Babe Ruth help, please

[rmarks]

This is not my autograph, but I know where to go to see if it is likely authentic. Please let me know your thoughts so I can pass your comments along to the owner.

Thanks for your help.Screenshot_20220304-133031_eBay.jpg

[Steve D]

It just doesn't look right to me.

Some of the curves don't look natural, and some of the letters look to be "constructed".

Steve

[rand1com]

Not authentic IMO.

[rmarks]

Thank you. I'll pass that very constructive feedback along. I felt uncomfortable with it too, but wanted to get confirmation from the experts on this board. Thanks again.

[w7imel]

Not a chance. Look at some ruth hand written checks..All the numbers are wrong.

[Joeybats]

Agree with all the comments above, those folks are better at this than me. One thing really stands out to me as not being authentic and that is the transition between the 'R' and the 'u'. That link does not look natural and to me appears to maybe have been added after the first attempt of the auto.

[rmarks]

I agree with all of the comments. Many thanks for sharing your opinions.

[Snapolit1]

I'm not debating any of the conclusions above, and am not an autograph expert of any kind, but it's always odd to me that people talk like there is only one type of Ruth signature that is legit. As to Ruth or anyone else, isn't it far more likely that signatures can change a significant amount from when someone is 20 years old to 40? I think of myself. I see signatures from 25 years ago and they really don't look a lot like my scribble today. And aren't there going to be examples where someone signed something quickly or maybe reached up into the stands to sign something or was walking down a street and their signature will look lousy just because of the circumstances. Just has always seemed really peculiar that people are confident enough to quickly view a signature and say it's off.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Joeybats

Agree with all the comments above, those folks are better at this than me. One thing really stands out to me as not being authentic and that is the transition between the 'R' and the 'u'. That link does not look natural and to me appears to maybe have been added after the first attempt of the auto.

There is no link between the "r" and the "u" in Ruth's signature. They are always separate letters. As they are here.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'm not debating any of the conclusions above, and am not an autograph expert of any kind, but it's always odd to me that people talk like there is only one type of Ruth signature that is legit. As to Ruth or anyone else, isn't it far more likely that signatures can change a significant amount from when someone is 20 years old to 40? I think of myself. I see signatures from 25 years ago and they really don't look a lot like my scribble today. And aren't there going to be examples where someone signed something quickly or maybe reached up into the stands to sign something or was walking down a street and their signature will look lousy just because of the circumstances. Just has always seemed really peculiar that people are confident enough to quickly view a signature and say it's off.

I just wish those much smarter than me when it comes to autographs would be more descriptive in their responses when they do not believe it is a valid signature. Just saying no without why, confuses me to no end.

I'd like to learn/understand the why with the reasoning as well..

Regards,

Butch Turner

[Bpm0014]

Horrendous forgery. Not even close. Without a shadow of a doubt 100% fake.

[Bpm0014]

I'm not debating any of the conclusions above, and am not an autograph expert of any kind, but it's always odd to me that people talk like there is only one type of Ruth signature that is legit. As to Ruth or anyone else, isn't it far more likely that signatures can change a significant amount from when someone is 20 years old to 40? I think of myself. I see signatures from 25 years ago and they really don't look a lot like my scribble today. And aren't there going to be examples where someone signed something quickly or maybe reached up into the stands to sign something or was walking down a street and their signature will look lousy just because of the circumstances. Just has always seemed really peculiar that people are confident enough to quickly view a signature and say it's off.

It’s off. Ruth’s autograph most certainly did change. If you look at one of his autographs from 1920 and compared it to an autograph from 1927 and compare it to an autograph from 1948 there are most certainly some changes. But the example shown here doesn’t fall within any of those parameters. Ruth actually took great pride in his autograph. For every 1000 authentic examples you will find MAYBE handful that were ‘rushed’. Handful meaning < 5.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'm not debating any of the conclusions above, and am not an autograph expert of any kind, but it's always odd to me that people talk like there is only one type of Ruth signature that is legit. As to Ruth or anyone else, isn't it far more likely that signatures can change a significant amount from when someone is 20 years old to 40? I think of myself. I see signatures from 25 years ago and they really don't look a lot like my scribble today. And aren't there going to be examples where someone signed something quickly or maybe reached up into the stands to sign something or was walking down a street and their signature will look lousy just because of the circumstances. Just has always seemed really peculiar that people are confident enough to quickly view a signature and say it's off.

^This^

Just like Mantle... everyone always talks about the "slanted t" which seems to show up only about half the time.

The truth is a TPA's guess is probably the same or even below the opinions of most of the people on here.

As for the Ruth, my gut feeling is no. I don't like the second "b" in Babe, but as mentioned above it could be debatable for sure.

[Bpm0014]

With all due respect, no, this cannot be debated. Anybody who is even remotely familiar with Ruth’s signature will tell you that this is a pretty bad forgery. There is zero debate. Again, will all due respect. I’m not trying to sound like a jerk. It’s just a pretty poor forgery.

[rand1com]

Agreed. Poor forgery.

[Joeybats]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

There is no link between the "r" and the "u" in Ruth's signature. They are always separate letters. As they are here.

David, totally agree with the separate letters. To clarify, it looks to me as though the beginning of the "u" was added after it was signed.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

I just wish those much smarter than me when it comes to autographs would be more descriptive in their responses when they do not believe it is a valid signature. Just saying no without why, confuses me to no end.

I'd like to learn/understand the why with the reasoning as well..

Forgers would also love lengthy explanations why people can tell when a fake is not passing muster. Therefore, it's definitely better for everyone else if people don't go on at length about such things on a public forum. Don't worry--some others disagree with this line of thinking and have complied with your request in past discussions and will continue to do so. To me, there's no sense in handing criminals free info. Let them do their own work.