How to tell if a Ruth sig is authentic?
 

Is there a way to tell that a Ruth signature is authentic besides it having a COA from PSA or JSA, which in itself is debateable? For example, if a Ruth signature is on a ball, which is covered in shellac, doesn't that pretty much guarantee authenticity (and it would also have a PSA or JSA LOA to confirm it is not a clubhouse signature)? That is, none of the forgers have known to shellac a signature because it is just too much trouble, so these should be good?

I know people can debate the actual signature to death, such as whether the "a" is closed, "t" is crossed, curve of the "R" and so forth. However, I was wondering if there were other characteristics that would also help such as the wear on it? I know there are other stuff such as provenance, ensuring the item the signature is on is within the period, and so forth. Anything else besides shellacking? Thanks!

No, the fact that it's shellacked means nothing. There are forgers that will go to the trouble of using old balls (or scuffing up newer ones to look real old), old ink, and then use shellac. They will then try to "weather" the ball to make the shellac look old (I've heard they sometimes put it in to dog food kibble).

Really? Because I thought shellacked balls have significantly reduced values compared to non-shellacked ones, so I would have figured that forgers would not go through that much effort, which would also reduce the value of their forged item.

A lot of people used to shellac balls to try and preserve them (before we all knew better) so some (not all) forgers will also do that figuring that people would believe a shellacked ball. I'm not saying everyone does it, and to tell you the truth you probably see less of them now (at least I do) but what I'm saying is that you can't think it's authentic just based on that.

Just so you know, Marino used shellacked baseballs to make you think it was older. They would also age a ball by putting it in to an oven so it look dry and old. They would also scuff the ball or rub it with mud clean it do it over again untill you thought you had an older ball. At that time it worked today you would laugh at it.

Dang. Thanks for the info on shellacking.

How about a cancelled check? It's not the Babe Ruth, but it's the G H Ruth. Assuming it has a noted TPA to remove the obvious forgeries, would cancelled checks be good? Thanks!

You forgot about the part of putting them in moth balls to make them smell old. -- Operation Bullpen

You can believe it or not I have never read the book. I never heard that or smelled that.:eek:

I've seen a few cancelled checks with G.H. Ruth that were certed by ACE (Justin Priddy). The checks were washed.

Sure there's a way, if you saw him sign it. Past that, there are only degrees of certainty.

I think that it is a fact that there are many bad Ruth checks out there. One major warning. Never buy a framed check I dont care who signed it or who authenticated it. Easy to switch you have the letter and a bad check on top of it. Then they do it all over again.
I

+1

I posted the questions below in a previous thread and received no response from Chris. I still believe it is a fair and appropriate question. So I'll try again in this thread.



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