1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)

[Clutch-Hitter]

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2007/388.html

"...This is one of the least understood of all vintage sets and we have rarely had the opportunity to set the record straight on these cards. It has been many years since we have offered other examples of this type. We want to be sure to get the attention of interested collectors and to take the opportunity to properly document what we think is extremely important information relating to this set both for collectors in general and bidders. The 1928 Babe Ruth Candy cards are particularly well known to collectors. Because of this fact it may be surprising for many to learn that, in our opinion, this set is without question one of the most overlooked, underappreciated, and undervalued of all Babe Ruth cards and all vintage card sets. How can this be, when they are so well known? This is has come to be the case due to a combination of several factors. The first is that very few collectors are aware that two grades of Babe Ruth Candy cards were issued. The first boasts unbelievably high quality printing, on an extraordinarily high quality white stock, which is very sturdy and somewhat thick, printed with a slightly brown/red wine colored tint to the printing, and with advertising on the reverse. These are the underappreciated Babe Ruth Candy cards to which we so enthusiastically refer. The second is of a different and far inferior style, printed on much cheaper dark or tan card stock. These cards are often found with blank backs, and in addition to a significantly lower quality of printing, the image has a poorer visual presentation due to the inferior dark card stock. The reason that this set is so underappreciated is that examples of the superior stock variety (the type offered in this lot) are so incredibly rare compared to the poorer quality stock cards. Most advanced collectors have simply never even seen the superior quality style cards in person, and have only seen the lesser quality cards. The difference between the two types is astounding. The more common lesser-quality cards are somewhat visually unappealing, while the higher-quality cards are extremely impressive. The fact that the poor stock cards have also apparently been reprinted is yet another factor that makes these cards far less understood and appreciated than they deserve. The similarity to the Fro Joy Ice Cream Babe Ruth set of six, which has also been extensively reprinted, and which has seen muted demand as a direct result of these reproductions, is yet another factor that has played a role in these cards not getting the attention and respect they deserve. Some collectors have suggested that all the poor quality stock cards are reproductions. We do not believe this to be the case, but no one will ever confuse the higher-quality stock cards with the poor-quality stock cards or with reproductions. In short, the more common poorer-stock cards and reproductions turn off collectors, and with rare exceptions that is all collectors ever see. Presented in this lot is an extraordinary collection of four of the superior stock Babe Ruth Candy cards."

Here's the paper type Mr. Lifson referred to (not mine):



Paper Variation (lesser quality, not mine in SGC holder):


__________________________________________________ ________________




I'm confident on this in terms of real vs fake with the 1928 George Ruth Candy cards:


Fake: Small card number with sepia image and grey back (deceptive counterfeits mentioned in the catalog)
Fake: Small card number with poor, blotchy black and white image, grey back (deceptive counterfeits mentioned in the catalog)
Fake: Small card number with a poor, severely cropped front image

Real: backs are beige or brownish on vintage paper, or high quality white vintage paper like Leon's (white backs too).
Real: Quality white paper with small card number, beige/brownish back
Real: Haven't located a fake with a large card number
Real: Small card number with correctly colored back, which will have a quality front image
Real: Blank backs or ad backs



Examples of the small card number with grey back, one sepia and one black and white:











Examples of a correctly colored backs, which include an obviously better front image:












For each card in the set, there should exist a deceptive counterfeit that has either:
1. Small card number with a grey back and a very blotchy, dark tinted black and white front image
2. Small card number with a grey back and sepia front image,
(like the two above examples)





Card #2 is the toughest but easy if you consider these (real on top, fake on bottom):

• Bottom left: poor, severely cropped front image (foot all the way to the bottom of the frame, real cards can make it near the bottom but not all the way)
• Bottom middle: small card number, sepia image, grey back
• Bottom right: small card number, pitiful black and white image, grey back

Card #6 is tough but easy considering this (top real, bottom fake):







Card #4 (real on top, fake on bottom):








Card #3 (all real):







Card #1 (real on top, fake on bottom):






Fro Joy's are easier than these

[Clutch-Hitter]

70's counterfeits on the far left and right:

[Clutch-Hitter]

[Clutch-Hitter]

Just read the Shotwell Ruth thread and noticed that various paper variations were used in the W set that is similar to E121. I also know that W517's were issued on multiple types of paper. There are others too.

But when it comes to the horrifying topic of Fro Joy, we can be confident two paper types were used, but we refuse to say it for certain.

Fro Joy singles were not counterfeited, only sheets, singles cut from fake sheets. That's what people got/get ripped off with. The 90s reprints are the only ones modeled after the machine cut singles and are poor quality, purplish under a black light. Leon has a paper variation, so it is. There are simply not that many factory cut Fro Joy singles on the market, period.

George Ruth Candy was manufactured on two types of paper. Sgc needs to authenticate both issues. I still haven't found a fake of either in an SGC holder, yet they stopped grading them. Doesn't make sense. They need to do this for collectors. Someone buys a card and sends it to Sgc, deemed counterfeit cut from fake sheet, buyer gets his money back. Better yet, the collector can buy a card from either issue already authenticated by SGC. Save these two very important sets.

The Ruth Candy issue was reprinted this century.

[Leon]

Rob did a nice write up on those. I was very fortunate to pick up a small group of the superior stock ones several years ago. I kept my 2 favorite and sold the rest. One of these is an SGC70 and one is SGC80. They are phenomenal looking in person...I love the one of Ruth kissing the little girl and her holding her doll...

[Clutch-Hitter]

Leon, they are very striking. The image with the little girl is an excellent example of his generosity with fans. Ever hear about the lightning storm in which most of the players took cover in the locker room, but Ruth rode out the storm sitting in the stands with the fans?

It's interesting that what appears to be the two most controversial Ruth sets are both from '28 and both contained Ruth and no other players. Following the '27 season, he was at the height of his career?

I wonder why there is definite use of two different types of paper in the '28 Ruth candy set, and good evidence of two different types of paper with Fro Joy?

Fro Joy covered Ruth as a player, from every aspect, base running, fielding, hitting, etc. Ruth Candy covered Ruth the man.

Basic questions that probably could be answered somehow:
1. Was there more than one manufacturing location for both sets?
2. Were the two sets connected in some way by the manufacturer?
3. Did they run out of the high quality paper due to popularity?

In any case, they are very similar in more than one way
1. size
2. two different paper types
3. topic
4. number of cards
5. similar marketing
6. captions
7. cards are numbered
8. year
etc, etc

I'm guessing connected, and the two sets are very worthy of further research.

I've never seen a counterfeit Fro Joy in an SGC holder, nor a '28 Ruth Candy. Why did they follow PSA's lead in ceasing their dealings with these two issues? SGC obviously knew two different types of Ruth candy cards existed. They need to step up and be the experts.

[Clutch-Hitter]

In any case, they are very similar in more than one way
1. size
2. two different paper types
3. topic
4. number of cards
5. similar marketing
6. captions
7. cards are numbered
8. year
9. Both could be redeemed for other Babe Ruth items

• Candy issue for an autographed ball (Cleveland, San Francisco) (Nation wide distribution?)
• Fro Joy for an uncut sheet of cards similar to regular issue but not the same, or for a premium (National product or regional?)

The candy issue was counterfeited this century and would light up like a Christmas tree with a black light. They appear to be poorly modeled after the lesser quality paper type instead of the kind Leon has.

Fro Joy sheets were counterfeited, not the singles, but cards were cut and sold from the fake sheets. Fake sheet singles are easily recognizable if the buyer has the information at hand, such as here. Reprints from the Fro Joy singles came along in the 90's and are easily distinguishable from the originals. People take those 90's cards and artificially age them. The originals are striking.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Had some interest in the past on how to photograph with a black light:

1. Find a room that is very dark(when the light is off). I use my garage during the daytime.
2. Use a tripod
3. Set the camera to manual mode
4. Set to auto focus and allow it to focus on the cards
5. Once focused, switch to manual focus so it will not be confused by the black light, which will be closer to the camera
6. Lower the F-Stop as low as possible (I think most go down to 3.5 to 4.0 or so)
7. Set the camera to 2 sec delay (pushing the shutter release can move the camera at this low shutter speed).
8. Turn the overhead light off; turn the black light on (I hold the black light with my hand and intentionally include it in the photos). The focus is still on the cards because auto focus was turned off.
9. Lower the shutter speed until the camera's meter is centered (ensures appropriate brightness).
10. Gently press the shutter release and let go. The two second count down will begin and you will have your photo.

If you're interested and any of this doesn't make sense, such as camera terminology, let me know and I'll explain further.

__________________________________________________ ____

Interesting comment regarding the candy issue:

Posted By: dan mckee

From my past experience, I was under the impression from my old man that the brown ones with blank backs were reprints. I have since acquired a wrapper that is of different paper than the usual wrapper so I thought it was a reprint as well. I then noticed that my wrapper says "chocolate coated" and has some different wording on it. I am thinking, guessing, dreaming, that the blank backed brown cards came with the chocolate candy and the normal ad back cards came with the usual white wrappers.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Here are the two different wrappers Dan mentioned. The one mentions sending the cards in for a Babe Ruth autographed baseball, but the other does not.

There are more of the lesser quality, non-advertising 1928 George Ruth Candy cards in circulation, which could be explained by the higher quality advertising cards (like Leon's) being redeemed for the autographed ball(?). Anybody ever seen a lesser quality example with the advertising, or just blank backs? Seems like babe would have had to sign a lot of balls...If that's the case, the blank backs came after...(?)

And as a side note, the lesser quality cards are also nicely engraved, just not as nice as the other. The fakes look bad, grainy.


___________________________________________

Didn't take long to find some fakes:


______________________________________________

This is authentic:

[FrankWakefield]

Greg, that post 11 with the black light images is great!!! We almost need a thread on using a black light. Your image would be a great lead for that, followed by your instructions. I am not sufficiently experienced to tinker with shutter speed on my clunker digital camera, I'll look into that. I think that far too few folks who chase old cards use a black light, and it is a shame. Thanks for posting that stuff.

[Clutch-Hitter]

This is a reprint: http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-19...item416594f447

There are two versions of the reprint, which are no where near the quality of the originals. Here's the other:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-19...item589382b4bf

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

This is a reprint: http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-19...item416594f447

There are two versions of the reprint, which are no where near the quality of the originals. Here's the other:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-19...item589382b4bf

It has the grainy look to the photo....

interesting to see this one...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1928-George-...#ht_1570wt_953

.



.

[danmckee]

I don't think any of the blank backs are any good, just my 2 cents.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by danmckee

I don't think any of the blank backs are any good, just my 2 cents.

I tend to agree. However, I am certainly not 100% on some of these.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Dan, what do you think about the sepia colored ones with advertising on the back? The blank back I have is very old and well made, looks exactly like the sepia ones with advertising. I've seen counterfeit cards before but never anything near the quality of this one, photo engraving, passing the black light, etc. And for the one in the SGC holder to be counterfeit, the artificial aging would have been very well done, plus the photo engraving and all. That card looks old and worn, authentically.

When did people start counterfeiting?

And when did paper start glowing with the black light? I've seen 1950 somewhere and 1970 elsewhere. The Fro Joy counterfeits (from the fake sheet) are from the 70's, so at least then.

Fro Joy was an east coast product? Maryland it seems?

It seemed like SGC knew what they were doing. This would be the first fake I've ran across in their holder, including Fro Joy, and I've been looking at all Fro Joys, past and present for going on two years. Two real Fro Joy Ruths are on ebay right now, auction format, not mine.

Thanks very much, very interested to learn about this from y'all.

edited to say: Leon, you posted while I was typing, thank you. You, Dan, and Robert Lifson are experts I'd say, Robert said authentic, Dan not authentic, and you unsure. That's very interesting. The paper looks and feels like 1920's, that and the photo engraving, passing the black light, etc. I'd have never thought otherwise. This set definitely falls in the category of Fro Joy although they weren't technically reprinted until about ten years ago. Fro Joy has infected this set because they're so similar? Dang

[Clutch-Hitter]

Very interesting: Got my black and white fake 70's Fro Joy card, my Tunney Fro Joy, and my Ruth Candy blank back and asked my wife to smell them. She doesn't know anything about any of them. She said the Tunney and Ruth Candy smelled the same, but the 70's card had a strong syrupy odor. My black and white fake and my fake blue Fro Joy's stink, but my Tunney smells good in a way, similar to an old book.

Cards were a money money making business pre-1970, so much so that people counterfeited? The close up scans next to the Tunney show what I meant by the paper looking that old, cardboard type paper with similar wear.

Very confusing

So we're confident the sepia cards with the advertising on back are good? The ones that appear to be real and not the obvious reprints? I'm about to buy one like this and need to confirm. Thanks.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Frank Ward mentioned blank back as a variation earlier in this thread, page 1.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Read the paragraph I posted from the standard catalogue again and noticed it said blank backs are a variation. This is very confusing because the card carries all the attributes of an authentic card, plus many reliable sources indicate blank backs are a known variation. Leon said blank backs are a variation as well earlier in the thread but now unknown.

There must be a printing plate like in the Fro Joy theory..

[Clutch-Hitter]

Sorry to ramble: why would anyone go to the trouble of making high quality counterfeits, using vintage paper and somehow photo engraving them, and make a stupid decision to leave the ultra important advertising off the back? Doesn't make sense at all. Respectfully

[Clutch-Hitter]

I scanned this card with default scanning setting (1st page) initially, which was bright with little conrast. These are the same scans opened with Corel Paint Paint Pro, auto correct

[Clutch-Hitter]

This 1928 Ruth Candy #1 with the ad back came from a Lew Lipset auction and will be compared to the blank back:

[Clutch-Hitter]

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

Sorry to ramble: why would anyone go to the trouble of making high quality counterfeits, using vintage paper and somehow photo engraving them, and make a stupid decision to leave the ultra important advertising off the back? Doesn't make sense at all. Respectfully

I assume they would leave the back blank to make things easier. Counterfeiters would print these out by the sheet and then cut the cards from the sheet. If they also had to print the advertising back, they would need to make sure that the back was centered properly with the front.

Out of curiosity, does the texture, thickness of the card with the advertising back feel the same as the blank back? e.g., does it seem as if the card stock is the same?

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by glchen

I assume they would leave the back blank to make things easier. Counterfeiters would print these out by the sheet and then cut the cards from the sheet. If they also had to print the advertising back, they would need to make sure that the back was centered properly with the front.

Out of curiosity, does the texture, thickness of the card with the advertising back feel the same as the blank back? e.g., does it seem as if the card stock is the same?

Yes, the card stock is the same. The darker portions of the #1 card bled through to the back, which causes the back to look slightly darker, that and some staining.

According to a past auction description at Legendary, there was a theory that the ones like Leon's were printed first and high demand led to the others. But there are so few like Leon's, so it seems like they would have been special, like a current insert maybe.

I read somewhere that the '28 Ruth Candy cards were manufactured for an entire year, which makes me wonder just how many balls Ruth signed. Think about the cola games we've been playing for years; the codes and such under the caps. Sometimes you lose, so why would all these cards have the winner on the back? Not all the W517's had a winner stripe; wouldn't be as interesting. FKW mentioned the last card being a chase card, which may be true, but apparently the blank backs participated in the chase. FKW theorized this because there are so few of the last card offered, but aren't there just as few of babe and wife, or maybe some others? The blank back card pictured above is real, but the conspiracy surrounding the Fro Joy's makes us read into it too much. There are two types of fakes and both are ugly.

Fro Joy sheets were counterfeited and singles were cut and sold from those sheets. There are many people out there, most everybody in fact, who think all Fro Joy's were cut from a sheet and should have dotted lines. A lot of people got ripped off with those fake sheets and still do. I bought one in 2010. Both of the reprints under the black light above were cut from fake sheets (corners of the box on back broken, cut lines, etc.).

Also, some obvious counterfeits were modeled after the blank back. It wouldn't make sense to model a low quality counterfeit after a high quality counterfeit. And just how many of the obvious reprints do you see that aren't of the batting pose? I don't believe I've ever seen one of Babe and wife, not the obvious ones, heck I don't know if I've ever seen any at all of wife and Babe offered. It's always the batting pose, maybe the standing portrait. The obvious fakes is what you usually see, but every so often a real one will show up.

So to say this is fake is to assume some master counterfeiter got some really old paper and chose the card with wife and Babe to copy, to photo engrave? No, not true. The blank back card looks like the #1 card because it's real.

I found a site today that said that paper made 1950 and later fluoresces under a black light.

Oh and let me show these cards (Thanks again Jason. Note the non-uncut sheet characteristics and the bleeding onto the back like a 33 Goudey. The cards with the lighter fronts have bleeding but less noticeable than the ones with the darker fronts):

[Jaybird]

Greg, I think you are doing some interesting work on these issues. As more and more people post their cards on this thread, I think we will see your theory proved out. Time will tell but I do appreciate that you're putting forth theories which hopefully will bring clarity to the fakes in these issues and also restore confidence in the cards that are not reprints (i.e., original to the issue).

[Clutch-Hitter]

Another couple of things:

1. The #1 card and the blank back smell the same.

2. See the stain on the right front side of the blank back and how it makes the paper the same color as the many stains on the #1 card? The stain on the blank back card is also on the back and makes the paper the same color as the stains on the #1 card. The blank back is much cleaner, but not totally clean.

3. I'm pretty sure that's a candy stain on the right front of the blank back. Many authentic Fro Joy's have ice cream stains.

4. I bought a Fro Joy grip card last year that I thought was fake although it didn't have the uncut sheet characteristics. There's a thread in which I went back and forth on it. I thought it was fake because it was much cleaner than my other Fro Joy's, like the two pictured above. BVG gave it a 2.

5. Why do so many reputable people say there are authentic blank backs, and why is it such a coincidence that this blank back looks the same as the #1 card, both in the high resolution scans and under the black light? It's because it's real.