1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>P.G.</b><p>Could someone fill me in as to the value and scarcity of this set. Met with a shop owner today that had all 6 of these cards (raw). There was some mild browning of the cards, but otherwise they looked to be in decent shape. He wanted $1,000 for all of them. <br /><br />Upon a search of PSA, I found that they do not grade these cards anymore . . . does anyone know why?<br /><br />Any information that could be provided to me would be appreciated, as I have never seen this set before. <br /><br />Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>These cards were forged many years ago and have been wreaking havoc ever since. More of a headache than you want.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Amen, Jodi. Much more of a headache...<br /><br />Get a blacklight. And look at a few real ones. Then, once you're comfortable with how a real one looks, check the 6 out that the fellow has and take your blacklight.<br /><br />The safest course is to not collect these. My belief is that there's more than one counterfeit style. It can be quite difficult to tell them apart. I wouldn't blindly trust what it might say on a slabbed one, I think a few bogus ones have slipped past the graders.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Hey Leon, didn't you mention some new variety of problematic Ruth Candy Co. perhaps a month or two ago?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>These cards have also been forged very recently, see olebbstuff auctions, all fakes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>You must be able to compare the photos, the fakes have been cropped a bit on one or more sides and the font on the caption is different, especially the card number. There are also back variations (Cleveland, SF, blank) and tint variations (Sepia or B&W).<br /><br />PSA and SGC have trouble with this issue as well.<br /><br />Along with the Fro-Joy cards the Geo Ruth Candy Cards are not the easiest to tell the fakes from the authentic cards.<br /><br />PS Many of the wax Candy Wrappers floating around are fake too. The main way to tell is the contrast differences in the color of the Ruth portrait.<br /><br />here are 2 of the Sepia SF variation cards...<br /><img src="http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1928ghruthcandy6.jpg"><br /><img src="http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1928ghruthcandy3.jpg"><br /><br />Here is a picture I made a while back showing some of the differences...<br /><img src="http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1928ghruthcandy6reprint.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>P.G.</b><p>Gee, thanks so much everyone for responding. . . great information, and I don't think I will be pursuing this at all. Doesn't seem like its worth the risk for these cards. I may try to get the owner of these cards to send me some scans of them, and then post them here.<br /><br />As far as resale value if they were real, are they worth the time, or do collectors normally shy away from these cards just because of their history (considering the amount of forgeries on the market).<br /><br />Also, are the SF variations worth more than the blank backs? I do know that the ones I looked at today (especially card 6) had the verbiage concerning the San Francisco mail off.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>What everyone else said. I would guess that about 75%-85% of these cards that are on the market are fakes....and that might be a conservative guess. The ad backs don't really bring too much of a premium in my experiences.....though they might be a tad more valuable....Nice job Frank.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Frank, The SF one is cropped compared to the one on the right. I personally never thought any of the blank backs were original though, only the ad backs. They are all ruined at this point as Leon states. As is the Fro Joys. Dan

[Clutch-Hitter]

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/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):
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/firsttwo.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/secondtwo.jpg

Paper Variation (lesser quality, not mine in SGC holder):
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/Untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/1928ruthcandy5r.jpg

__________________________________________________ ________________




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:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/greyback.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/greyback2.jpg









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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/blackandwhitewithbigcardnumber-Cleveland1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/correctback.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Blackandwhitewithsmallnumber-blankback1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback1-1.jpg






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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy2-Compilation.jpg





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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy6-Compilation.jpg





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


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy4-Compilation.jpg





Card #3 (all real):

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy3-Compilation.jpg





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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/number1variations.jpg




Fro Joy's are easier than these:eek:

[Clutch-Hitter]

70's counterfeits on the far left and right:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/IMG_2891.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/IMG_2893.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/IMG_2895.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/IMG_2896.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/1.jpg


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/11-1.jpg


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/11-1-1.jpg


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/131.jpg


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/131-1.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/docu0011-6-1.jpg

[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...


http://luckeycards.com/peunc1928baberuthcandyx2.jpg

[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.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/docu0016-1.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/docu0055.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

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

Find a room that is very dark(when the light is off). I use my garage during the daytime.
Use a tripod
Set the camera to manual mode
Set to auto focus and allow it to focus on the cards
Once focused, switch to manual focus so it will not be confused by the black light, which will be closer to the camera
Lower the F-Stop as low as possible (I think most go down to 3.5 to 4.0 or so)
Set the camera to 2 sec delay (pushing the shutter release can move the camera at this low shutter speed).
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.
Lower the shutter speed until the camera's meter is centered (ensures appropriate brightness).
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.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/wrapper.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/wrapper2.jpg
___________________________________________

Didn't take long to find some fakes:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/FakeinPSA.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/15a_medjpeg.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/LegendaryPSAfakes.jpg
______________________________________________

This is authentic:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/blankback.jpg

[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]

I appreciate that Frank. I bought my black light based on your suggestion a while back. About 20.00 at Wal-Mart but worth a heck of a lot more in this hobby.

[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.

[Clutch-Hitter]

This is a reprint: http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-1928-Geo-H-Ruth-Candy-co-/280877134919?pt=US_Baseball&hash=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-1928-George-Herman-Ruth-Candy-Company-Reprint-card-/380431938751?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item589382b4bf

[Leon]

This is a reprint: http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-1928-Geo-H-Ruth-Candy-co-/280877134919?pt=US_Baseball&hash=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-1928-George-Herman-Ruth-Candy-Company-Reprint-card-/380431938751?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item589382b4bf

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

interesting to see this one...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1928-George-Ruth-Candy-Babe-Ruth-SGC-40-3-/380420127493?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item5892ce7b05#ht_1570wt_953

.



.

[danmckee]

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

[Leon]

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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/docu0014-1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/docu0015-1.jpg

[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:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0014.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0018.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0011.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0011-2.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0011-1.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0011-3.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0011-7.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0012.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0012-4.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0012-5.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0012-3.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

Fakes on both ends, 1927 Fro Joy Tunney in the middle (ice cream on it), and the two '28 Ruth Candy's (#1 has a little candy on it):

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/Untitled.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2956-1.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/Untitled2.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2958-1.jpg

[glchen]

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]

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):

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0010.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0015.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0013.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/docu0016.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2949-1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2950-1.jpg

[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.

[Leon]

This thread has been added to our permanent archive. If you look on any page, at the far right icon towards the middle-top of each page you will see our Net54 Forum Archive Center. It has quite a few of our most educational threads under it. Thanks to Greg for all of his work on this.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Thank you Leon!

[HBroll]

Greg,
Great detective work and very interesting. I have 2 raw Ruth candy cards I bought probably about 6 or 7 years ago that I would like to get your opinion on.

In the first photo the one on the right is the sepia colored blank back card #2 and the one on the left is better quality "chase" card #6 which is blank backed. Photo 2 is a copy of the backs.

The #6 card I have some concerns about. It has the smaller circled number associated with fakes and also has "Swats" instead of "swats" and the printing is closer together. On the plus side it is not cropped on 3 sides like you see on the fake cards and there is plenty of room from the top of his head to the border which is a characteristic of a real card.

In the 3rd photo I put the 2 cards sandwiched between 2 fake Exhibit cards and in the 4th photo I did the black light test. As you can see the Exhibit cards light up but the 2 Ruth candy cards do not. The Ruth candy cards pass the black light test. I do not know what to make of this. Card #6 has both characteristics of a real & fake card. Photo 5 shows the difference between a fake and real Ruth candy cards. What do you think? I appreciate your help.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Hey Howard,

I've never seen one of those with the small number in person, just went by FKW's theory. However, his theory indicated the Cleveland ad back should be the high quality black and white cards, but my #1 card refutes that.

I'd enjoy looking at that in person if you don't mind. I'll PM my address in case you want to send it.

[Clutch-Hitter]

By the way Howard, the batting pose is definitely real.

[Clutch-Hitter]

To clarify Howard's picture with the black light for anyone who hasn't used one much, his #6 card appears to be fluoresceing, but that is because it is much cleaner than the batting pose card. That was the reason I thought my grip card was fake last year. Therefore, it would be better to compare it to a cleaner card.

Fakes are modeled after the real cards with the large card number, but fakes are also found with the small card number. So did the reprinters model the small card number after an authentic with a small card number?

FKW's research has been the only source in which I've found the small card number is a reprint, and because the Cleveland back is found on real sepia card, which refuted FKW's claim in that area, it may be possible for the small card number to exist. I only know about the two I have, which were pictured earlier in this thread. And not to discredit FKW at all, he is a card expert.

Howard's #6 card seems to be of high quality and with a back that looks vintage and has the appropriate color. The blank back fakes I've located have dark grey blank back.

The thing to do in addition to the black light is to
1. Black light the backs the same as the fronts (lesson I've learned and will share this evening)
2. Put a known authentic on a scanner very close and in line with the card in question, set the resolution high (I use 1700 mp) and scan only the area in which the cards are located. The high resolution image can be cropped extensively while still maintaining enough quality. I cropped down as low as 600x600 in the close ups, which allow the paper and printing to be seen. But it would help if the known authentic was clean in this case.

And if the card in question were a less important one, such as Babe with wife, that would help. But it does help that it's not the batting pose.

[HBroll]

Greg,
I took a photo of the backs of the 2 Ruth candy cards with card #6 (the better quality one) being on the left. I used two 3 X 5 index cards this time on each side of the cards. As you can see they do not light up. I will send you a PM later. Thanks for all your help.
Howard

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, that's interesting for sure. I'm not sure how FKW deemed what is and is not authentic. We all know when you crop into an image, you lessen the quality, which is the case in what we're calling the fakes: cropped into the image resulting in less quality. We lumped the smaller card number in there somehow, so there must be a reason. I don't understand why a counterfeiter would crop into the image of an authentic card...

I bought a cheap Ruth Candy reprint just for this and received it in the mail today. Here's the much less than impressive "engraving" on the batting pose:[/B]




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/reprintdots.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/reprintdots-5.jpg




Here's the engraving on a 1970's Fro Joy that was cut from a fake sheet:




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/FroJoyReprintdotsonshoulder.jpg




Previous Fro Joy reprint next to a real Fro Joy:




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/FroJoyReprintandrealpaperanddots.jpg




Two real Ruth Candy cards and two real Fro Joy's corner to corner (note how similar the paper is):




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/frojoyandruthcandycorners.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

Several months ago I bought this, got it home, hit the front with a black light, noted no glowing, and tossed it in the closet. While searching the internet a few days ago, I came across the Legendary auction in which a 1/1 of this had been sold. I had been thinking this was nothing but a less than hundred dollar...thing. I e-mailed R. Lifson (very generous with his time even during the then current auction), and he said he wasn't sure but was concerned about the authenticity. When I couldn't find a photo of the back under a black light, realizing I didn't do that, I got the thing out and did that...

1. If the card is too dark under the black light, there may be a problem (I had to over-expose because in the normal way I do it, the thing was not even visible)
2. Check every bit of the card, not just the card as a whole
3. Always use it on the back too.

Had I known how important the real version of this "card" was when I bought this, I would have been very skeptical like with regular cards.

Note the circle where the thing should be hung from a wall and the edges in the front photo with the black light.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/docu0006-2.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/docu0007-2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2941.jpg

And here it is...I've been had!

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/IMG_2939.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, I found this #6 card in a PSA holder that looks exactly like yours, non-cropped and all, and next to it a batting pose in a PSA holder (doesn't look like yours but lumped in with the #6 card). I thought these were fakes before based on FKW's observations, but are they? Hopefully he'll see this.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/kingofswatscomp.jpg

[HBroll]

Greg,
Nice find. I think that card #6 looks like my card. The batting pose card also looks like the better quality type card too. I scanned my card #6 at 1200 DPI and cropped it to get a better look at the printing and here is what I got. This is the "R" in New York. What do you think?

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, that card looks photo engraved. On your #6 card, the stitches on the ball and the details in Babe's hand are visible. And it It makes me think these PSA cards were real, which would make sense considering the lesser important cards are included and the images are of good quality.


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/LegendaryPSAfakes.jpg




But having said that, we probably shouldn't go 100% on it yet. If you get a chance, put that card right next to to your batting pose, scan both at the same time with the same resolution or higher if possible, and crop into the top corners of both (so they are included in the same image), go half way down and do the same, then do the bottoms).

Do it in such a way that we know what we're looking at, such as include the small card number in one blown up image with part of the other card as you progressively go from top to bottom with consecutive images. Start with posting the scan of both cards as they laid on your scanner and follow with the progressives. Then do the backs the same. I think doing this with both sides with each card side by side is very important, and it's very important to do it in such a way that we know what we're looking at.

If you have a camera in which the F-stop and shutter speed can be adjusted, I can talk you through getting a clear picture. Put the ISO and F-stop at the lowest setting and use the tripod. Center the meter exactly in the regular picture and then again under the black light, which will require moving the shutter speed way down. When I press the button on mine to take the picture, the shutter stays open 10-20 seconds or so.





I searched google for 1928 Ruth Candy with both city names and found this disturbing image:




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/Barry_Bonds.jpg





Wiped the puke off my computer and found some real SGC cards that look like your batting pose and my standing portrait:




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/legendaryCleveland.jpg





Found the card that has the small card number and the dark grey back and cropped image, which looks fake:



http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/recently_updated_0019-3.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/75087b_lgjpeg.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/FakeinPSA.jpg




There aren't very many images of these cards. But from what it looks like so far,

1. the small card numbers could be real if the image isn't cropped and the back is the correct color (beige-ish, brown-ish vintage paper)

2. The few San Francisco cards I've seen don't look right, but I haven't seen many.



When it comes to the small card number, it looks like these are going to be our fakes, cropped images and all:


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/images.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/1928ghruthcandy6reprint.jpg


Frank's far left example above:

small card number
cropped image
poor quality

****The cards with small card numbers that are currently presumed authentic are black and white, but not as high quality as Leon's. Sepia cards with small card numbers appear to be fake.**************

It would make sense for it to be modeled after an authentic. If so the authentic card would have a small card number, a full, non-cropped image, resulting in higher quality.

Examples of cards with small card numbers: authentic on left (presumed at this point), fake on right
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/Untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/images2.jpg

Small card number, San Fran back, next to an authentic (note the cropped image on fake):

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/battingposecomp.jpg

__________________________________________________ ________


Frank's middle example above


large card number
cropped image
lesser quality
San Francisco back


Cropped image is not looking good for authentic cards, and I haven't found a real looking San Fransisco example yet.

presumed real small number card next to a large number card with cropped image:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/untitled.jpg


__________________________________________________ __________



Frank's far right example above:



large card number
non-cropped image
quality image
Cleveland back or blank
Sepia (nice)
black and white (very nice)
Authentic

[/LIST]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/reprint/BlankBack1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy%20-%20Research/1928ruthcandy5.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/1928GeorgeRuthCandy3BlankBackPSA4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/1928GeorgeRuthCandy4BlankBackPSA2.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/legendaryCleveland.jpg

[HBroll]

Greg,

I think you are on to something about the better quality cards might be real. Like you said, the forgers would need a "model" to create their fakes and these better quality cards might be them. The one card you showed (the #2 card with the grey back) I think is fake also. My #6 better quality card has a beige/brown-ish back not a grey back like that one.

I put the cards side by side and scanned them at 1200 DPI both front and back. The #6 card (better quality one) is on the right in all of the photos. The 1st photo is the front top corners. Photo #2 is the front middle of the cards. Photo #3 is the front bottom corners. Photo 4 is the back bottom corners and photo 5 is the back middle of the cards.

I also did your "smell" test and both cards smell like an old book. I smelled one of my reprint Exhibit cards and it has a totally different smell to it. I see what you mean by that now.

I think that card in the PSA 2 Good holder is mine. I think the original owner broke it out when it was sold. I read the description in the auction and it said the lower grade cards were downgraded due to a very light crease near the bottom of the card. I looked at my card with a magnifying glass and there is a very very light horizontal crease at the bottom of the card just like the write up says.

I will be leaving to go over my mom's house for Mothers day but I will be back around mid afternoon. Thanks!

Howard

[Clutch-Hitter]

My bad Howard, if you don't mind, when you crop into it, make it big enough to get some of the part with the picture of each card in it as well and some of the text from each card in the lower parts. That way we'll be able to see the engravings and letters on the paper and the paper itself. If you have a Fro Joy, try it with that also, especially if it's clean. Dirty vs clean makes a big difference with the two issues. I'd like to put your card beside my standing portrait because it's clean plus I have some clean Fro Joys.

You know, a clean e121 might work as Leon has said in the past. Interesting how white and how good the paper looks on your #6. The one you did in which you can see some engraving looks good.

Thanks Howard

[HBroll]

Greg,

Here are the new photos. These were done at 1200 DPI with the better quality card #6 on the right. The first 4 photos are close ups of the 2 cards side by side and the last photo is a complete strip of the 2 cards side by side showing where I took the close ups from. If you need anymore photos let me know. Thanks.

Howard

PS. The other Ruth candy cards & Fro joy cards I have are graded and these are the only raw cards of this type I have.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Dang Howard, that card is photo engraved and the paper is right, looks Fro Joy-ish for sure. Beautiful card.


Cropped images on any and all are highly suspect at this point and may be the indicator to look for. Going to gather examples of each card if possible for examples of full size images and examples with cropped images, so we'll know what each should look like.

I haven't found a single cropped image of Babe and wife, or of Babe and boy, and I don't think I've found one of Babe kissing the little girl, which are probably the three least significant to most people. If real cards have cropped images, there should be examples of those three cards as well, otherwise that's more evidence indicating cards with cropped images are fake.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, can you post you graded Ruth Candy cards?

[HBroll]

Yes I will post my graded Fro joys & Ruth candy cards too.

I have a question.
It was stated that the "chase" card in the Ruth candy card set was card #6. Now in the auction write up in one of your posts it states the chase card is #3. What is your experience with that? Have you seen the #3 card more or is the #6 card more rare? What would be your guess on which card is the chase card for this set. I get back to you with the pics. Thanks.

Howard

[Clutch-Hitter]

Yes I will post my graded Fro joys & Ruth candy cards too.

I have a question.
It was stated that the "chase" card in the Ruth candy card set was card #6. Now in the auction write up in one of your posts it states the chase card is #3. What is your experience with that? Have you seen the #3 card more or is the #6 card more rare? What would be your guess on which card is the chase card for this set. I get back to you with the pics. Thanks.

Howard


I don't know. I think FKW was saying the #6 card, where he's signing the ball.


Forgot about these cropped ones. I'd guess that because these cards are pictured together as a set, based on that and the cropped images, fake:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/Blank%20Backs/images.jpg

[HBroll]

Greg,
Here are the photos of my Fro Joy card. It was the "first graded" by GAI and it passes the black light test and the black box corners on the back are closed. Its hard to photograph because of that stupid holder they put them in. If it was not graded so high and being the 1st graded, I'd bust that puppy outta there.

[HBroll]

Here is card #5 in the Ruth candy card set. It was also graded by GAI and the 1st graded. It also passes the black light test. It has the San Francisco ad back.

[HBroll]

Lastly this is card #1 from the Ruth candy card set. Again it was 1st graded by GAI and it passes the black light test. This one is blank backed.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Oh good, the San Fran cards can be good. Those are obviously quality images and both are not cropped at all.

Unless someone can present a cropped Ruth Candy card that is photo engraved on 20's Fro Joy type paper and does not fluoresce under the black light, we have our culprit.

Ever notice the ones that pop up on ebay with the two tone, manufactured aging on the back have cropped images, like the one on ebay now? Half brown and half dark brown...there you go.

[HBroll]

Yeah, I noticed that too. You can tell it was artificially aged. We also proved that Ruth candy cards with the small numbers CAN be real. At least the better quality ones. I think some blank back cards are real also. My card #6 proved both points. Thanks for all your help Greg. I am glad we figured it out.

[Clutch-Hitter]

The images on authentic cards are not cropped; they are shifted, either up and to the right, or down and to the left. That is why the quality is maintained in the image.

The fakes are cropped on three sides, squeezed together, which is why the quality was lost. Apparently the fakers had to do it that way.

The image of FKW's card was referred to as fake before because it looked cropped. It wasn't cropped, just shifted up and to the right.

Three sides are squeezed together on fakes, as FKW mentioned. He was incorrect about all cards with small numbers being fake, but it appears he was right when he said small card numbers should not be accompanied by bold print.

When it boils down to it, authentic 1928 Ruth Candy cards should be easy to spot in that the image will definitely be poor due to constriction of the image.

I'll leave the pictures and labels as is for the sake of the timeline and so anyone reading can see how we reached conclusions.


Ok, shift isn't quite right either:

1. The high quality cards like Leon's appear to have a shift or crop on one side only, but the other three sides remain fully intact.

2. The lesser quality cards have a shift or crop on two sides, which is what FKW's card has, and Howard's too it seems.

3. My two sepia colored cards seem to have the same amount as Leon's.

I'll put some side by side tonight, hard to tell on my phone, but its going to be something like that.

[Clutch-Hitter]

delete, please see below post with several examples

[Clutch-Hitter]

Please see below posts for several examples

[HBroll]

Greg,

These are the other graded Fro Joy cards I have. I wanted to post them for you. They both pass the black light test and both have the unbroken black box on back.
Also I wanted to thank you for verifying my two raw Ruth candy cards are real. I had them for over 6 years and always wondered about their authenticity (especially card #6). Thanks again.

Howard

PS. Great job on this thread. Hopefully it will prevent someone from being burned buying a fake Ruth.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, thank you for mentioning it.


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:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/greyback.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/greyback2.jpg









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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/blackandwhitewithbigcardnumber-Cleveland1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/correctback.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Blackandwhitewithsmallnumber-blankback1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback1-1.jpg






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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy2-Compilation.jpg





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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy6-Compilation.jpg





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


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy4-Compilation.jpg





Card #3 (all real):

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/1928GeorgeRuthCandy3-Compilation.jpg





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

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/number1variations.jpg




Fro Joy's are easier than these:eek:

[Clutch-Hitter]

*****I'd only buy a card with a small card number from a trusted source. It would have to be photo-engraved, with the correctly colored back, and no fluorescing under the black light. If I owned one, I'd authenticate my own like we did earlier in this thread and print my own authentication sheet with the findings.*****
__________________________________________________ _

These Ruth Candy cards are rare, therefore, there are not enough images to say for sure, but based on the images I've found (Please attach your Ruth Candy card to this thread if you have one so we can figure this out),

1. Cleveland used white paper, images both black and white and sepia, with sepia images resulting in a slight beige appearance.

2. San Francisco used brownish paper with black and white images, which caused the black and white image to be beig-ish and somewhat sepia colored (don't have one so it's hard to tell

Therefore, blank backs can be correlated with a particular city if this is correct:


Cleveland's white paper:




http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/blackandwhitewithbigcardnumber-Cleveland-1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-Cleveland1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-Cleveland.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-Cleveland2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Sepiawithbignumber-blankback4.jpg




San Francisco's brownish paper:



http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/blackandwhitewithbignumber-sanfran.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Blackandwhitewithbigcardnumber-blankback.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Blackandwhitewithbigcardnumber-blankback1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/cleveland%20or%20san%20fran/Blackandwhitewithsmallnumber-blankback1.jpg

[glchen]

Kind of a side topic, but shows that the image on the #2 of the George Ruth Candy set was re-used in the Tabacalera set.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Gary, you have a great Ruth collection, and that one is nice.
--------------------------------

While searching for Ruth Candy cards, I came across numerous fakes that were sold by some auction house type site called Coach's Corner, so y'all may want to be very cautious there with anything.

[Clutch-Hitter]

The guy I mentioned with the Fro Joy set, who also has a neighbor with two Fro Joy sets, let me use images of his BVG graded George Ruth Candy #4. He's sending me a scan of the back later today, but here's a front scan, front and back pictures, and a re-post of scans of my #4 card.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/Fro%20Joy%20and%20Candy/Jimsruthcandy4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/untitled3.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/docu0014.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/docu0015.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/untitled2.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

Here's his BVG graded #4 with the back scan. And by the way, he has a complete set of these, all of which are sepia with blank backs. All but one is BVG graded, while the other is GAI:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/untitled4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/1928%20George%20Ruth%20Candy/docu0014-1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/Card%20Collection/Net%2054/untitled5.jpg

[EvilKing00]

Not sure you guys are still in this thread, but here is a card I have. Its got the SF ad on the back.

http://n.b5z.net/i/u/6141290/i/mine.jpg

[Clutch-Hitter]

Evilking, sorry, it's fake

[Clutch-Hitter]

Mr. McKee,

Memory Lane is selling this blank back version of Ruth kissing a child. This is fake in you opinion?

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=350705843279&index=1&nav=SEARCH&nid=98593452949

Item #: 350705843279