Please help, fake or real Babe Ruth
 

There was a thread some time ago about a Babe Ruth candy wrapper. Well I just came across one and couldn't help myself from buying it. I bought it from a gentleman in his sixties, he stated that he bought from an estate auction of an avid baseball collector about 20-30 years ago. There were also tobacco cards at this auction. I am unable to find someone to authenticate it. Can someone please help me.

can't be positive
 

I can't be positive from a scan as these are sort of tough to tell. I have owned several and I would say there is a 90%+ chance yours is good. From the scan I think it is. I am sure mine is real so you can compare....

http://luckeycards.com/po1928wrapperbaberuthcandy2.jpg

I have never owned one of these wrappers but aren't they made of wax paper?

Why i ask is because ACOFIND (an eBay seller who sells reproductions and who was discussed in another thread earlier in the week) often lists these Babe Ruth wrappers (which he says he bought at an estate sale) and they are made of regular paper.

David

I dont think it is good. Leons is clearly real (color contrast between the light wax paper and the dark ink images of the graphics) where yours is sort of brown. I tell people to look at the borders where it should be creamy white, the fakes are all aged too much in general.

I bet I have seen (ebay/in person/auction catalogs) 300 of these in the last 10 years and only 2 or 3 have been real, they are basically (with a few exceptions) all fake which is very unfortunate because they are such beautiful items.

Just my opinion, but these are some of the most faked items in the hobby besides Fro-Joy Ruth cards.

BEST WAY TO TELL is to 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 (see Leons) 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. If that makes sense to people?

Rhys

the photo part
 

Now that you mention it Rhys, you are probably correct. I was really only looking at the photo which is not grainy. The paper should be wax type paper. I have a bit of trouble telling these from scans.......I would take your opinion over mine on this. Now if we had them in person...I think our footing would be more equal :).

I didn't care for the staining on the top example but I didn't weight it enough because I focused on the photo part too much.

It is hard to tell anything from a scan, but I got taken on one of these fakes when they first popped up in the market in about 2004 and knew someone with a real one to compare it to. As a side note, these still pop up in major auctions and grading companies slab them still (or at least they did) so nobody should feel bad about getting fooled on one of these. I would just stay away from them unless you are 100% positive AND you get a guaranteed from the seller!

I forgot to mention, the paper does feel like wax paper. I appreciate all of your replies.............I just wish there was a way of getting it authenticated and graded. It makes a really great addition to my Yankees collection.

Additional photo.........back side
 

Here's a scan of the back.............

This may just be coincidence, but has anyone else noticed that the "H" in George H. Ruth on Leon's example and this one is almost exactly the same? Like if it were scanned and couldn't be reprinted because the H was scratched out on the original?

Could be nothing, just thought it was odd.

After I read my post I need to mention that in no way was I saying that Leon had any part of that if it were a scan of his original. We all know what people can do now days with sample pictures from the internet. :)

I've always believed the obliterated "H" was a telltale sign of a fake. It just seems that 99% of those offered for sale have that same flaw.

Maybe it IS the same wrapper.

If you will notice, not only does the original poster's wrapper have the "H" scratched out (like Leon's wrapper does) but under the brown stain you can also see the number "7" (like Leon's wrapper has) in the same spot.

I quickly searched the web and looked for Babe Ruth Home Run candy wrappers and only these two wrappers have the number "7" on them.

Maybe some one is trying to have a little fun with the board.....

Not accusing anyone of anything but just bringing it up for discussion.

David

The creases on the two wrappers are very different.

Are there any examples with a good H? Maybe the mangled H was an original printing flaw???

Is it possible that the "H" was a weak spot due to the wrapping of the candy bar and the positioning of the card inside???

Just asking......

Does anyone know of where I could possibly send this wrapper...........

a few things
 

I don't think this is a farce first of all. Second of all I went and checked out other wrappers on the net. The ones I saw did have the 7 on them.

To the original poster. I am 100% sure I can tell in person, within 30 seconds, if it is real or not. Like Rhys said though, and I agree with, if it is not on wax type paper it is not real. If you want to send it to someone to see I will be happy to take a look at it. Email me at leonl@flash.net if you want my address and I will give it to you and you can send it on over....best regards

Sorry if I sounded cynical (I am) or accusatory (didn't mean to come off that way) but I have seen WAAAAAY to many scam artists try waaay too many things over the last few years and wouldn't put it past one to make a copy of something and then have the balls to come on the board to see if they could get people to vouch for its authenticity.

All the wrappers I saw listed on the web, from reputable sources, didn't have the number "7" on them. I just thought it odd that both wrappers shown had the same characteristics as one another but other wrappers didn't.

David

REA had a nice example a few years ago (has the 7):

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...21.html#photos

never hurts
 

Hey David
It never hurts to be a bit suspicious. I can appreciate that. The original poster has emailed me and is going to send the wrapper to me. I saw 3-5 wrappers on the net and all of them had the 7 on them. I can only guess that if you saw some without the 7 they were either trimmed or very slightly different. best regards

It also has a perfect 'H'. I admit, when I first looked at these I wondered if the first was a copy of the Leon's. If someone finds more examples of the fakes, I wonder if they all have this? Maybe Leon can trace the chain back and see if someone unscrupulous once owned his.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Could there be a less sinister explanation for the H? I bought this one from Leon and it also has the H. damage (I have never questioned its authenticity). I know that there are a lot of fakes out there, but I also have to wonder if there was a production flaw or, according to the REA write-up, many of these came from the same find. If there were stored together, they could have been damaged in a similar way. Any thoughts?

my wrapper
 

I bought this Ruth candy wrapper about 8 years ago and it is made out of wax type paper. It is also missing the "H" like the others except for the one in the REA auction.

Something is smelling fishy here. This is way too much of a coincidence. has anyone ever seen one actually wrapped around the candy? I just think it's too precise of a location for the size of the wrapper, for the candy to wear it down in the same spot. If the original was missing the H, all copies would too, it's easy to wear it down more or less on each of them differently so they look slightly different. As for a comment made about wrinkle lines being different, that wouldn't matter if you are aging it by creasing them differently.

Just an outside perspective, I am nowhere near an expert in this area, but I don't think print wax paper is impossible to find.

Here's another. "H" intact but no "7"" The alignment of the lettering on this one seems to match the REA example while the lettering on the others seem to align differently. Could there have been different printings with the typesets aligned differently?

Here's an example of what I mean by the different print alignment. Not saying one version is real and the other is fake. I wish I knew. It's something I have wondered about for a while.

that is very interesting philnap

Appreciate the feedback
 

After the new years holiday, I'm sending the wrapper to Mr. Luckey to get his honest opinion. I've talked with REA and they wanted me to send the scans to them for someone to look at. By no means am I a scam artist. I am hoping that I didn't get scammed. I took a chance at purchasing this item and I am hoping that it's legit and that I can pass it down to my daughter. I appreciate all the feedback from everyone.

I agree with Bilko. Outstanding detective work Phil! ;)

not positive
 

I am not positive about the whole issue. I have always thought the wrappers that are on wax paper are good. OF course I stand behind anything I sell, for authenticity, for life. I do find it perplexing concerning the hole in the same place and the slanted format shown above. The printing on my current one is very sharp too, not like you normally see in knock-off items. If the wrapper I own now is a fake then that is one very good scam. It's not like someone was going to make a mint off of these even if they aren't good. The one I sold I am sure wasn't more than $200 as well as it's replacement/upgrade was probably in that range or less. There is always the chance that someone found a way to duplicate these just as the originals were made....maybe a machine from the 1920's producing them more recently? Interesting stuff....

close up
 

Here is a close up of my wrapper of the missing "H". As you can see, it looks like the "H" was there at one time but was worn away for some reason. This is getting very very interesting.
Also great detective work Phil Nap on the slant of the text.

I'd be curious to see what Lifson has to say. Maybe he can shed some light on these.

A friend of mine bought both the wrapper and the 6 Ruth cards from a person in Florida about 6 years ago. After posting on Net 54, it was decided that they were fake (definately the cards). The wrapper was on wax paper and I was amazed at what some scammers would do to sell a fake. Watch out for the cards in TPG holders as well as another friend and board member purchased one in which the original was removed and one of the fake cards was inserted into the cracked holder.
On this wrapper , it appears that the jackass tried to remove the "7" and the damaged "H".

What was the shape of the candy inside?

Would there be creases in a similar spot if they were all folded around the same candy?

Or were these non used wrappers that were found flat and just worn heavily?

Another damaged H.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...archvalue=ruth bar&page=0&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=50&cat egory=1&seo=1928-Babe-Ruth-%22Ruth

good catch

The fonts are also slightly different. On one the crossbar of the Hs in most of the words are in the center, while the other verion the crossbars are near the top of the letter.

Steve B

2 more from heritage auctions

http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?s...083&lotNo=3133

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...28&lotNo=43164

Any follow up on REA's opinion based on the scan you sent them?

Interesting that this was withdrawn.

Baseball (Period)
 

Does Leon's wrapper have a - "baseball." - at the end of the sentence, but the other's don't? Or is that just the scans? Just curious.

With the two wrappers in the current SCP auction (one with the all too common obscured middle initial "H" and one with the "H" intact), it has caused me to look even closer at these wrappers.

It seems that all of the wrappers with the obscured "H" have a much sharper font style. I would describe it as more of a modern computer generated font. This is most pronounced in the text below the Babe's image where it reads "Babe Ruth's Own Candy". And upon closer look, it is evident in all of the text (both in the area with the orange background and in the white border). The wrappers with the "H" have more of a rounded hand drawn style of text. I don't know if this version has been reproduced but in my opinion the missing "H" and the sharper font are tell tale signs to stay away.

Also note that in lot 754, the quote marks around Babe Ruth's (at top of label) are of different style and spacing relative to the letters. The same with the apostrophe.

That is interesting. If the wrapper is a reprint, there are two possibilities - either it is a scan/photo copy of an original, or someone created new artwork and layout and printed from that. With your discovery, either one of those possibilities seems to be a bit challenged. Because the quotation mark is different, it would seem impossible for it to be a photo copy, and it would indicate someone made a new layout and tried to make it as close to the real thing as possible. The challenge on that side is that the H is obscured, which wouldn't happen if someone was printing off of a fresh layout. That leaves two more likely possibilities in my mind - either there were two original layouts for the wrapper, or someone created a new layout recently and that layout was copied from a copy where the H was obscured.

Or the H was intentionally obscured as part of the effort to artificially age the new creation.

I posted a photo of mine earlier (damaged H.). Anyway, I don't know why I didn't think of it before, but I put it under a black light last night. Modern paper illuminates under a black light because of chemicals used in the manufacturing process, while paper from the 1920s should not. I put an early postcard with the similar coloring beside the wrapper to show the difference.

Not only does the wrapper illuminate under the light, look at the creases. They are even brighter. If the wax, or whatever coating is on the paper, were stripped away, I am sure this sucker would really light up under a black light.

What do you guys think of this? Does this pretty much guarantee that this is a fake?

Thanks.

Chris

BTW, the whole wrapper illuminated under black lighting, but my camera didn't capture it well. No flash in a dark room with a cheap camera made it a little tricky.

Amazing, great work. That would be a good practice for the auction house.

That's the same as the last option I gave - you're just suggesting intent.

Since SCP currently has both types in their possession, it would be nice if they would "Blacklight" them (side by side). It would be interesting to see the comparison.

But I supose that's probably too much to ask...

Here's mine under blacklight with a 1928 Exhibits card and a modern 3x5.

Chris, is that the one you bought from Leon??

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!! :)