Babe Ruth?

shelly · #1 04-08-2013, 04:44 PM

Item_22463_1 (1).jpg

David Atkatz · #2 04-08-2013, 05:05 PM

slidekellyslide · #3 04-08-2013, 05:18 PM

Not a single one of those signatures looks identical. I wonder how anyone can do an "eye test" on a Ruth sig?

David Atkatz · #4 04-08-2013, 05:24 PM

But Dan, Chris said above (and I quote):

"I trust my "autograph eye" more than anything else."

Runscott · #5 04-08-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

But Dan, Chris said above (and I quote):

"I trust my "autograph eye" more than anything else."

I think that any time an 'expert' gives thumbs-up on a signature that you ('you' meaning anyone on this forum) are certain is a forgery, you no longer pay much attention to their opinions. Especially when they never give a good reason for the opinion - and unfortunately, this is true of almost everyone on this forum. We'll say 'good' or 'bad', but if we give a reason we know that there's a likelihood that we'll get slapped around, or lose credibility. So no one likes to put themselves on the line.

But research is a different thing - if Chris does 'leg-work' and determines that this can't be a good Ruth, then I'm sure it isn't.

Scott Garner · #6 04-08-2013, 06:32 PM

Thanks to Shelly and Ben for providing different 1934 exemplars.
Ben, I can't believe that you have some many exemplars from 1934. Wow!

I'm glad that I'm not the one being asked my opinion about the signature on this ticket. I find it extremely challenging to tender an opinion, even with all of these terrific exemplars. Yikes!

slidekellyslide · #7 04-08-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think that any time an 'expert' gives thumbs-up on a signature that you ('you' meaning anyone on this forum) are certain is a forgery, you no longer pay much attention to their opinions. Especially when they never give a good reason for the opinion - and unfortunately, this is true of almost everyone on this forum. We'll say 'good' or 'bad', but if we give a reason we know that there's a likelihood that we'll get slapped around, or lose credibility. So no one likes to put themselves on the line.

But research is a different thing - if Chris does 'leg-work' and determines that this can't be a good Ruth, then I'm sure it isn't.

How much legwork was done? He claimed in his second post that it was bad yet at that time did not know it had been certed by JSA, believed it was rejected by PSA and I think we can tell from his posts that he believed that Heritage rejected it. Then claims that someone from Michigan who forged some other Ruth item that we are not allowed to see more than just the signature on also forged this Ruth ticket stub, yet the consignor is here and refutes all of that.

Dan

Runscott · #8 04-08-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

How much legwork was done? He claimed in his second post that it was bad yet at that time did not know it had been certed by JSA, believed it was rejected by PSA and I think we can tell from his posts that he believed that Heritage rejected it. Then claims that someone from Michigan who forged some other Ruth item that we are not allowed to see more than just the signature on also forged this Ruth ticket stub, yet the consignor is here and refutes all of that.

Dan

It's a big "if". Chris says he's been doing research - he just needs to show it to us.

Off to the game.

jgmp123 · #9 04-08-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

How much legwork was done? He claimed in his second post that it was bad yet at that time did not know it had been certed by JSA, believed it was rejected by PSA and I think we can tell from his posts that he believed that Heritage rejected it. Then claims that someone from Michigan who forged some other Ruth item that we are not allowed to see more than just the signature on also forged this Ruth ticket stub, yet the consignor is here and refutes all of that.

Dan

Speaking of MICHIGAN....GO BLUE!!!! Lets take a break to watch a great game fellas.

gnaz01 · #10 04-08-2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

not a single one of those signatures looks identical. I wonder how anyone can do an "eye test" on a ruth sig?

exactly!!!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1933 Goudey #53 Babe Ruth vs 1934 "Canadian Goudey" WWG #28 Babe Ruth	Yaz#8	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	02-21-2012 09:31 AM
On Ebay - 1948 Swell The Babe Ruth Story near set with Babe Ruth	rebelsart	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	07-15-2011 08:43 PM
Are 1917 Collins-McCarthy Babe Ruth and 1921 Oxford Ruth real?	Peleseller	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	01-07-2011 03:07 PM
1932 Sportoscope Babe Ruth flipbook; Home Run by Babe Ruth anyone know the value	RichardSimon	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	3	11-16-2010 02:14 PM
1925 Exhibit Babe Ruth on ebay make an offer!! Tough Ruth card.	Archive	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	01-24-2008 10:10 AM