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

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

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.

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.

Howard, can you post you graded Ruth Candy cards?

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/m...cks/images.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

delete, please see below post with several examples

Please see below posts for several examples

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.

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/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):

• 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/m...ompilation.jpg





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:

*****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/m...leveland-1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...Cleveland1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...-Cleveland.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...Cleveland2.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback4.jpg




San Francisco's brownish paper:



http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...er-sanfran.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...-blankback.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback1.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...blankback1.jpg

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.

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.

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/m...ruthcandy4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../untitled3.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0014.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/docu0015.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...y/untitled.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../untitled2.jpg

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/m.../untitled4.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...docu0014-1.jpghttp://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m.../untitled5.jpg

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

Evilking, sorry, it's fake

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/viewi...id=98593452949

Item #: 350705843279