Babe Ruth - Good or Bad?
 

What is the general opinion on this one?

Yuck

A great ball to play catch with.:)

I recognize that ball and signature, and can remember seeing it in the past. I think it is certed by one of the big two authenticators.

Over 200+ views and only 3 replies.

Anyone else want to express an informed opinion, or just an opinion?

101% fake

It is not something I would want to buy. But it would be nice to see the entire ball too.

I think you're right...I recall seeing it in the not so distant past. And regardless of any cert, the auto is bad.

I dont care if Ruth said it was good. I would not buy it. If this was a gotcha question I am more than happy to write a gotcha answer.:D

Shelly,

It is not a "gotcha" question. I have just never seen Ruth signed his name in that fashion, especially with the "e". Regardless of if or who might have said it was good or bad, just looking for opinions from others as to their views.

Just found it on ebay...here's the link.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item1e79678857

JT,

I initially had the same issue with "e". To my knowledge, there aren't any authentic exemplars with the lower case "e". But in looking closely at this one, I believe it's actually an "E" with a poorly defined middle portion of the letter.

Regardless..don't like it all.

R in Ruth
 

I posted an auto that I received about a month back of the former yanks secretary (mark Roth). The r's are strikingly similar... Could Roth have been signing for Ruth back in the day?

A big issue that I see with autograph forum interaction, is that when faced with something like this, none of the PSA/DNA supporters come out and state that they think Spence goofed.

To me that means that they agree that it's real - what other conclusion can we arrive at? I could say a lot more here, but I'm going to save it for later - not hiding anything, just don't feel like having an all-out war regarding PSA/DNA, quite yet.

Here's a newsflash: if you occasionally (not all the time), agree with your 'enemy', your opinions will be MORE respected regarding other things. It's true.

Here is the entire ball.

Does this change anyone's mind?

No.

And people wonder why there are so few responses... :rolleyes:

This is the perfect example of a "got ya" and a reason why people don't respond.

Showing a strange, atypical signature yet not showing the accompanying writing. And maybe part of the reason the sig looks strange is because he was squeezing it in, an element that is lost when seeing a closely cropped photo out of context.

I am not comfortable offering an opinion of real or not, but authentication should be about looking at the whole picture.

+1

You are so right Zip , that was why I asked for it.
+1

OMG

I got Richard and David to agree.

:D

Like I asked, does this change anyone's mind now that the whole inscription is shown?

nope, but that is the right way to present the item.

I don't see how it is a "got ya". The ebay auction link was presented - I went out and looked at it, and saw the entire signature. It still doesn't look good, no matter how much of it is shown.

Sure, it could be real. Yes, if real, it's atypical. Is there good enough reason to authenticate it? I don't think so.

Authentication of autographs shouldn't be about making sure that no good ones slip through the cracks. Erring should be on the side of caution. But that would mean less money for all involved...and thus we have what we have.

Scott, it was not there at the start of the thread.

Can you ask Chris to show us the entire "Michigan Forgers" Ruth autograph that he posted in the other thread?

Lotsa luck with that!

Okay, I get why it's considered a "got ya" thread, but I still don't see how the additional picture proves it's simply "atypical".

Is it because for this particular ball, Ruth suddenly forgot how to leave room for his name? :confused:

He still had plenty of room to make a typical "E" in "Babe" though. Not sure why out of a million autographs, he changed it one time....

I hesitate to get involved in these mud-slinging contests, but when it comes to actually collecting autographs, how an item presents is very important, similar to what centering and corner condition mean to a card collector.

Personally, I don't want atypical signatures in my collection. Generally I don't like "rushed" signatures either.

Certainly there are cases where rarity supersedes what a signature looks like if you are say, filling a hole in team collection or something like that.

But in the case of Ruth, his autograph can be considered common, if expensive. If you have the money, you can pretty much buy one any day of the week.

I wouldn't want that ball in my collection at any price regardless of the TPA paperwork included.

Well said.

This is exactly what I was refering to in the Gehrig thread last week. People show a picture and ask for opinions and then are shocked when people dont line up to answer. WE ALL KNOW what is going to follow, a "certified" example and then people start arguing. If you ever say anything in these threads "look fine", you are setting yourself up to be blasted as either agreeing with the authentication companies and looking like a fool, or being incompetant so what is the point.

Threads like this serve no purpose, its not going to sway anyones opinion either way and just feeds that drama that is killing this autograph forum in my opinion.

The "what do you think of this" threads used to be real questions about uncertified autographs and actually be fun to try and help people out. Now they are just tools for the self serving with an agenda.

Just an opinion from someone who sees less of a reason to go on this forum each and every day.

Rhys

Rhys, no offense, but you need to get one of those 'half full' glasses. This is a discussion forum for autographs, and that's what we are doing. Sure, there are agendas, but that's always been true.

This thread, in my opinion, is a great one - it shows what is probably an atypical Ruth autograph that most of us wouldn't touch. Because of this thread we are finding out why it might be real, and why the TPA's think that it is.

We've seen a great post by someone pointing out that even if it IS real, he wouldn't want to own it. This is an aspect of collecting that many board member have completely missed - we concentrate on authenticity (which most of the time can NOT be proven), and skip 'desirability'.

I don't mind being told I can't curse, but being told I can't express a negative opinion about something that does rankle me a bit.

And in terms of where the autograph forum has gone, it used to be that you couldn't even have two dissenting opinions in the same 'room'. I think that with a few exceptions, it's come a long way. And even those 'exceptions' seem to be under control.

Just my opinion - hope to see you at the National :)

Agree with all you have posted above, Scott.

However, the entire baseball, inscription and all, should have been posted from the start.

I keep forgetting - this was a 'got ya' thread :)

I forgot to get got

Its not the negative opinions, its that fact that people are fishing for them with an agenda. If that was not the case he would have shown the whole image and ther certificate to begin with. Its pretty obvious to me that this is not for an "Education Opportunity" post.

I am all for any educational opportunity, but do they ALL have to be negatives with motives behind them?

Rhys,

Why does anything having to do with PSA or JSA, or whomever have to have an agenda or motive behind it? Are you judging my post by your own standards?

I asked about the autograph because I have never seen Ruth sign his name with an "e" as shown. Perhaps someone else had and would post about it. As for not showing the PSA certificate at the beginning, I asked what people thought of the autograph, not what they thought of the LOA. Why put that in the beginning when an honest opinion is what is asked, not one influenced by some other person's LOA, and it would have happened.

JT,

I think that of anyone who has posted in this thread, Rhys is probably the LEAST likely one to be looking to stir the pro/anti-TPA pot. It's called "call 'em as you see 'em," and just because he was the one to call it, doesn't mean that he is the only one thinking your post looked like a set-up, whether that was your intention or not.

Generally speaking, when asking opinions for a signature on a piece, those giving opinions are going to want to see the whole piece. That should be a given. Richard was diplomatic enough to offer his opinion AND ask for the whole ball to be shown back in post #7, but you opted to argue about whether it was a set-up or not until after someone else found the eBay listing. If you want to eliminate the TPA bias, crop it so that the LOA doesn't show, but you always should show the entire piece. Nobody likes having blinders forced on them, and when you crop the photo so tight to the signature, that's what it feels like. I guarantee that Rhys wasn't the only one expecting a big "ha HA" reveal as the camera widens out to show the whole scene. If that wasn't your intent, okay, no real harm done, but you have to be cognizant of WHY people make these comments and not just get defensive about it.

+1