Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Opinions on a Ruth auto (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=136722)

mighty bombjack 05-10-2011 08:35 PM

Opinions on a Ruth auto
 
I think the B looks off, but I'm no expert. Anyone here have a strong opinion?

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...Ruthletter.jpg

GrayGhost 05-10-2011 09:22 PM

Doesn't look good IMO at all.

perezfan 05-10-2011 11:20 PM

Horrid fake... not even close.

Bilko G 05-11-2011 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perezfan (Post 893200)
Horrid fake... not even close.


+1

steve B 05-11-2011 07:01 AM

Fascinating though. Most fakers make mistakes in the more complex items. Whoever did this must have done some research.

Ruth did apparently spend some time at that hotel. It was a major resort and there's a picture out there of him playing golf there.

And 345 W 88Th Street was An address in NY where Ruth lived.

Maybe someone wrote the letter for him?
If it comes along with a signed book, is the one in the book good?

Steve B

Mr. Zipper 05-11-2011 07:08 AM

Seems pretty ambitious for a flat out forgery. Did he have a secretary or assistant who could have written this?

murphusa 05-11-2011 07:13 AM

Clair?

mighty bombjack 05-11-2011 07:17 AM

Yeah, the book this came in was from the Heritage Signature auction. The signature in the book is good. This one clearly is not, but I do believe it was signed by a secretary or perhaps Claire. Interesting to be sure.

Here is the inscription in the book:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...20NFT/Ruth.jpg

RichardSimon 05-11-2011 12:46 PM

The letter is not a modern day forgery. Secretarially signed it would appear.
A clever forger would not be that far off on the autograph.

mighty bombjack 05-11-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardSimon (Post 893306)
The letter is not a modern day forgery. Secretarially signed it would appear.
A clever forger would not be that far off on the autograph.

Is it me, or is the "Ruth" on the letter actually very close? The "Babe" is the dead giveaway.

And I agree with you on the secretary. This letter will stay with the book as I believe Ruth himself had the letter written, and it adds provenance to the book. Too bad for me he didn't sign it himself!

Heritage Sports 05-13-2011 02:39 PM

That book was sold in our April auction, but we didn't even notice the letter inside until after the catalog had gone to print and the consignor apparently didn't know about it either. So we never made any claim about the letter, though very clearly it is not in Ruth's hand (but it is undoubtedly a period/secretarial piece, not a "forgery.") The inscription in the book is good. Hope that clears things up.

Rob L 06-13-2011 08:49 PM

It is well known that Claire would sign for Babe, particularly near the end of his life. She wasn't bad at replicating his signature, but you could tell. This is likely signed by her.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 PM.