1928 Babe Ruth Candy Company - Real or Fake?

[Leon]

So what are ya'lls thoughts on these? We have had a lot of in depth discussions on this series in the past. Real or not?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXTEMELY-RARE-6-CARD-SET-1928-GEO-H-RUTH-CANDY-CO-BABE-RUTH-YANKEES-LK-/142042862702

.

[1880nonsports]

but the ghosting on the back in the one instance I looked at matched thereby lending credibility on the real side. On the other side of the coin - they were all different and all found together and all well used. Not disqualifying but suggestive as a secondary accumulation. I might start with a sniff...........

[JustinD]

I Will admit this is definitely an issue that I do not even trust myself on. These babies are the Mensa of sorting fakes.

[wolterse]

Why won't psa grade this issue as the owner states in the description?

[Batter67up]

The artificial staining on the back tells me they are 100% fake. I bought one of these in 2004 that had the same staining ( artificial aging) and it was fake. I would stay away from these.

[bigfish]

The front images are blurry. Makes it hard to determine. This might be by design? I smell rotten eggs.

I would stay away.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by wolterse

Why won't psa grade this issue as the owner states in the description?

I know PSA, and SGC won't grade them due to the prevalence of really good fakes and they honestly don't want to stake a reputation on them. Not sure about BVG, but I have not seen a BVG graded copy.

[BeanTown]

This series was the most popular to fake back in the 90s. Many collectors and dealers got burned on them. I know of one dealer in Florida who took a hit on this.

When a seller says "I'm not an expert" and a buzz word like "appear" and then you see they were turned down by a grading company, then to me it seems a risky buy.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I Will admit this is definitely an issue that I do not even trust myself on. These babies are the Mensa of sorting fakes.

Completely agree with Justin. The appearance of being artificially aged would prohibit me from buying.

Z

[EvilKing00]

blurry front images and the staining on back will keep me from making an offer - IMO they look fake

[Exhibitman]

Can't tell squat from the crappy scans online.

As for whether the issue itself is genuine, I think it is based on the raw ones I've handled (but only the whiter version; the others may be good but I haven't actually played with any), but I would not want to buy one I could not handle myself to check it, though I suppose with really crisp scans in a reputable TPG holder I would be OK too.

Justin, is it these they won't grade too? I thought that was FroJoys. I had mine slabbed with SGC a long time ago.

[ValKehl]

My type-card example also has been graded by SGC - hope it's legit:

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Justin, is it these they won't grade too? I thought that was FroJoys. I had mine slabbed with SGC a long time ago.

I could very, very possibly be wrong, I thought it was both but I stopped knowing everything around age 17, lol.

I was under the impression SGC no longer grades them.

[Leon]

My thought on these was/is probably not good but not 100% sure. They look too grainy...

[Snapolit1]

Someone just bought a nice set of crap. Only $1200.

New account. Only 2 bids. Yep. That sounds right.

[MW1]

In the first image where all 6 cards are displayed, they look authentic. In the scans of the individual cards, the image quality appears to be more consistent with counterfeits. With something like this, it's too difficult to tell with the inconsistent scans that are displayed by the seller...but maybe that's all part of the strategy. Certainly, some of the description verbiage and the word "L@@K!!!!!!" in the auction title, don't exactly inspire confidence.