I finally read through this entire thread.

I wholeheartedly believe the consignor to be full of shit.

I also believe the autograph to be a forgery.

This autograph on the ticket looks nothing alike the exemplars and there are three key differences my untrained eye spotted.

S34N B4551K

Time for a reality check
 

Not for the thin-skinned!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJ7l...tailpage#t=43s

What'd I tell you Shelly...this thread is going to break the record :D

awesome

+1 Love it!! :p

Just 400 more to go, Then I will start the old one back up.:p

There was another thread that branched off from this one that had numerous posts as well, but was still discussing this Ruth ticket...be careful or I'll merge them. :D

The future does not hold much without Jim Stinson. Congratulations to the few, meandering rubes who couldn't get heir heads out of their behinds and ran off one of the greatest contributors to this hobby.

And.R.ew Mi.ll.e&r

Couldn't agree more. This forum suddenly got far less important.

Ken

opening up new thread. Your fault Dan

Ken, it's just as important or unimportant as it always was. There are always going to be people who would like to see a forum laid out like a publishable book, with themselves and those they respect, as the authors, and the contributors (lesser people such as myself) following rules written in stone.

That's not what a discussion forum is. You have to take the good (expert participation, fun discussions, passionate hobbyists) along with the bad (petty feuds, people on pedestals, violent disagreements).

Or you go write a book and invite Jim and anyone else you respect, to co-author. In any case, Jim will be fine and I'm sure we'll see him around soon enough.

Well, Scott, since you seem to know everything, I guess it's a good thing you're still here.

Here's the a comparison of the 700 ticket next to a similar looking signature that comes from an extremely reliable source -- one of the few that I trust. I don't know if the open "a" and the hooked "h" really matter, but they are in both signatures. Also, can someone explain the "backwards a" to me. I don't see that at all. To my eye, the "a" starts exactly as you would expect.

I don't see the "a" as being written backwards either...looks like the pen was running low on ink when the signature was written.

It is not written backward and that is a ridiculous assertion.

Not even close.

I don't think Jim will be back, we spoke yesterday.
Many years ago, he swore off going to shows. I will give someone $100 if they have a photo of Jim at a show in the last 10 years.
But if you buy him a few beers, you never know what might happen :D:D.

That sucks... I'm very sorry to hear this.

Everyone loses in this deal. :(

Chris,

First, let me say how sorry I was to hear about the loss in your family. I hope with time that peace and happiness fully replace the sadness and grief that you are feeling now.

As a complete autograph novice, I continue to be confused by these recent Ruth threads. I have looked at all the HOS articles related to Ruth's autograph (as well as net54 threads) and even in those cases where the examples are thought by most to be authentic (legal documents, checks, some balls and photos with invariant and tractable provenance) I can still see clear differences in letter formation and size, slant, pressure, flow and spacing. I assume these are, in part, the result of how Ruth signed (rushed or careful), how the item signed was stabilized, the time window in Ruth's career when the signing occurred, pen or pencil, etc. Even when I look back on my own signature over the last 30 years or so I see huge variations not only over the entire span but even within the same year.

So my question is how can anyone be confident (based on the characteristics of the signature only) that a Ruth autograph (as an example) is authentic? I find it very hard to believe that whatever the characteristic or combination of characteristics thought to define an authentic Ruth auto would not break down the more 100% authentic Ruth autos that are examined. This combined with what Jim S. had posted about the remarkable ability of the master forgers that have invaded the Hobby underscores my question.

Thank you,

Craig

Can you expand upon that?

I think before anyone say's not a chance it is written backwards. You might take a look through a Jewelers loop or high mang scope. We have a scientist on here he can take a look.

If you look at the image with a jeweler's loupe, you'll see pixels.
Information can only be gleaned by looking at the actual item under magnification.

I don't understand the backwards A either. Is it whole "abe" supposed to be backward or just the A?

Tha a in babe.

This may be a silly question...but what indication is there that the "a" is written backwards?

Assuming it is now about where the "oval" part(for lack of a better term) and the tail intersect and cross over one another. One would cross over the other depending on which direction one was signing thus the need for a loupe(would be different). As David pointed out, we couldn't do that here nor could anyone else unless they had it in hand. If a letter was written backwards, it would be a good indication that it was bad. I did, however, write my name as Neb when I was a young child. Babe did drink a lot and was pretty immature so who knows... also, mabe it was Ruth who signed the Eddie Gaedel???:) Hey.. just thinking out of the box!

I'm no expert, but all of the letters look different in both signatures.

Thanks Chris. Do you think the second exemplar is "not even close" to authentic, or just not a good comparison to the first exemplar (700 ticket)? What do others think?

This post is a perfect example of what I was trying to say - I didn't respond the way you wanted me to, so my reward is a snide remark.

Good luck with your book.

Perhaps I should re-read all your posts. I'm sure there's never a snide remark to be found. Or are you the only one allowed to be an ass?

good luck getting an answer.

Here's another extremely credible example of the Babe with the open "a" and the hooked "h". What do folks think?

The "open a" and "hooked t" are meaningless. There are scores of authentic examples with one or both of those characteristics.

I agree, David.

Here's an 'open a' Ruth. It is certified by JSA, NOT by PSA, and it's up in REA - lot 923. (no gotcha, so don't even mention that favorite Net54 catch-phrase)

What's your opinion, David?

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...em_25459_1.jpg

I believe you are correct David. What I am trying figure out is whether we are correct -- not regarding the 700 ticket, but in general, regarding Ruth opinions. In other wors, if Chris had posted one of those REA Ruth's that has been pulled, or one of Nash's exemplars in his analysys of Ruth forgeries, and he used the same m.o. as he did with the ticket, would we have also disagreed in that case? We would have been wrong; and some of those look pretty good too. I wonder how the board would have responded.

As you already know, you don't have to ask my permission to act like an ass.

Just came across these photos that I meant to post back when this thread was going strong. Game used baseball from the game in question -- Ruth's 700th home run game.

Greg

Ok...