ugly (IMO) Ruth

Runscott · #1 08-17-2014, 07:46 PM

Or don't

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Runscott · #2 08-17-2014, 08:45 PM

I couldn't type much via my cell-phone, but now I'm home. There are two camps on this, but my thoughts are that giving away too much in terms of how we spot Ruth forgeries, is probably not a great thing. It's good that some people have wonderful skills in this area and have learned a lot, but I'm not sure that detailing all we've learned is all that smart - this autograph sub-forum is loaded with people who sell forgeries, constantly probing us for clues on what they can get away with. Telegraphing such things to forgers, even if their forgery skills are poor, is not a great thing in my opinion.

You could argue that the other side of the coin is that buyers need to be educated. I will counter such an argument by saying that after reading this forum for years, I have seen very bright collectors miss the most obvious tells, and I don't see that changing. Forgers, on the other hand, seem much more interested in learning how to successfully pass fakes, than autograph collectors are willing to spend the time it takes to learn how to spot fakes. To sum up: when we give out a clue on how to spot a fake Ruth, the net benefit is to the forgers, not to Net54 forum members. Obviously, just my opinion.

Runscott · #3 08-17-2014, 08:47 PM

I will also add that I didn't think this way two years ago. At that time I thought we needed to share as much detail as possible - it's taken a lot of reading this forum and talking with autograph experts for me to change my mind.

Hopefully there are no hard feelings among those who still believe the way I did previously.

ATP · #4 08-17-2014, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott

I will also add that I didn't think this way two years ago. At that time I thought we needed to share as much detail as possible - it's taken a lot of reading this forum and talking with autograph experts for me to change my mind.

Hopefully there are no hard feelings among those who still believe the way I did previously.

I agree, just had no idea what you were implying.

Runscott · #5 08-18-2014, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATP

I agree, just had no idea what you were implying.

My apologies to you and Michael for my being cryptic in my response. I only had access to tapatalk, so tried to convey my thoughts in as few words as possible.

w7imel · #6 08-18-2014, 03:52 PM

totally understanable on my side to why not to go into great detail of the signs of it being forgery. I just like talking autographs and that is only reason I ask questions. The forgers do piss me off though. Because someone will get taken for 3300 bucks and think the got real deal.

bnorth · #7 08-17-2014, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott

I couldn't type much via my cell-phone, but now I'm home. There are two camps on this, but my thoughts are that giving away too much in terms of how we spot Ruth forgeries, is probably not a great thing. It's good that some people have wonderful skills in this area and have learned a lot, but I'm not sure that detailing all we've learned is all that smart - this autograph sub-forum is loaded with people who sell forgeries, constantly probing us for clues on what they can get away with. Telegraphing such things to forgers, even if their forgery skills are poor, is not a great thing in my opinion.

You could argue that the other side of the coin is that buyers need to be educated. I will counter such an argument by saying that after reading this forum for years, I have seen very bright collectors miss the most obvious tells, and I don't see that changing. Forgers, on the other hand, seem much more interested in learning how to successfully pass fakes, than autograph collectors are willing to spend the time it takes to learn how to spot fakes. To sum up: when we give out a clue on how to spot a fake Ruth, the net benefit is to the forgers, not to Net54 forum members. Obviously, just my opinion.

I understand your point of view on this. I recently pointed out how the 1958 Hank Aaron Rare(LOL) Blue cards are altered and quite easy to make. I posted in that thread that I would post more info on spotting missing color altered cards but am having mixed feelings on actually doing it. Would hate to give the scammers any more info.

thetruthisoutthere · #8 08-18-2014, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott

I couldn't type much via my cell-phone, but now I'm home. There are two camps on this, but my thoughts are that giving away too much in terms of how we spot Ruth forgeries, is probably not a great thing. It's good that some people have wonderful skills in this area and have learned a lot, but I'm not sure that detailing all we've learned is all that smart - this autograph sub-forum is loaded with people who sell forgeries, constantly probing us for clues on what they can get away with. Telegraphing such things to forgers, even if their forgery skills are poor, is not a great thing in my opinion.

You could argue that the other side of the coin is that buyers need to be educated. I will counter such an argument by saying that after reading this forum for years, I have seen very bright collectors miss the most obvious tells, and I don't see that changing. Forgers, on the other hand, seem much more interested in learning how to successfully pass fakes, than autograph collectors are willing to spend the time it takes to learn how to spot fakes. To sum up: when we give out a clue on how to spot a fake Ruth, the net benefit is to the forgers, not to Net54 forum members. Obviously, just my opinion.

Well written, Scott.

Myself and others have been hammered for years for not going into detail as to why certain signatures are forgeries and we never gave in.

As Scott previously mentioned, the dirtbags (the forgers) read Net54 and other informative sites and they make note of the comments we post here.

djson1 · #9 08-18-2014, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Well written, Scott.

Myself and others have been hammered for years for not going into detail as to why certain signatures are forgeries and we never gave in.

As Scott previously mentioned, the dirtbags (the forgers) read Net54 and other informative sites and they make note of the comments we post here.

I guess I can see the point here. Giving away the hints can definitely tip off the bad guys. It just sucks though as many of us who have recently got back into the hobby could really benefit from the tips on here. I guess the best way is to just get used to looking at bad versus good ones and get a feel for them.

7nohitter · #10 08-19-2014, 06:08 AM

Jason-
Look at the top of the page, right above this thread....do you see the magnifying glass folder...detecting alterations and reprints?

When I first joined the site that folder produced hours' worth of reading! Start there.

Andrew

djson1 · #11 08-19-2014, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

Jason-
Look at the top of the page, right above this thread....do you see the magnifying glass folder...detecting alterations and reprints?

When I first joined the site that folder produced hours' worth of reading! Start there.

Andrew

Thanks, Andrew. I actually never noticed that link. That is interesting.
I'll read those.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Ugly Little R337s" aka Eclipse Import of New York Babe Ruth	danmckee	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	03-19-2014 08:55 PM
and the ugly	Matthew80	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	21	12-16-2012 09:17 PM
and I was ugly to start with	dstraate	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	25	06-06-2011 12:06 PM
They`re Ugly I Know, But......	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	08-10-2005 06:28 PM
good, bad, and ugly	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	11-20-2003 03:12 PM