Yes, it is. It failed the blacklight test so I can't imagine there is any way that it could be genuine.

I seems like a lot of others had the damaged H wrapper, so it would be nice to have a few more voices chime in. Anyone else test theirs under a black light?

Thanks again!

Chris

Hi Chris
I haven't followed this thread for a few days. If it failed the test then just shoot me an email and let me know what you paid and I will fully refund you. I need to check my current one too, I guess. My email is leonl@flash.net. Everything I ever sell has a lifetime warranty for authenticity. My apologies too. Of course I had no idea. Also, I would like to get it back to keep as a comparison. I will pay shipping both ways too.... thanks...

my wrapper
 

Well I put my wrapper under the black light expecting the worst but to my surprise it did not light up. I put 2 reprint Exhibit cards on on each side of the wrapper and in the photo you can see both of them light up but the wrapper does not. My wrapper has the damaged "H". I wish I knew about the black light years ago when I bought those fake Exhibits. Here are the photos:

Legendary has one for auction. Lot 1754

I've been reviewing this thread. Is this a good summary of the points here?

Definitely determines authenticity
-------------------------------------------
(1) Black light test. Should not light up.


May help determine authenticity
--------------------------------------
(1) Should be wax paper and not regular paper.
(2) Examine the color contrast between the light wax paper and the dark ink images of the graphics
(3) Look at the creases on the white border. If it is real wax paper the crease will actually break the wax and create a white line, but if it is printed on paper and made to look real the crease will just be a paper crease and not change the color of the item.
(4) There should be fold lines where the chocolate would have been inside of wrapper. Link


Does not necessarily determine if the wrapper is real or fake
-------------------------------------------------------
(1) Issues with the "H" in George H. Candy Co. Inc.
(2) The number "7" on the wrapper


The difficult thing about this is that it looks like it is really difficult to determine authenticity until you have the wrapper in hand. And I don't know if you buy a wrapper off ebay and it doesn't light up under black light if that will convince ebay that item is not as described.

In this REA auction (Link), REA states that they believed there are only around 15 genuine wrappers in the world, and that "Authentic examples such as this are actually very easy to distinguish from the fakes, but real ones are so rare that few collectors have ever even had the opportunity to compare." Unfortunately, they don't give that distinguishing characteristic.

[QUOTE=glchen;994459]I don't know if you buy a wrapper off ebay and it doesn't light up under black light if that will convince ebay that item is not as described.[QUOTE]

Unfortunately (for honest sellers), you don't have to convince eBay of anything to claim that an item is not genuine. I've had plenty of genuine items returned to me over the years in spite of point-by-point explanations to both the buyer and eBay agents as to why the buyer was mistaken/wrong/making things up. They will usually make the buyer return the item to get the refund, but will also force the refund of the original shipping cost. So in a case like this, where the item actually is fake, I suppose that would be a good thing, as I think you would have a hard time locating a genuine article in the mountain of fakes.

More problematic would be trying to get your money back from an auction house that sold a fake, whether intentionally or not. All should have some sort of process in place for filing a claim on something like this, but some are more stand-up than others, and due to the nature of the item, you may have to jump through a few more hoops than the usual "I sent it off to xyz and it came back as 'not authentic'" route.

I think the obscured "H" is a huge red flag to stay away. I haven't seen one I believe to be fake that has the "H" intact. And the few that have been sold that appear to be real all have the "H".

If not having the luxury of examining one in hand to feel the paper and do a black light test, for me, the "H", the style of font, and positioning of the lettering are the most telling factors.

It seems that people may be recognizing . . .

Prices Realized with BP:

Lot 752 - $1,355.00
Lot 744 - $290.00 (also included a 1934 Goudey wrapper)

Phil,

With that understanding, would you say Legendary's is bad then??

One other thing I just noticed...

On the lot bought to be authentic, the horizontal bar on the H is much higher than the horizontal bar in the suspect item.

Yeah Steve, I noticed that too. I was the underbidder on this lot, but couldn't stay awake :mad:

Is it me, or is the circle around "Own Candy" different in these? There seems to be more space in the second one.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Greg, That would be my opinion.


The font is different on all of the letters. That "H" with the high cross bar is where it is most obvious. That is my theory on why the "H" is obscured. It looks alot like the letter "M" due to the high cross bar. In the context of a word like "RUTH" it is not mistakable. However, standing alone as a middle initial I think it could have been mistaken and printed on the fakes as an "M". Once it was discovered, maybe it was easier to just obscure it and pass it off as artificial wear rather than correct and reprint them. Just a theory.

The same thought crossed my mind.

The wrapper from HBroll that passed the black light test also has the ruined "H." Link. Do you think that one is also fake or is it possibly genuine, but that the general rule would be to stay away from wrappers would the obscured "H"?

I think the black light test is not fool proof. For one, new items can be printed on old paper. Also, modern wax and parchment paper do not react under black light as you might expect. See the below image of both with a modern 3x5 and a vintage postcard.

The wax coating (coating modern paper) might play a role in this as well. I'm not sure how anyone could feel comfortable with a damaged H version at this point.

How's this for the revised recipe to give yourself the best chance to get an authentic example?

Before purchasing
-------------------------
(1) Make sure that the "H" in George H. Candy Co. Inc on the wrapper is not damaged.
(2) The description in the listing should mention that the wrapper is made of wax paper, and if it doesn't, at least it should not say the wrapper is made of paper, like a "postcard," or from a book
(3) Examine the color contrast between the light wax paper and the dark ink images of the graphics
(4) Look at the creases on the white border. If it is real wax paper the crease will actually break the wax and create a white line, but if it is printed on paper and made to look real the crease will just be a paper crease and not change the color of the item.
(5) Ideally, there should be fold lines where the chocolate would have been inside of wrapper.

After purchase
----------------
(1) Confirm that the wrapper is wax paper and not paper
(2) Perform the black light test. The wrapper should not light up.

We need to clean this item up in the hobby
 

Gents... I have some good info to share regarding this topic. I hope this helps everyone. It makes me want to find a REAL ONE!

About four months ago a good friend of mine contacted Henry Yee who knew about the original Ruth wrapper find back in the 80's.
Henry does PSA photo authentication and is an expert in paper testing and ephemera collectibles. He is also one of the biggest dealers in vintage Ruth and Gehrig memorabilia.

My friend purchased a Ruth wrapper(through a major auction house) that looked really good. He received opinions from others that it appears real. He sent it to Yee for a second opinion. It turned out that my friend's wrapper was fake according to Yee. Yee also went as far as writing an email for my friend with a detailed explanation. At the end, he got his money back with no questions asked when after Yee's response was shared.

When I saw this thread I contacted my friend about that email in which he asked Yee if he could post that letter here to help the collecting community. Yee agreed and below is that letter along with the scan he sent to my friend.

---------------------------------------
"I have finished examining the Ruth wrapper in question that you sent to me and I am sorry to say that it is 100% fake. For this particular fake, I could tell right away that it is a fake.
There are three known fakes. Yours is what I call the fake "H-version" because the "H" in the name George H. Ruth is scratched with paper loss. It is the most common of the fakes.
(for this fake "H" version, I have even seen those where they tore the section of the "H" as well so it can't be detected).

Should the auction house you brought it from give you any problems or challenge you for full evidence, just for the heck of it, I also did a scientific paper analysis with several apparatus' that I usually use to examine antique photographs for PSA which includes an electronic microscope, spectroscope as well as employing several different wavelengths of Ultraviolet Light (UV/black light) with wavelengths from 350 to 410 nm.

I have also attached a scan of an authentic Ruth wrapper (top) and yours, the fake (bottom). Note that I have applied my company logo to the authentic exemplar to prevent any potential "abuse".
While the fakes might look good at first glance, the differences becomes so obvious when they are compared side-by-side. Without going into ten long paragraphs on the science of paper composition, wavelengths & optical filtering, fiber analysis and chemical analysis, here are the simple tips that any collector could use to tell the difference on this particular fake "H-version"

(1) Wax Paper - 1920's wax paper vs. modern wax paper. A simple black light / UV light will confirm that paper brighteners will show up on the fakes, particularly along the crease lines. But do keep in mind - NOT all commercially available black lights are created equal (and someone performing any black light test should always know what they are looking for as NOT all modern papers will fluoresce). Fortunately, in identifying this particular fake, there is no need for any forensic lab quality UV equipment or a spectroscope, as a simple $10 black light will do (these are in the wavelengths of 380-390 nm). In addition, when compared side-by-side. the color of the paper is obvious.

(2) Paper Thickness - There are three types of fakes with various degrees of thickness. This is one of the easier ones to spot because of the thicker paper (there is one on a thinner paper so be careful).

(3) The Ruth Portrait is much clearer in the authentic example. The originals were made through an offset lithography process. The fakes were done by a laser printer. And while this particular fake were done with a relatively good machine (appears to be a 2000-2002 Lexmark or IBM model for this particular example), a side by side comparison with a 10x loop exposes the fake's tell-tale signature.

(4) Colors - in this particular fake, it's obvious in this side by side comparison. The originals are bright in color while the fakes are faded. While this is hard to tell without an authentic one to compare it with, pay particular attention to the blue in HOME RUN which is a "darker" (closer to a navy blue vs. a regular blue) and the "7" which should be close to "magenta" (a red violet) as opposed to the fake's faded "brownish red". NOTE: on some fakes, some have went as far as tearing the "7" off so it won't be exposed.

(5) Lettering & Text - This where the counterfeiter on this "H" example went all out. Look at the text / letters. The originals were lettered "by hand" (done by a human who had excellent penmanship). The fakes were made from a computer (perfectly uniform, perfectly formed as expected). It is a dangerous fake because someone went through the ENTIRE process of "recreating" the text by computer and redoing the entire letters !
Also, there are many fakes that have been "artificially aged" (with tobacco juice, tea, coffee, etc...) and intentional torn to make the piece look old. Sad thing is that many of the auction houses have been fooled and sold the fakes as well.

Before the 1990's, there were only two known specimens (including the a trimmed one that was own by Barry Halper. Unlike several of his items in question recently, Halper's Ruth wrapper was 100% real and at the time, the only known example).
In 1989, there was a find of 14 wrappers. I had a chance to see all 14. All were original and genuine. I brought the best one. The others were scattered throughout the hobby with several I know embedded in the finest collections.

Since then, I have only seen about 7 other "authentic" examples. I personally have handled three. All the others that I am aware of are fakes. There are 3 versions of the fakes that I am aware of. One really poorly done example, one that is so-so (this "H" example you sent) and one that is dangerously good (the thin version). In the end, all the fakes that I am aware of would fail a forensics test utilizing the latest equipment and techniques available today and most certainly all would fail a carbon dating test.

Bottom line, real Ruth wrappers are very rare !

Sad thing is that they have gone the way of the 1928 Fro-Joy cards. The original Ruth wrapper is one of the most beautiful pieces ever made and certainly one of the rarest Ruth items manufactured at that time period.
But because the fakes are so plentiful, it hurts the authentic examples.

Forward this email to whomever you brought it from.

Best Regards
Henry Yee"

http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/a...er_200_ALT.jpg

Auction house alert
 

I will also add that I HOPE EVERY MAJOR auction house reads this as they are hurting the hobby everytime they list a bad piece(majority of the time).
SEE BELOW POST:

EXCELLENT POST!! This kind of detailed information is what keeps me coming back to the boards. Even if one of these things never crosses my path, it's always good to have the info "just in case." Thanks for sharing!

Seriously, great work all!

DanC

Awesome Ben! I wonder if Doug is going to pull his from the current auction based on this? :confused:

This is great information. Makes me want to try to find an authentic one also, especially if it is being sold by Henry Yee. I think he had one in one of his auctions last year, and I didn't bid on it because I thought the price was too high. Now, I know better.

Great info! The only frustrating thing is that these will likely continue to pop up in big auction houses. At least we know and can try to warn people when they do turn up.

Great post Ben. Since my Ruth wrapper has officially been declared a fake, I already found a good use for it. It makes a great coaster for my beer. lol.

Hbroll,

Just in case you need a matching set for when your drinking buddy comes over, this one still not withdrawn.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...e-Ruth-%22Ruth

Phil, this is surprising, I thought for sure (and still have faith) that Doug will do the right thing here.

A whopping $125 and still going strong!

Doug did the right thing, it is withdrawn now!! :)