1922 "BABE" RUTH HAFFNER'S BREAD baseball card

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by calvindog

lolol

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card. Oh, wait. That's the proper procedure. Oh, so sorry. I'm guilty of being accurate. I'm so ashamed. Wait. i can't go to a church. I'm an Agnostic. Oh, the credit, the credit, the credit. Still, there's the accuracy. I'll rest well.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card. Oh, wait. That's the proper procedure. Oh, so sorry. I'm guilty of being accurate. I'm so ashamed. Wait. i can't go to a church. I'm an Agnostic. Oh, the credit, the credit, the credit. Still, there's the accuracy. I'll rest well.

I suggest you get back on your meds.
.

[RCMcKenzie]

Paskar, can you say where you found it? It might help others chime in with opinions. It does look grainy. The one in HA looks a little grainy, but clearer than yours.

See this thread with information on the Ruth with this back.

www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2170652

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Leon

I suggest you get back on your meds.
.

LOL!

Never skipped them.

Happy Holidays.

[darwinbulldog]

I was thinking the same thing Leon wrote. There's nothing else about the card that screams fake to me, but the Ruth image itself isn't of high enough resolution to be a real one. It's like the image quality of an E122 at best when it should be the image quality of an E121 (assuming that means anything to you).

[Brian Van Horn]

OK. So, for comparison without handling the card, let's compare scans front and back here from the post:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=311139

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card.

You misspelled "because a dealer didn't gesture in the direction of the card and tell me that it was a reprint."

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

You misspelled "because a dealer didn't gesture in the direction of the card and tell me that it was a reprint."

Thank you for the endorsement.

Happy Holidays.

[paskar]

That's interesting. the same markings on the back of the card. Some of the markings seem to be coming through from the image on the front but the 2 dots you circled aren't from the front image. the centering issue as well. could it be copied and still be on a card that wouldn't illuminate under a black light?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by paskar

That's interesting. the same markings on the back of the card. Some of the markings seem to be coming through from the image on the front but the 2 dots you circled aren't from the front image. the centering issue as well. could it be copied and still be on a card that wouldn't illuminate under a black light?

Enjoying the feedback so far?

[oldjudge]

With the large caveat that you can never tell from a scan I think the card has a reasonable chance of being good. When you compare the upside ($100,000 + card) to the downside (wasting $25 to get it graded—if it is fake you won’t have the high fee) it’s a no brainer to get it graded.

[RCMcKenzie]

Paskar, are you in Ft. Wayne, Indiana? It is true that if SGC or PSA holders it you are good to go.

[rhettyeakley]

The similarity of the (what should be) unique print marking/stains on the back makes the card immediately highly suspect of it being authentic.