Opinions on this Ruth FDC??
 

Any opinions on this "self addressed" and signed Ruth FDC?

Not a "gotcha" post at all. For full disclosure, this piece has been fully certed by one of the alphabet companies (on more than one occasion)....and received a "likely genuine" by the other.

On the other hand, this piece was specifically discussed as a forgery in Ron K's book.

Interested to hear your opinions.

I am certainly not a Ruth expert, but I would say yes. :)

I would have felt that way even if I did not know that it had been deemed real.
The flow and appearance of this matches the feel of other authentic examples of Babe Ruth's sig that I have seen through the years.

compare it to a letter I have where Ruth wrote down the same address. Eyeballing both of them which were written only one month apart I say YES, yours is authentic.

Thanks for the responses guys. While I'm definitely not a Ruth expert, I am familiar with his signature and have/do own numerous pieces. My first impression was that it was good. After a closer look, I began to have some doubts. After researching it, I can across Ron K's book, in which he seems to specifically discuss this exact piece (and how he opines that its a forgery). So obviously there's some differing opinions on this one.

While there are aspects that I really like about it, there are some that cause me some pause.

First of all, I still can't come up with a plausible explanation as to why Ruth would address and send this to himself (and signing his name in the process). Maybe he was a collector himself, and wanted to add this piece to his collection. If that's the case, then I feel it would add great value to this piece. Obviously that's possible, but just not sure that makes sense.

Secondly, the "B" to the "a" connection is definitely atypical (though not completely unique to this piece).

Next, the "i" to the "d" connection in Riverside also seems odd (as if he was about to misspell it).

The sticker placed on the piece also seems suspicious. Why put such a generic and unappealing sitcker (and sloppily done) on such a nice piece? Was it to cover up a more glaring mistake?

I'm not making a case against this being authentic, just expressing some concerns and trying to educate myself a bit.

Thanks guys....and would love to hear any other opinions.

I have also read Ron K's book, and as much as I respect it, you should keep in mind that he has an opinion just like anybody else.

I also think your signature is good.

Looking at the address on your cover and the address on my letter it's almost identical..there is no problem with flow in either of them...I think your Ruth is 100% authentic. The letter I have came from a large collection of letters from this Dr Steen...they had never seen the light of day until the last 8 months...there is no autograph on mine, no need for any secretary to try and duplicate Ruth's handwriting.

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

It is absolutely absurd to look at each individual letter (in any holograph material) and decide whether or not it is "correct," or "typical." Just look at the (unquestionably genuine) example of Ruth's address on Dan's letter. Look at the two capital "Y"s, in "York," and "N.Y." They are completely different, yet written a fraction of a second apart.

It would be interesting to get it under a microscope to see what is on the top -- the signature or the postal cancellation.

If the cancellation is on top, one could argue it's plausible the signature is authentic and it would put the signature back to a time before deceptive forgeries existed.

If the signature is on top of the cancellation, it becomes much more difficult to envision a plausible scenario why Babe Ruth would be adding his name and mailing address to an envelope that had already been cancelled.

Why only a month apart is the address changed from New York NY to New York City NY. Not good in my very humble opinion. For this and other inconsistencies already pointed out in this thread. Paul Gallagher who started the first NYC show in the early 1970's told me in 1973 that babe Ruth signed more than any other Baseball player and was forged more than any baseball player.

David, I know you're one of the big boys around here and have/do own some very high end Ruth pieces...so I definitely value your opinion on this. But I do disagree with it being "absurd" to look at individual letters. I completely agree that we can't judge it being good or bad by one individual letter, but I do take those very atypical variations into account.

With that said, I'm also a believer in Chirs' so-called "autograph eye". I first try to get the overall feel of the auto, and my first impression is that this piece is good. By like I said, those two variant letter connections bother me (particularly the "B" to the "a").

Just figured that with well respected opinions being on both sides of this item, it would be a great conversation piece here.

Well, OK. "Absurd" is too strong a word, I'll admit.

Would the post office in Cooperstown even cancel a letter that had no address on it? I think the Babe had one sent to himself....like a million other Americans did in 1939.

edited to add: a simple google search shows that they clearly did cancel a ton of these FDCs without any addresses on them, and half of them are signed by major leaguers....I think though with the address on this one that he did indeed have it sent to himself.

Dan,

It's definitely possible...and in looking at the photo, the signature appears to be on top of the postmark....so maybe they post marked it prior to him self-addressing it. But does that seem like the most likely scenario?

If this is "the one" that the Babe sent to himself, I would think that it would go for a substantial premium at auction (but that hasn't been the case in the past).

Is it possible that there was a ceremony of sorts in which the inductees had FDCs sent to themselves? I ask because this item is in my collection:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...son1939FDC.jpg

Absolutely....

Maybe the first five inductees all sent FDCs to themselves (and maybe multiples at that). Is there more than one "Big Train" self addressed FDC? (Great piece btw).

Could be more than one Ruth self addressed FDC...but this is the only one I could find. And if this is the only one (the one he actually sent to himself), I would think it would carry a hefty premium.

It just seems like I'm missing something. It has the blessing of the big authenticators, it's been featured by at least one of the major auction houses, but just doesn't get the action that it seemingly should.

There was a ceremony, attended by more than the first 5, because by then there were more than 5. Landis and Farley (post master general) were involved. and I even remember reading about mass signings of first day covers and sheets of the stamps. It is also possible many of the first day covers were hand stamped with the postmark, and I also believe it was common to do them unaddressed. i think there is stuff about this day in stamp collecting literature also, which might be worth checking.

I think it can help to look at individual letters and their connections to other letters, especially in the context of two similar items like this - if both 'are authentic', and they appear to be, then it gives you ideas of variations in the person's signing habits;e.g.-two different 'r's in 'New York', two different connections between 'e' and 'r' in 'Riverside', 'B' and 'a' seeming to connect, etc. Once you know that such anomalies exist in Ruth's writing, they won't bother you as much when you run across them in the future.

There's a ceremony of some sort for nearly every stamp. Some bigger than others. The one for the baseball centennial would have been a big one since it was part of the opening of the HOF.

Unaddessed FDCs weren't common until the early 30's. The ones unadressed were usually made by dealers. The addressed ones were usually done by people attending the opening ceremony, and by people sending in mail orders.

There were 398,199 FDCs for the baseball centennial. Most of the addressed ones would have been made by individuals bringing a SASE buying a stamp and handing it in to be mailed. The ones to be mailed would have gone through the regular machine canceller for that town, and delivered as mail. That's probably how the Ruth one was made.

Handstamped ones like the Johnson were either handed back to the person receiving it, or went on unusual mailpieces or other items. The stamp could have been put on just about anything. Postcards, foreign addresses and stuff like registered mail are common back then. More recently ones on large postcards or photos are popular.

Cacheted covers would have been available from a variety of dealers, and some were probably there selling cacheted envelopes for people to have cancelled.

The small picture was probably added by a later owner.
Aside from that, the cover is what I'd expect from a popular guy who was busy but either wanted or had to attend the first day ceremony. A simple envelope addressed to himself, and simply stamped and handed in to whatever clerk was available just then. A nice simple souvenir for very little effort. He wouldn't even have to keep track of it , it would probably be waiting in his mail box when he got home.

I won't comment about the autograph, but the cover is the sort of cover I'd be more comfortable with.

Steve B

That's a lot of great information. Thanks!

Good info Steve..