Ruth opinion please
 

what do you think??
Attachment 292887

No giving an opinion yet, but why does it look like it was just signed on this past Saturday?

anyone else?

Just my 2 cents for what's it's worth...

I think responsible people who are knowledgable in a high risk signature would be hesitant to comment on an image as small as this one. This would be adequate for an item that was obviously bad, but in the instance of a potential skilled forgery, you need a giant high res image that shows fine detail before you can have any confidence in offering an opinion.

At arm's length it may look fine, but one closeup it may show subtle signs of hesitation, ink blobbing, etc. On this example, what is going on on the tops of the "ere" in "Sincerely?" Are those slow downs? Can't tell based on this photo.

+1

There are some autographs I will not opine unless I can examine them in-person.

We all know about richard, and Chris and Shelly when it comes to yankees and mantle....but following the board the last few years I just have so much respect for Steve Z. His great passion and knowledge for the hobby really shows and he has a great instinct and mind for autographs.

Wow... That's really nice. I truly appreciate it. Thank you. :)

#MadeMyDay

+1

If you think he is good on Yankees, Ruth, Mantle, etc. you should give him a try on space and astronauts. He is the best on astronauts in the hobby and I am glad to call him my friend.

No opinion on the authenticity but I think it's worth pointing out that despite this exhibit being pretty well worn over the years none of the creasing has managed to make it through or effect the signature. Neither has the surface wear. I find that a little odd if authentic.

I think the Babe had some trouble spelling "Sincrrrly" last Saturday.

You can actually see what looks like the paper breaking thru the signature in the "y" and the "a"...but like Chris said "some you just have to see in person"

I don't see it myself but if it's there, I would have to wonder how so much wear occurred to the rest of the exhibit but more or less no wear at all has affected the signature. I also find it a little odd that in the area between Sincerely and Babe Ruth there happens to be surface wear but the surface wear is in an exact spot that won't affect the signature.

This is a Swann auction item which is pretty reputable. I asked them if they would return it if it failed PSA or JSA.They said that those two don't give detailed enough analysis that would stand up in court and they would need better authenticators who if they thought it wasn't authentic- they a refund would be issued.
When I read further it said that the back had a 1982 Babe Ruth US postage stamp that was cancelled. Imagine sending it through the deal. That was the deal breaker that made me decide not to bid. Thanks everyone

There is a small white dot of "damage" at the top of the a, but I have to agree that it is a remarkably bold autograph considering the wear on the card. Seems kind of suspicious.

Wow

+1000
Plus he is always ready and willing to help collectors out with questions. I have asked many over time and appreciate him being here on the board very much

Wow... you guys are making me blush. Thanks again. Glad I can be of help!

That is surprising. And it sounds uncomfortably close the same language used by crooked sellers who use bogus "forensic" authenticators to rubber stamp their fakes.

I am NOT stating that Swann is in this category, but they should re-think how this policy appears.

I miss the days when Jim Stinson was posting.

Evidently, some thought it was good. It sold for $12,000. w/o the juice.

There are some very good Ruth forgers out there - Swann's comments about PSA and JSA would be enough for me to avoid this piece. I have no problem with the lack of wear on the signature, as the piece is signed where it should be signed, and there is no wear to the card in that area. Edge wear not affecting a signature in the middle of the item seems normal enough.

Yes but there was only, what, just over 20 years from the exhibit's issue and Ruth's death? In that time the exhibit suffered considerable wear to itself but the signature was maintained in pristine condition in a place that suffered no wear at all. If you ask me, it's more likely that the card was signed well after it was finished being worn. It's possible Ruth signed it after the exhibit encountered all that damage, it's just unlikely.

I have no problem with the lack of wear on the signature, as the piece is signed where it should be signed, and there is no wear to the card in that area. Edge wear not affecting a signature in the middle of the item seems normal enough.

The Ruth stamp was issued July 6, 1983.

If the cancel is a first day cancel it didn't have to go through the mail. If you attend the ceremony they will usually cancel the stamp on whatever item you put it on, and hand it back to you. Having it go through the mail is optional. (At some point in the past it wasn't, but that was well before the 80's)
So that shouldn't be the deal breaker it seems.
Now if they have that stamp and a 1982 cancel.............there's a whole lot wrong.