at the Red letters in the words BASEBALL GUM at the top there is white in those letters whereas on this sign they are fully Red.

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html

Does that mean anything?

What about smell, Paul? I remember many years ago old-timers telling me that they always smelled things first, maybe even cards, that something this old should smell at least a little musty. Especially this piece, which looks like it has gone through...well, what is it supposed to have gone through to have suffered that much uneven browning? Exposure to moisture? Air? Both? Shouldn't it smell a bit funky?

I just looked at the close-up images, in particular the printing details, along with all the other images.

If the cardstock has all the signs of being old (smells musty, foxing, passes the blacklight test), I am confident it is original and authentic.
This isn't just from some general "feel" or "impression." I was looking for distinct printing and ink details in the close-up image. Plus I considered all the other images and evidence.

The funky staining made me wonder too at first. However, I don't think it's deceptive toning but water damage or staining it got sometime over the years.

This would be an item worthy of restoration and cleaning.

Eric, This is funny... However, i still use my ole' Canon & I've never set my date either... 10-12 years ole' now!

As for the Babe's Promo... It has a lot of attributes towards being real!
Might be worth 3-5 K !?

Definitely smells musty.

Then it is original.

Wow! Thank you David. I really appreciate and value your knowledge and opinion. I think the next step is getting that black light, so it can pass or fail one last test you, Chad, Trey, Jonathan and others have mentioned. Then possibly off for restoration.

Bryan(Jobu) referred me to this place:

https://www.graphicconservation.com/contact/

If not too crazy expensive.

Looking forward to Anson's blog post on this one. He could say something like..."A piece of Babe Ruth, card-related memorabilia, which has been casually recognized by Soccer Mom's across the globe for years through Hobby Lobby and Michael's has been newly discovered by the baseball card hobby by veteran collector, Shoeless Moe..."

Looked at the website, just send the pics & your info, sound like they will give you an estimate

It is an original what? Nothing against Drcy and his knowledge .....but ..General gum of Chicago issued a set of Funnies in 1934. And it is well documented as many hobby "Godfathers" were active collecting at the time. I am not aware of a series of 8x10 pictures of Baseball stars being issued by "Baseball gum" or a Mounted Babe Ruth picture attributed to them.
The Hobby is aware of small obscure issues like Sawyers Biscuits from Chicago. But the ACC missed Baseball gum from Chicago?
Now it could have been created in marketing and never made it to the storefront. But 2 sticks for a penny? Late in the depression when a stick of gum was the size of todays candy bar.
Time will tell but the image itself I guarantee will be seen in antique fairs and flea markets across the country. I will not be buying one. List this on the Memorabilia side and maybe more info will turn up.
Jmho..

Interesting thread. I am very curious about the 8x10 pictures and whether they are the same used by Butterfinger. I thought the same as Brian when I first saw the ad-- the pricing point seemed way off when compared to the candy bar. The other thing that troubles me somewhat is how the gum was packaged. I disagree that the gum itself had to be as large as today's candy bars. I still have a 1933 Uncle Jacks pack, coupon and gum, and the gum itself is no different than a typical stick of chewing gum-- you can also find Wrigley's and other gum wrappers from the '30's on the Internet that show very much like they have in recent times.

So here's my issue. The Uncle Jacks, with its cheap, non-advertising glassine wrapper, still had stiffeners to protect the gum--a baseball card and a coupon. Assuming this "Baseball gum" was not sold as loose sticks, how was it wrapped and wouldn't there naturally be some sort of indicator of the manufacturer? A coupon, or printing on the wrapper, or something else? The Ruth offer talks of wrappers, but nothing has surfaced as I understand it.

I believe the 1934 Canadian Butterfingers were obtained as premiums from O-Pee-Chee, so a gum company affiliation here would not be all that surprising. Does anyone know how those were acquired? I know they are considered premiums, but that tells me some gum packaging had to exist that alerted the customer how to get them. Are there known O-pee-chee coupons or wrappers from 1934?

Plus I've seen repro Goudey advertising pieces printed modern and mounted to old cardboard stock. They are pretty convincing if you just look at, and smell, the old cardboard stand which has legitimate age. I'm not saying it's fake. I don't know enough and would never pass judgement without holding it, but I don't think smell is enough to be conclusive.

Jonathan, I'm not familiar with the Butterfinger premium from 1934 at all. So I'm learning here as we go. Do you or anyone know why there were photos with that Butterfinger info printed on it and others without it? Is it known for certain those are all from the same Butterfinger offer, or could that be 2 different offers? edited to add reading one auction house's reason is the Red ones were believed to be the Diplay Pieces for the Offer and the photos without the red ink were then the Premium....makes sense.


Last, "if" this here piece is authentic I lean more toward the Promo that never materialized theory on this. I believe Trey had a few theories early on in this thread. And your disbelief in "2 sticks for a penny" leads credence to a possible cancellation of the Promo. Or maybe they couldn't get Ruth on board with the Gum/Offer so it was scrapped.

Scott, you need to read each post in the thread, no one said smell alone is enough to be conclusive.

Paul. My understading is that R310's were issued in boxes of 50. They are the thin fragile 8x10 prints. The cardboard stock with red printing versions were ment to be displayed showing that along with your Buttetfinger you got whichever print was on top of the pile of 50.
Most of the cardboard stock versions that I have come across were St. Louis players. Players from other teams have been confirmed a number in the past 10 years. Over the past 40 so years when I have purchased original collections from the 1930's a number have had a few Butterfingers and at least twice I have had heard stories of how they were sold with Butterfingers directly from collectors. And at one point My Dad and I were very close to a complete set of R310's and had according to my old checklist 4 overprints.
But as I mentioned earlier there was extreme bad blood between Curtis candy and Babe Ruth so I cannot see them obtaining a license to offer a Ruth Premium.
As for your poster I downloaded this from the web site of the folks that offer these as fantasy items. If you enlarge you can see the same tabs as on your poster. Much easier to see on their site under stationary.
Hope this helps.

J

Thanks for the Butterfinger info......good info.......but, as for that Site with these product, if anything it being on that Site adds to that is once was a real item.

As Trey pointed out all those baseball items on that Site that become coffee mugs, pillow cases etc are taking from what once were Real items:


Ruth Baseball Game
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://loveofthegameauctions.com/lot-10015.aspx

Ruth Award Certificate
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c.../50023-50135.s

Ruth Membership Card
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...ling-envelope/

Ruth Old Gold
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/...tion-road.html
https://goldinauctions.com/magnifice...v-lot9948.aspx

I have a few emails out to Conservators, about restoring, I would think they would know if old or modern. I also have a black light on the way in the mail.

Through your years of seeing this set, have you ever seen an R310 Ruth with the Butterfinger overprint? Do you find it strange that Ruth would be included with the standard set if the blood was so bad? Are you thinking the Ruth photo from the standard set came from somewhere besides Butterfinger? Curious about your thoughts, as you are someone that has dealt with R310 a good bit.

That's not a hand made piece. Those are machine die cuts and the printing is showing through the weathering much like the type of printing of the day including old Goudey cards. Halftone dot printing doesn't do that. The fact that company makes a bunch of stuff with that design means nothing. They probably pulled it from an original somewhere.

It seemed to be a final arbiter though. Like smell was the linchpin in the case for authenticity, and, in a case like I mentioned, smell is irrelevant.

Paul emailed me a bunch of closeup images, some that I don't believe that were posted here.

No doubt a product of sophisticated printing, or some type of CGI. But what kind of "weathering" ends up on both sides like that? There's always something new under the sun in this hobby, but I've never seen aging or deterioration that like on a legitimate piece, therefore my suspicions about it.

Hank, agree with you, and pretty sure that is the main reason behind anyone here who has commented it's a fake.

So I think the black light which is on the way will hopefully help with that (one way or the other). Also, as I've mentioned I've emailed some restoration places, my first question to them will be that staining, and their opinion on it, and then if I take it to them in person their thoughts on that and age of the piece.

I also have yet to mention as I wanted to see the comments come in first, but the seller of this said it came from a collection that included many baseball letters and contracts from the Yankees from the 1920's, again not saying he couldn't have had a lemon in with the group, but just another clue pushing the possession arrow to point toward Real.

Of course if it glows once my blacklight gets here that will put the kibosh on Real, so I'll post those pix later in the week. But if it doesn't glow, then probably off to a well known and respected paper conservator.

We'll see.

Best of luck on having your item found to be genuine.

If it is genuine, questions remain as to the subjects mentioned in the ad.

If it is not genuine, questions remain whether it is a reproduction or fantasy piece. Seems to me there is evidence that an original exists or did at one time.

+1 to all of the above.

I have a number of paper pieces here in my collection from different genres that have weathering/fading/discoloring on both sides. It's not always weathering exactly but fade or discoloring from the acids and such in the paper when stacked between other paper items. Whatever items are on top and bottom of it often affect the paper in between even when stored in a dark cool place. Bottom line is we can all sit here all day with our glasses half full or half empty about it. Until it is tested or one of us has it in hand it's hard to tell for sure. I hope it is authentic for the OP.

Me, too! For my edification, could you post one or two of yours that comes closest to this one?

Babe Ruth & Licensing issue ??
 

The Baseball Player does resembles Ruth, except the player shown is batting right handed ?? (if that matters)

Good catch on that.

Someone with experience emailed me about that stating:

"2) turning Ruth around and making him a right-handed batter is exactly the kind of thing a graphic designer in 1934 would do, to make the image work with his/her design - but also exactly the kind of detail that a forger would NOT do - I think a forger would turn it around."

Or is that supposed to be showing Ruth at the END of a swing?

Good luck with the light!


.

<p align="center"><img src="https://photos.imageevent.com/four_bills/192728frojoyicecream/1928%20Babe%20Ruth%20Candy%2006%20_B_.gif">
<br><b>1928 Babe Ruth Candy 06 (B)</b></p>

Wrong hand on top.

Oops. Right you are, sir!

Provenance
 

I would request a letter from the eBay seller that provides the provenance of the piece and it's connection to the collection of 1920's Yankee items.

I'm going to shot some pics of mine.