Has Anyone Seen This Ruth-Gehrig autograph Topps card?

[RichardSimon]

I would be curious as to the opinions of the board on this card.
A little bit of a small image, but its all I have.

[David Atkatz]

The Gehrig is probably OK, IMHO. I wouldn't buy the Ruth, myself.

[perezfan]

Agree....

Gehrig - 50/50 ; Ruth - highly questionable

[tinkereversandme]

I hate when people say this (as this validates that they don't know what they are talking about and guessing) but while I'm not an expert, the Ruth has a lot of issues. Gehrig looks fine.

Regards,
Larry

[GrayGhost]

Yeah, that Ruth doesnt look too good at all. Gehrig good to me.

[RichardSimon]

duplicate post

[RichardSimon]

Now for the full story - the card was pulled from a pack and there have been print stories about it. Supposedly it is on the way to an authenticator now.
The consensus here is, IMHO, absolutely correct. Gehrig good, Ruth no way.
Looks like Topps is taking their lessons from the early UD cards that had fake autographs.

--

[PhilNap]

Here are larger images. We still happy with the Gehrig? The paper and the ink look awfully similar as well.

[prewarsports]

Does not look like the same one as in the first photo.

[HRBAKER]

That doesn't look like the same card to me. In the first one shown by Richard the Gehrig looks much lighter and the top of the "L" is much closer to the frame than on the second example.

[PhilNap]

You guys are right. How many of these did they make?

[PhilNap]

The image I posted matches the image on Topps' promotional sheet for the set.

See here (page 5): http://www.topps.com/productsellsheet/topps2009TripleThreadsBaseball1349746.pdf

Apparently that was a prototype and not the actual card that ended up in a pack.

[perezfan]

Good thing it's a prototype, as that Gehrig is not authentic.

[bobbvc]

Almost said it earlier, but didn't want to presume. It looks to me like both autos were done by the same person in one sitting...

[RichardSimon]

I had seen that also. No question it is different than the one I posted. I was not sure what it was though, whether a card or something else, so I did not post it.
And the Gehrig is awful on it,,looks like it could be something that came from the Roaches, geez Topps, bad enough you mess with Andrew Jackson's signature but you make a mess of Ruth and Gehrig also.
(Jackson never signed on two lines. Topps cut this signature from a document or letter and then cut the signature in half to fit it on this moronic card). They also mutilated the "n" in Jackson,,, nice work Topps.
--

[perezfan]

They do the same moronic practices with Game-used Jerseys and Bats. Can you imagine actually cutting up a rare Ruth or Gehrig Jersey for the sake of these pointless cards? Should be against the law....

[GKreindler]

...and punishable by death!!!

!!

!

(crickets)

Really though, beyond a travesty.

[danc]

Who are these collectors who purchase this stuff...and thinks it's cool? You chop up a check (who cares, it's a check) valued at $20 and the cut signature affixed to a card is now worth $100+.

I did a private signing with a Otto Graham back in 1990 and I issued these unique photos made for the occasion. I paid Graham $3 per signature and had 250 of these photos made and sold them for $15 a piece at the time. You see them on occasion on eBay at they sell for about $25. I saw a clipped signature from one of those photos, cut up (signature only) on a card and it sold for $155, from I believe UD. Why?

Pieces of jersey cloth...bat shavings...I don't understand why people collect that stuff. But I agree, it's a hobby travesty, especially when they do it with a rare Ruth jersey or bat.

DanC

[slidekellyslide]

I have no idea how many legitimate Andrew Jackson signatures are extant, but that is atrocious. I don't even care if his signature is relatively common, you don't do that just to fit it into a pack of baseball cards.

[GrayGhost]

Guys, you are all veteran collectors. Its all about the MONEY. These card companies have something going that wasn't around when I, and probably most of you guys, was a kid. Its called PERCEIVED VALUE. The hype of finding this 1/10 "Cut Casey Stengel" or something has people paying ridiculous prices for packs of cards, and then, on the flea bay for the item itself.

When I was a kid, I bought packs of cards, traded and saved them, and ate gum. yeah, i was giddy if I got Hank Aaron in a pack, or later, a Yount, Schmidt, etc. I can remember my Mom bringing me a 75 cello pack home from grocery shopping w Hank on top. That was such a thrill, because I knew the player, not some stupid perceived "fake chase card" to make me overpay for their shit.

48.00 for a new box of Topps now, and kids that dont get the autograph, relic, parallel or whatever, Ive seen them leave the rest of the cards behind, and just keep the others. its all crap.

Now, my rambling rant finishes with the idea of chopping up a jersey or a bat. That is SACRILEGE indeed for these superstars. And of course, putting a fake Ruth or Gehrig, or doctored Andrew Jackson or clipped signature on a card is just as bad.

I mean, all Coaches Commode does is sell forgeries and ruin the hobby for us older collectors. Topps and the other comapnies are ruining the hobby for kids, who will never know the fun of just opening a pack of cards and chewing the gum, and getting excited finding a REGULAR card of their favorite hero.

[danc]

GG hit it on the head. I think we were all there at one point. Just the pure joy of opening up a pack of cards and creating a collection.

The love for me ended when these greedy companies started to one up each other with quality and the next thing you know, nobody collected the cards, but the valuable inserts.

Last week on Countdown with Keith Olberman, he opened up a 1967 Topps pack on air. The best card in the bunch was Bill Mazeroski, but it was fun to see.

It is all about money, but also very foolish collectors who don't understand how meaningless those limited edition numbers mean. I saw an Eddie Lopat limited edition card sell for over $160! It's a $3 signature.

DanC

[Spahn21]

The first one shows a pencil Gehrig and ink Ruth--I agree with those who do NOT like both of these autographs.

The second one shows a Ruth and Gehrig which appear to be in the same ink, on the same paper, and in the same hand which is not that of Lou or George.

Makes me wonder--if the signatures are so specious, where did the wood and cloth come from?--Kevin Keating