33 Goudey Ruth Reprint

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-GOUDEY-BABE-RUTH-144_W0QQitemZ320206893014

to my eye, the front looks OK, but the back screams bad reprint.

The bidding is already past $450...

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Card doesn't look bad to me but based on the 2006 and 2007 shiny garbage he has previously sold, I would say stay away!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Dan - the back has blurred printing; like when you make a copy of a copy of a copy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Matt's correct. blatant counterfeit, good eye.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Steve, Matt,

I'm offering no opinion of whether it's real or counterfeit, but my #144, which has been in my family since 1933, matches up with the one you call counterfeit.

There were two different #144 on the same sheet. They are not exactly identical.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The pink guide lines need to be adjusted to the card's print, not the card's borders I believe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jim - is the text on the back of yours as blurry as the one form this listing?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Matt,

No. I think mine's pretty clear. But I do think it somewhat depends upon the quality of the scan and the number of Starbuck's trips in a given day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jim - yours matches up with the authentic one in Steve's post not the counterfeit one. The distorting of the font on the back of the ebay one is usually the product of making 3rd and 4th generation copies. The font on the back of yours is much smoother.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

I look at the "A" in "(BABE)", it is completely filled in on the reprint.

To me The back print is slightly bolder (blurry). Otherwise the card is not an easy one to tell especially with an average scan. The front is not that easy, the face is just a bit too dark compared to the other colors.

Also a high % of the #144 cards should have the wet sheet printing on back of Ruths head and name on top (black ink) and the red strip at the bottom (red ink).

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Frank - I actually saw a reprint a few months ago that had a fake "wet sheet transfer." The forger just copied the back of an authentic card and in the process copied the wet sheet transfer that was there as well. Of course, the printing was done with a dot matrix and the fake was obvious, but that was a first.

ETA: Glad to see Stew P Dazzo has made an appearance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

That's interesting about the wet-transfer, thanks.

The overall resolution of these photos are similar in quality, exhibited by the clarity of the outer card edges. Yet the image on the R shows, what could be considered low-res and or poor registration.

Washed out colors on some area and vivid color in others, lack of minute clarity (blades of grass) and lack of overlap print (red meets green)above the red stamped "Big League" text box. The biggest eye catchers is Babe's shadow and fence slats- it just stinks.

All these things are iffy flags until lumped together. IMO, this auction will fool many and I wonder if this seller was chagrined himself. Oh, did you guys catch his hometown... I know, shouldn't sterotype

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Obvious reprint. No question about it. The image quality and printing on the front is a clear sign that the card is not authentic.

It's frightening that the bidding is that high.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

That's actually my auction. I was informed by somebody on ebay that this was a pretty hot topic on this site and that I should come here and check it out. I know some of you pointed out that I mostly sell chrome and things such as that, but I still have a few vintage things. I purchased this card off of ebay about 5 or so years ago and the seller guaranteed it as 100% authentic. I don't do any grading at all, so I never sent this in to be graded or to even see if it was real. I had just assumed that this was real like the seller I bought it from had said. I truly believed that this card was real. I am in no way trying to rip anybody off or anything like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

so you will end the auction now that you know?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Thank you for the info. I ended my auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

Who did you buy it from? The folks on this Board know just about every vintage card dealer and most of the crooks. maybe you have a shot at getting your money back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I honestly have no clue. I purchased it about 5 years ago, so I dont know who it was from.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Ending the auction was the correct thing to do, just because the authenticity was in question. However, before you run it through the shredder, please get a second opinion. Either send it out to be graded by SGC or PSA, or find a knowledgable collector near where you live. This board has nationwide reach. Someone who knows their stuff probably lives a short drive from you.

Being definitive from a scan is good, but not foolproof.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I'm not going to get it graded because I don't like to grade and don't feel like paying the $99 for PSA just so I can be able to grade. I'm not sure what I'm going to end up doing with it. I may just list it as a reprint on ebay. Not sure though.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

I don't grade either, but SGC will grade it for $35-$50, depending upon value ($35 if it's under $2500, $50 if it's between $2500 and $5000.) No club to join.

To me that's a price worth paying if you think there's a chance. If you are now sure it's a reprint, you are correct. Save your money. But as a reprint it's worth $10, maybe.

Good luck to you. That was the right thing you did in ending the auction.

Again, have someone local, who knows their stuff, look at it if you are unsure.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

After seeing what everybody on here has had to say, I'm convinced it is a reprint. It seemed as though everybody knew what they were talking about and had a great deal of knowledge on the subject. I'll probably just end up keeping my money and not getting it graded.