which ruth is real and which is fake?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Vanessa Phipps</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191639333.JPG"> <br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191639355.JPG"><br /><br /><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191639446.JPG"> <br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191639467.JPG"> <br /><br /><br /><br />Hey I thought I would have a little fun. Which one of these ruth cards are real and which is a reprint. I know this belongs on pre war but I kind of like the attitude of the post war board better. <br /><br />Thanks! Fire Houston Nutt

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marty</b><p>For my money, the top one is the reprint. It looks like it is artivicially aged but more important is that the circle on the bottom right back looks more clear on the bottom one when the imases are blown up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>Top, the stock looks too white.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Easy!<br /><br />The top is real. The type on back is the right color and boldness with minimum space on the bottom border. The aged back is worn as it should be...not a chipped undercoat. The background color and picture of Ruth is strong and appropriate with close printing.<br /><br /><br />Bottom card:<br />The type on the back is too light and there is way too much space on the bottom...that where the "reprint" line goes. The back edge/borders shows an off (dark) color and are chipping which means it was not not letter-pressed but coated (dead give-away). The pic on front is weak, print is blury and the background color is wrong. <br /><br />I could keep going <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>It's not always "fair" in comparing scans when the scanning process itself is so disimilar -- i.e., one larger, sharpened more, brightened more, etc. That said, I'd say right off the bat that the top is real. The first thing that catches my eye is the coloring, especially on the front. A good way to tell on this card is the yellowish "shading" in the center of the uniform of the real card. I happened to scan my own card recently and noticed that right away.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Vanessa Phipps</b><p>I am sorry about the two size differences. I had a little trouble getting them on there. I will reveal the real Ruth after a few more posts. I am getting some very good info though on spotting a fake. <br /><br />Thank You!!! Fire Houston Nutt!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Vanessa,<br /><br />Kevin already revealed it. Certainly he is not wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>by the scans posted i would think both are reprints.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marty</b><p>The easiest way to get the cards scanded the same size is to have both of them in the same scan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sagard</b><p>I have yet to see a Sport Kings / Goudey reprint with a banner bleed through. Top one is real without a doubt.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Vanessa Phipps</b><p>The top one is the real card. The bottom unfortunately is mine. Thank you all who wrote in for the tips on spotting a fake. Dont worry I didnt pay a whole lot for the bottom card and I did buy it knowing that it was probably a reprint.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Vanessa -- When possible you can always post an image here before plunking down the money. If you want to supply a link to it but are worried about "outing" an auction because you don't want more bidders jacking-up the price, then send an email to someone here you feel you can trust...that would be most of us. By the way, if know you are getting something real cheap then chances are that's exactly what you are getting! Folks here seem to be more worried than you are about getting burned! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>