Fake Babe Ruth Press image on ebay?
 

Im about 90% certain this is fake.
Can I get Confirmation? It’s not the usual 0 feedback seller with 100 other fakes listed.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BAB...-127632-2357-0

Fake. It's a Frankenstein creation.

I love the ballpoint pen over the newly created stamps. Printing that on non-photographic paper must have been a challenge.

I'm not an expert, but a few observations:

1) Library of Congress has a copy or possibly the original Type 1
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collect...item/89714713/

2) There are tons of copies of this on the web and there are no known restrictions on publications.

3) If this were authentic, it would be worth tens of thousands (or more), so why wouldn't the owner get it authenticated? It would clearly be worth doing.

4) A few flags in the description include:
"Photos comes from an old collector storage!!"
"Stamped, RARE, ROOKIE" (um...not a rookie since it was taken/published in the 1920s)
"Babe Ruth is considered one of the Greatest Legends on Baseball History!!!"

5) eBay authentication, anyone?

Why not buy this one instead?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/403197889196

You get Babe AND Cobb in an unadulterated photo with proper corners for framing, and it will only set you back $5.48.

Great observations

As far as I know, Ebay doesn't authenticate photos.

The original is obviously not 1920.

The light hat and no pinstripes make it a Boston home uniform.
And it was taken in Fenway - Fenway Garage Co building in the background.

I don't know what years had what ads on the stands, so I can't put it in a particular year.

So oddly, the only thing they're even close to right about is that it might be an image from his Rookie year.

Interesting. So the Library of Congress is using the wrong date? You might want to let them know.

He’s listing another one as a Buy It Now for $15,000

https://www.ebay.com/itm/185451945075

It's probably a very low priority for them. And all I could do would be to narrow it down to a 6 year range, which probably isn't enough for them to make the change.

I've read some of their articles about preservation and the lengths they go to to try to preserve some things before they get too bad to handle. Like making a machine to deacidify books in bulk, which failed.

LOC is more organized than most archives. Most places that might have info about stuff I try to look up have listings like "Bike company X - various correspondence 1920-30 2500 items box 101.235" Same for pictures.

Another detail is it's advertised as an AP photo but has different company stampings on the back.

If someone wants to purchase a Goudey Ruth from a seller who calls it Topps, so be it. Personally, I prefer buyers who demonstrate a little more knowledge about what they sell. Though I think this particular seller was purposefully throwing everything including the kitchen sink into the description, perhaps to fish for keywords. The description also calls it Rookie and framed, of which it is neither.

Good points. Thanks.

Couldn't agree more.

Not unrelated, check out this clearly fake Wagner T206 on eBay right now for a cool $100k with a full description that simply reads: "T206 Honus Wagner with a Tolstoi back."