Opinion on this Ruth
 

I have my thoughts but I'd like to hear yours. 1940 golf scorecard from a course in Iowa, dated 6/24/1940 on the back by the caddie.

http://photos.sportscollectors.net/327329.jpg

Maybe Im wrong, but:mad::mad:

Don't like it

I see several issues. the R looks hideous. Sizes on letters/slant are inconsistent, plus the "b" in babe is way too tall

deleted
 

deleted

You showing this without telling people that it is all ready certed by one of the boys. Not a very smart think to do.:mad:By the way what is your name.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1940-Babe-Ru...p2047675.l2557

Looks like this one.

I don't know. I just usually turn to Google for the answer, but if Google doesn't know where do I turn?

what deleted?

You are correct that PSA passed it. I wanted to hear opinions without that fact influencing people, because I also thought it looked bad.

http://photos.sportscollectors.net/327328.jpg

Looks like a Philly special and not a very good one at that.

Good for whoever got it passed. It doesn't bother me that it was shown without the psa auth. I don't mind looking foolish and honestly I still don't like the auto any more than I did before. Of course if the meeting between the caddy and Ruth could be wholly substantiated it would change my mind.

I don't like the overall look of it. The top of the lower case b comes up very high. The space between the first b and the a seems too big. Don't like the look of the R. I also wonder how many times Ruth went golfing in Iowa of all places. I don't claim to be an expert but I'd stay away for sure.

This is why I opted for a signed check. You have to be really careful with any "Babe" signature, especially cuts. It's just too easy to find some old period paper and even easier to forge with pencil without aged period ink. Of course there are real paper pencil cuts out there, but you really have to use more caution I feel.

Let me tell a story about signed checks that I reported to LE but nothing was ever done.
Some time ago a "Babe Ruth Foundation" blank check was for sale on ebay. I was immediately worried what would happen to this check when I saw it. Sure enough it was sold and a month later the check was for sale again. Only guess what. It was filled out now and signed. They brought Babe out of the grave to sign it. It was the exact same check.

After about a year of gotcha people stopped. It seems that people are getting much smarter and really dont care who authenticated it. I dont like it and would not buy it. It is the game that is no fun and it proves that the tpas are wrong again.:)

In my limited interaction here, I do not believe certifications hold much influence over peoples opinions.

For the record the original poster of this thread can remain private if he so desires. As long as he doesn't give an opinion of a person or company, or get into heated debates, he can stay private. I just like to reiterate our stance on private postings.....LL

This Ruth is a very bad example and looks very "labored" to me. TPA certed or not...doesn't matter. I wouldn't blow $3K on it (as it was being sold on eBay). As others have noted, the sizing of the letters (especially that second "b"!) and the "R" are just not very good examples. Something about this signature looks very stiff.

I'm not familiar with the Foundation checks that you're speaking of. Were they from when Babe was still alive or was it set up after he died? Do you have a photo of that check? I'd like to know what it looks like to keep an eye out for those.

Have you seen any "Babe Ruth" checks that have forgeries on them? I know people can make high quality prints of these from originals but I don't think I've ever seen any actual ink forgeries on a "Babe Ruth" period check. Maybe they do exist and I'm not aware of it.

I realize forgers will do anything and everything they can and will snatch up blank checks like that to forge. I've never seen any on Ruth's "Babe Ruth" checks. Mine is from the Chemical Bank, NY from 1936 made out to Claire and endorsed by Claire on the reverse.

I have no doubts as to my check but I realize their are other check types of Ruth out there and certainly one has to do their due diligence on a signature on any medium. I think I've seen some "voucher" checks that don't carry the "Babe Ruth" moniker on them which I don't know a whole lot about either.

Richard, did it go as far to have cancellation holes?

The foundation was formed when he was alive. The check was dated during his lifetime. This forger may be a crook but he is not stupid.
I might have a copy of that check somewhere in my files on my computer or a printout. I will check that to see if I do have it.

I have seen forged Ruth signatures that were cuts from checks. Forger probably used an old and unrelated check.

The majority of this board knows to think for themselves but there are many out there, who are not on this board, who only buy the cert :mad::mad:.

+1

Dennis, it's a bad forgery no matter what meeting can be substantiated.

If you are buying an autograph as expensive as a Ruth, you should either be an expert in his signature, or know one. Relying on a COA is foolishness unless you are wealthy.