|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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.
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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.
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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?
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>These cards have also been forged very recently, see olebbstuff auctions, all fakes.
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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">
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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.
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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.....
|
1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)
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
|
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): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...h/firsttwo.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../secondtwo.jpg Paper Variation (lesser quality, not mine in SGC holder): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...h/Untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...uthcandy5r.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/m...y/greyback.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../greyback2.jpg Examples of a correctly colored backs, which include an obviously better front image: http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...Cleveland1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...orrectback.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback2.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ankback1-1.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):
Card #6 is tough but easy considering this (top real, bottom fake): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ompilation.jpg Card #4 (real on top, fake on bottom): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ompilation.jpg Card #3 (all real): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ompilation.jpg Card #1 (real on top, fake on bottom): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...variations.jpg Fro Joy's are easier than these:eek: |
|
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 |
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. |
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
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/m...docu0016-1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...h/docu0055.jpg |
Had some interest in the past on how to photograph with a black light:
__________________________________________________ ____ 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. |
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/m...ks/wrapper.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/wrapper2.jpg ___________________________________________ Didn't take long to find some fakes: http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../FakeinPSA.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...5a_medjpeg.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ryPSAfakes.jpg ______________________________________________ This is authentic: http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../blankback.jpg |
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
Example of a reprint
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 |
Quote:
interesting to see this one... http://www.ebay.com/itm/1928-George-...#ht_1570wt_953 . . |
I don't think any of the blank backs are any good, just my 2 cents.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
Frank Ward mentioned blank back as a variation earlier in this thread, page 1.
|
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.:). |
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 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/m...docu0014-1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0015-1.jpg |
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/m...y/docu0014.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0018.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0011.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0011-2.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0011-1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0011-3.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0011-7.jpg |
|
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/m...y/Untitled.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...IMG_2956-1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../Untitled2.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...IMG_2958-1.jpg |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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/m...y/docu0010.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0015.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0013.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0016.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...IMG_2949-1.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...IMG_2950-1.jpg |
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).
|
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. |
permanent
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.
|
Thank you Leon!
|
opinion needed
5 Attachment(s)
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. |
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. |
By the way Howard, the batting pose is definitely real.
|
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. |
backs
2 Attachment(s)
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 |
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/m...eprintdots.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...rintdots-5.jpg Here's the engraving on a 1970's Fro Joy that was cut from a fake sheet: http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...onshoulder.jpg Previous Fro Joy reprint next to a real Fro Joy: http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...peranddots.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/m...ndycorners.jpg |
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/m...docu0006-2.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0007-2.jpg http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/IMG_2941.jpg And here it is...I've been had! http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/IMG_2939.jpg |
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/m...fswatscomp.jpg |
1 Attachment(s)
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? |
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/m...ryPSAfakes.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/m...arry_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/m...yCleveland.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/m...ted_0019-3.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...87b_lgjpeg.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../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/m...cks/images.jpg |
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...dy6reprint.jpg
Frank's far left example above:
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/m...t/Untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ks/images2.jpg Small card number, San Fran back, next to an authentic (note the cropped image on fake): http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ngposecomp.jpg __________________________________________________ ________ Frank's middle example above
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/m...s/untitled.jpg __________________________________________________ __________ Frank's far right example above:
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...BlankBack1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...ruthcandy5.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...nkBackPSA4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...nkBackPSA2.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...yCleveland.jpg |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 PM. |