F52 Fro Joy Ruth - SGC NO
 

Open for discussion is this card. As most know I am an SGC fan (and they advertise here and are good hobby friends too) but I still think they should consider grading these, F52 Fro Joys, when there is no doubt as to their authenticity. I have seen some of these, and the 1928 Babe Ruth Candy cards, that are very difficult to tell when good (not a reprint or fake) or not. However, on some, when their aged characteristics are almost indisputable, I think they should holder them. What say ye?

of course they should be able to grade these. learn how to detect real vs fake...and grade them...simple as that!

I'd much rather TPG err on the side of not grading cards they're not certain about.

I voted maybe because I think it has to be all or nothing, they either grade every one sent to them or they don't grade any of them. I don't think grading only the obvious cards will get us too far.

I voted no because I don't think anything good will come out of grading them.

I am a fan of their graders. I think they do an excellent job and I agree with you 100%. But I have to think that after handling so many cards they could, at least most times, absolutely identify a fake or forgery. They have handled far more of these than I have, which is probably around 40-50 total, and I am confident on this one. I will admit there are some cards I am not 100% on, and those I wouldn't holder.
But then I guess it could be argued that if they don't holder it, it's not good, which might not be the case. How are most to know it isn't authenticated/holdered because they couldn't tell it was good with 100% certainty? Maybe it could be an edit/addition in their grading criteria on their site? I know it's a slippery slope.

edited to add, some other good responses so far....

Hey, I've got it. If they can't tell they can send it back with a "? AUTHTCT" label.

The real tragedy of sports collectibles is when the frauds/forgeries get so good and so wide spread that the real thing ceases to exist.

+1

And as an example of what I wouldn't do, or ask anyone to do, here is this card and another that had been in my collection for years. Board member and Sr. BVG grader Andy B. and myself sat for some time with loupes and more and couldn't be sure on the batting pose card. We just aren't 100% and I wouldn't holder or grade it. As a matter of fact I will be keeping it so that it doesn't later get sold as 100% real. I don't believe I had Andy look at the portrait one. Not much need to, imo, honestly. The paper and everything is correct on it.....semi-worn patina and all.

http://luckeycards.com/pf52frojoyx2.jpg

No.

I think the issue comes when in their honesty they are basically admitting that they do not feel they can have a 100% success rate.

I wish to applaud the decision and thank them for not holdering something they cannot do with 100% reliablity.

(of course no TPG is 100% perfect, but that should be the goal.)

On these cards specifically, doesn't black light cause the modern paper to fluoresce?

I know they won't "always" flouresce if not good. The portrait one doesn't flouresce and not sure where the other is right now. I don't think it did either.

I voted yes; grow a pair.

I said No . Would say yes but think some bad ones will slip through the cracks

I think it's good for collectors not to be so dependent on graders. If there are some real things that graders won't grade, I consider that a good thing.

On the other hand, there's no reason graders can't grade the Fro Joys. Big auction houses auction them.

I voted yes, & the Fro Joy pictured in leon's initial post is legit. I've always thought that SGC should be easily able to detect real vs fake, but since the over whelming majority they would receive would need to be rejected, it just becomes too big of a hassle to grade.

+1 with all the screw ups they do now do we really need them grading stuff they admit they can't get right.

I voted "maybe", since SGC hasn't explained why they stopped grading them. I don't think it's because of a lack of competence.

In any case, a raw Fro-Joy should be treated with extreme caution. Unless you have one in your hands and are certain it's real, assume it's a fake.

Edited to add: because con men love this issue

Exactly.

- Fro Joys, including the Tunney cards are very rare. Tunney more so, perhaps
- Distributed over a small time span, many survived due to Babe Ruth
- Beckett's population is inaccurate due to cracked slabs
- If a printing plate exists(ed), there'd be more
- Leon said E121 like paper for Fro Joys, and I agree.
- paper used for Fro Joys was also used for the high quality 1928 Ruth Candy cards, or at least remarkably simlar paper (not the sepia variations)

- If the #3 Ruth batting has bled through to the back from the darker spots on the front, in addition to the points below, its good (boxes connected of course)

- If you scan it at 800 dpi or higher and crop (zoom) into the picture part, you'll be able to tell by the dot pattern. Very high quality with perfect dots. The forgeries do not duplicate the pattern in the white areas, although the darker areas are strkingly similar.

- The better forgeries, which do not resemble the low quality singles cut from fake sheets do fluoresce purple, although not much. Photograph it next to the authentic portrait card under a black light. Singles from the fake sheet flouresce brightly

- Paper used for the better forgeries is not smooth

- The sheet that was forged in the 70s was and continues to be the main problem, with people being ripped off for decades due to singles cut from the low quality forgeries

- 1928 Ruth Candy cards consists of several variations. The forgeries are easy to spot.

I've never seen a fake of either in an SGC holder

Let me get this straight, SGC recently resumed grading Ruth Candy cards but not Fro Joy?

Great summation Greg. Thanks. As far as I am aware (I could be wrong) SGC has always graded the Babe Ruth Candy Cards. I think I have had 10-15 graded by them and I don't recall them ever saying they didn't grade them, only the Fro Joys.

They authenticate autographs, they should authenticate Fro Joys. They've handled them, they know what to look for.

PSA doesn't grade them, either

In PSA's case, they graded a fake (scroll down the thread to see it).

Probably, both of them figure it's not worth the trouble to grade this issue. It certainly keeps the prices down...

I don't know enough about these cards to really form an opinion. But as someone else said it is unfortunate that the fakes have gotten so good that even the "experts" can't tell the difference and have determined that it's not worth the risk of encasing fake cards and being forced to buy them back.

I would hope and expect that PSA and SGC would be able to figure out a way to tell the difference but perhaps the issue is too rare to make it worth the trouble.

yes they should, 100% so I can trust them to at least AUTH one that I want to buy. Cause I wouldn't call my self a pro - but that is what they are supposed to be... right? Matter of fact I just bought one, #1 that was Auth by BSG - just arrived in the mail

Attachment 208056

Leon,

Didn't know that. Thanks

Exactly. Of course they should have the knowledge to grade it. I got to the point with SGC (never really tried anyone else) I just stopped sending in items. When you get responses like "we dont grade these because we need more information" or one of my personal favorites, "if you send in enough information then we MIGHT grade it, or if you send in enough money to justify us doing the research we might be able to grade it. Just kind of made me shake my head and reevaluate what I am doing.

I am paying a company to authenticate a product that I have already authenticated--and then i am paying a company to assign a grade to a card that i am probably able to do as well. But the cases look nice.

I'd have to go along with this also. I seem to recall that PSA had stopped grading the Star basketball issues of 1983-1985 (including the Star #101 Jordan rookie) when it became apparent that of the original 4,000 originally printed, about 14,000 still existed. I think its for the TPG's to determine where the balance falls in particular cases. I believe, but am not sure, that Beckett continued to grade them after PSA stopped doing so.

My two cents worth,

Larry

Nice card, Steve

thanks, been working on a ruth collection for some time now, and this is my first fro joy. I hope its real & bvg didn't mess up here....I have seen so many fakes, any thoughts??

It's real..

It's great to see a nice one .

I had BVG slab my Ruth example:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Ruth%201.jpg

SGC for the Ruth Candy example:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...th%20Candy.jpg

I handled the Fro-Joy raw (I had several) and was certain of the authenticity; I just wanted them in holders. The Fro-Joy I was able to compare with some Tunneys I had. Tunneys are not forged--not worth it--so they make good examplars to judge the Ruth cards against.

I say grade them! Nice transaction earlier this year from a person on this thread! :)

I agree that all the major TPGs should grade the Fro Joys. I won this lot of 4 raw Fro Joys in a Legendary Auction back in the Summer of 2006: http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=59204
Each card was subsequently graded ok by Beckett. I have since sold/traded 3 of the 4 cards - I kept this one for my type collection because I like this pose of Ruth the best.
Val

I like the message on the back about the wholesome and healthful ice cream. And the recommendation to have one daily. I wonder where I could find some wholesome healthy ice cream today.

thanks leon - I always need cards like this to be graded as some fakes I really cant tell but getting them verified through the board to me is the best way!:D