Babe Ruth Endorsed Check

[David Atkatz]

Of course it's good.

[Bpm0014]

It’s good

[w7imel]

Awesome ruth check!!!!

[gnaz01]

Perfectly fine

[rand1com]

A lot of views with only 4 opinions. Any one else?

[Klrdds]

With those 4 opinions you really don't more . Those 4 are as good as anyone on Ruth . IMO only reason to get more would be to confirm your already received opinions OR to find a person that says no to the check.
Just to add my 2 cents worth. The Ruth autograph / endorsement is good . It's a beautiful example.

[rand1com]

OK.

So here is the full story. About 15 years ago I bought this check off Ebay just as it is for $1500. No authentication. At the time, it was a good price but not a steal.

I held onto it for a couple of years and sent it to a major auction house with some other items for consignment. They sent the check back to me and said it did not pass authentication. It would have been PSA/DNA at that time with Steve Grad the likely authenticator as I think Jimmy Spence had already left to form JSA.

I certainly thought it was a perfect example as the opinions expressed here but I would not try and sell it since they sent it back and I did not want to spend another $250 which was the Ruth fee at the time to get the same result.

It was way too late to try and get my money back from the seller so I chalked it up to a bad beat down.

I did not think much more about it but still had it in a box here at my home.

Then a few days ago I was looking at the Heritage Auction and saw a check up for auction that appeared to be a mirror of this check with the same bank and same person signing the front. I compared the two closely and although the handwriting on the check looks a little different, mine was a year later based on the dating than the one in Heritage so depending on age etc., possibly the signer's writing was a little different.

So, I got to thinking maybe mine was indeed good after all. Hence, I put it up here for some opinions which I respect.

I did not want to declare the facts as I wanted opinions based on the Ruth signature, not the story. I was encouraged by the responses with no one who opined it was not authentic.

As a final test, I submitted it to Beckett for the online opinion for $10. They quickly opined "Not likely to pass full authentication." Of course you get no reason, just Yes/No.

With a $350 fee for Ruth, it just does not make sense to submit it for full authentication.

There must be a tell that we are all missing and they immediately picked up on.

If indeed this is a forgery, it is the best one I have ever seen.

So there is the "whole story."

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Of course it's good.

I was wondering why you said"of course"??

[rand1com]

To compare apples to apples, here are pictures from the Heritage Auction I referred to in the original post. Obviously, does not have the Purple Cashed Jamaica stamp which appears to be a possible issue but the Bank of Manhattan red stamp appears to be a match on the check I have to the check in the auction.

[Bpm0014]

Great information Jim thanks! Upon further review of the original check, you can clearly see where someone changed $5.00 into $500.00.

[rand1com]

So if Jim's premise that someone got a period check and filled it out to Ruth in order to forge his signature on the reverse to sell it as a forgery, what was the incentive to change the original amount from $5.00 to $500?

Why would the amount make any difference? Especially since obviously the one they would have been trying to replicate which according to Heritage is indeed authentic was for $5.00.

I agree upon a closer look that the two zeroes appear to have been added with a slightly different pen and perhaps as Jim surmised the red blotch covers an attempt to change the amount but again for what reason.

Is a $500 Ruth check worth more than a $5 one if both are perceived to be authentic as to Ruth's signature?

Also, comparing the clearing house stamps on both checks they indeed appear to be a match.

I am not trying to justify that the check is authentic as for close to 15 years I have assumed that it is not.

However, something does not add up in this case and I would just like a plausible answer.

The Ruth signature is clearly live ink. Even if replicated by a laser as Jim guesses, the change to the amount makes no sense to me.

[rand1com]

Here are the two checks one above the other for comparison purposes from a handwriting standpoint of the person who filled them out supposedly based on the dating a year apart. Is it clear they were filled out by two different people?

[rand1com]

Here is an enlargement of the Ruth signature on the check I have. Maybe someone can conclude that this is indeed a laser created signature. I admit I cannot make that conclusion as I do not know what to look for. It looks like a live signature to me.

[scmavl]

Originally Posted by rand1com

So if Jim's premise that someone got a period check and filled it out to Ruth in order to forge his signature on the reverse to sell it as a forgery, what was the incentive to change the original amount from $5.00 to $500?

I believe this has to do with the chemical washing of the check to remove the payees name. I think they botched up the "dollars" after "Five" with the washing, and needed to cover the extra space, so they chose to add the "hundred".

My .02

[rand1com]

That reasoning actually makes very good sense. Thanks