1922 "BABE" RUTH HAFFNER'S BREAD baseball card
 

Hi.
I'm new to this website and posting on this forum. I came across this baseball card recently and I appreciate any feedback and/or thoughts regarding this card. I've put it under a black light and it doesn't illuminate. The card is 2" width 3 3/8" length. The card hasn't been graded yet but I plan on sending it in. Could this card actually be authentic? It seems like a rare card from what's said online. Thank you and I appreciate your time and information.

I defer to Brian:)

dont waste your time

Nice.

Haha. well, some others have said the same thing not to bother that it isn't authentic. I guess the bright side of that is it will be cheaper to have it graded if it's not real. I'm hoping it is however. I mean, it passed the black light test, it has the right dimensions. I don't know. It could be real. I know it's a rare card if it happens to be real. It could be.

Compare the graininess to other Ruth cards, that are on similar type cards. Your Ruth looks way too grainy for my liking. Tough to be positive from a scan but that was my first thought.
.

lolol

I agree with this. Plus, I ascribe to the theory that if it’s too good to be true, it’s too good to be true. But I agree, if you buy it for cheap enough and it comes back fake (not that PSA can always tell the difference), you aren’t out too much. Plus, there is a chance that PSA incorrectly grades it as authentic; they have made worse mistakes in the past.

Another endorsement. Please note I have not given an opinion on the card because I have not handled the card. Oh, wait. That's the proper procedure. Oh, so sorry. I'm guilty of being accurate. I'm so ashamed. Wait. i can't go to a church. I'm an Agnostic. Oh, the credit, the credit, the credit. Still, there's the accuracy. I'll rest well.

I suggest you get back on your meds.
.

Paskar, can you say where you found it? It might help others chime in with opinions. It does look grainy. The one in HA looks a little grainy, but clearer than yours.

See this thread with information on the Ruth with this back.

www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2170652

LOL!

Never skipped them.

Happy Holidays.

I was thinking the same thing Leon wrote. There's nothing else about the card that screams fake to me, but the Ruth image itself isn't of high enough resolution to be a real one. It's like the image quality of an E122 at best when it should be the image quality of an E121 (assuming that means anything to you).

OK. So, for comparison without handling the card, let's compare scans front and back here from the post:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=311139

I'm suspicious of the black print defects on the back being very uniform (I assume this should differ but I can't find two of the same cards from the set to compare). Look to the left and the dots are identically placed, same with the right below home plate. Also the overall image like Leon said is just lacking about 30% of the shadowing it should have.
I'm also suspicious of how they seem to have the exact same centering, that is very unlikely.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...2bf96d54b2.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a28af9fdc2.jpg

I think you are right, Lucas. The same thing could be said for the front... about crotch height, midway toward the right border as well as the discoloration extending down through the bottom border from the left side ground level to the name block. Far from definitive, but those would be some of the things I'd expect to see from a scan/print (or Xerox, if you will).

I agree with the others that it seems suspicious and most likely a fake.
But if you are willing to roll the dice and send to PSA or somewhere for authenticating and see what happens, as Ryan says go for it.

Yeah, it looks like a copy of the HA card. Look at the vertical line on the back under the word "plate" on both cards.

You misspelled "because a dealer didn't gesture in the direction of the card and tell me that it was a reprint."

Thank you for the endorsement.

Happy Holidays.


:D

That's interesting. the same markings on the back of the card. Some of the markings seem to be coming through from the image on the front but the 2 dots you circled aren't from the front image. the centering issue as well. could it be copied and still be on a card that wouldn't illuminate under a black light?

Enjoying the feedback so far?

With the large caveat that you can never tell from a scan I think the card has a reasonable chance of being good. When you compare the upside ($100,000 + card) to the downside (wasting $25 to get it graded—if it is fake you won’t have the high fee) it’s a no brainer to get it graded.

Paskar, are you in Ft. Wayne, Indiana? It is true that if SGC or PSA holders it you are good to go.

The similarity of the (what should be) unique print marking/stains on the back makes the card immediately highly suspect of it being authentic.

I think the feedback is good. Three things can't tolerate are liars, cheaters, or thieves. Scamming people isn't cool. I would not be ok with selling anybody anything by trying to deceive them. I'm sceptical about the authenticity of the card as much as anybody else. It's why I came into the forum and posted pics of the card. It's good feedback and I appreciate it...Getting it graded is a simple choice. If the card's not real, it wont cost much. If it's real, hahaha yep, I will do cartwheels....

Welcome to the forum btw.

Exactly. There are at least three print marks on the front that match up perfectly with the two Ruths shown here, and none of these are found on the PSA 1.5 Ruth. The discoloration is also lacking on the PSA 1.5 Ruth.

Yes, paskar, welcome to the forum and Happy Holidays.

I want to know how a whole grain bread advertisement can be too grainy.

im pretty sure this hafner is fake. i don't like the shared print marks/stains as pointed out. I don't like the space between the border and the inner image starting. I don't like the matching "smudge" marks to the rt of the back either.

The graininess is a concern buit some of these early 20's late teens issues can be grainy.

Frank...you're the best!

my grainy e122. This hafner is a different kinda grainy.

When the player depicted is the great Cleveland outfielder Jack Graney.

Random Graney trivia; Jack Graney was the first batter to face Babe Ruth in an MLB game, July 11th, 1914.

Get it graded, but the square corners bother me.

Save your money. The matching stains on the back confirm that it's not legitimate.

paskar,

Send it in for grading. There is one long, and I mean long, shot that these two Ruths were produced on the same machine within a short period of time thus the same flaw. Highly unlikely, but......... I would suggest PSA only because you could compare it to the SGC sample if it passes inspection.

Here they are beside each other.

I like the one on the right.

You are of course free to do what you wish, and I guess the risk/reward analysis points towards sending it for grading. However, as stated earlier the print flaws on the front are as troubling as those on the back, IMO. On both yours and the PSA 3, there is a print mark just off his bent knee, another crotch- high not quite half way to the right border, and a small white dot on his chin. More telling is the slight discoloration to the left of “Babe” that extends into the bottom of the photo– same for both cards. None of these are found on the PSA 1 example shown here:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...giant/uyuy.jpg

That's helpful thx ben.

Looking back through some old posts as I couldn't sleep. And was wondering if Paskar ever reported in with his grading results on this Ruth. Seems like the outcome was not a good one.

I think it possible that JollyElm has already coined a new hobby word. If you get a negative outcome from a grading company in regards to the authenticity of a submitted card, you just received a 'Big-Tayto-Loaf'.

Sorry Jolly for stepping on your word turf.


Brian