Is this Babe Ruth rookie real? Also, Ty Cobb M101-4

[jfandel3]

Hey guys, this is my first post here. I'm happy to be a part of the forum. I've attached three photos of a couple cards someone is selling. The Ruth is obviously trimmed but the typical signs of a fake aren't there... space between photo and black border, feet, and trimming of the bottom. What do you guys think? It's a blank back.

I don't know much about fakes of the Ty Cobb, which I believe is 1916 M101-4. It's in pretty good shape so I'd like some feedback of what you more qualified collectors think of these cards.

As of now I'm staying true to the motto "If it's too good to be true, it probably is" but I'm still hanging on to a sliver of hope.

Thanks,
Joel

[Leon]

Welcome to the board, Joel. From the scans my first guess is none are good unfortunately. The Ruth is way too grainy looking. No, it doesn't have the larger white area inside the black border but that is not the only thing to look for. That picture of him just doesn't look sharp enough and I am 98% sure on it. As for the Cobb, it actually looks pretty good. I am just betting where there is one rotten apple there is another. I am 75% sure it's not good but there is a chance it is....it does look pretty good from that scan (I have owned several). And on the other caramel card, back shown only, it too looks too grainy to me. It looks like there is a dot pattern in the white areas (under magnification?) The printing of the pictures and words should be crisp looking. I am 85% that it's not good.

[Sean1125]

Welcome. Enjoy your stay.

[jfandel3]

Thanks for the input and kind welcome. I figured the cards to be no good but wanted to be sure before passing up the opportunity. Supposedly the seller doesn't know anything about cards and just wants to sell them cheap. He had no idea the Ruth was even trimmed. Still, I'm staying away from this one.

Thanks,
Joel

[smtjoy]

Hi Joel, Welcome to the boards. Glad you came here first as they are both fakes. The Cobb is very close but fake, I know as I purchased one like it 6 months ago and it looks pretty good in scans but once in person there is no gloss on the front and when compared to a real one the detail level is just not there as well as the shading (look at the D on his uniform and how dark that area is on reprint). Good luck in the future on your collection.

Here is a real Cobb to compare with-

[jfandel3]

Hi Scott, thanks for your input. It's great to hear from someone who has the real card in hand (Which I envy you for). I've informed the seller that these cards are commonly faked and encouraged him to see a professional for authentication before continuing his sale. Hopefully nobody gets scammed off these in the future.

Best,
Joel

[Jaybird]

The Ruth looks to be scanned from an original or an original image stolen from the internet then printed out on an inkjet printer. The lettering on the bottom is very crappy. See the broken lettering? The thin lines of the individual letters should be solid and wouldn't have all of that inconsistency.

Not to mention the image itself which is very bad. Hardly even looks like Babe in that picture. You'll start to spot these fakes very quickly because often times they are just not as good as the originals. You'd think something done that long ago would not be as good as things printed today, but often they are much better.

Good luck and welcome aboard.

[jfandel3]

Thanks for the post. I agree with everything you have to say. I'm working on developing that eye that can tell a card just isn't quite right. I expect it will come with more experience. And I agree, some of those old cards look really vibrant even though they're 100 years old. My tobacco cards have some of the best colors of all the cards in my collection.

Best,
Joel