Posted By:
Dr.Koos...gives off a certain "vibe". This is NOT Ruth. I studied Ruth signatures very closely because at one time, about 2 years ago I was interested in pursuing Ruth/Gehrig signed baseballs and documents and knew I'd better KNOW MY STUFF if I started buying those type of items. The letter formation, the distance and angle involved in the space between the end of the 'e' and the 'R', the angle, the 'R' itself, the 'B' and especially the 'e', also the way the signature ends...ALL are off. I've warned people off certain forgeries on Ebay before and off certain fakes (ask Goudey Guy about a Ruth I saved him on). I've even SEEN the same characteristics in this Ruth signature that I've seen in Cobb and Gehrig forgeries before as well, it's NOT an isolated forger. It doesn't "feel" right and looks WAY off to me. Even the color of the ink looks off for 50+ years old ink from what I've observed in examples from museums and official documents. Let a FORENSIC guy check the ink..it's age..the amount of years that have approx. passed since it was applied by allegedly "Ruth" which would have to have been at least 54 years ago. NO WAY. I KNOW that wasn't done. How? Because if it was, PSA/DNA and Spence WOULDN'T HAVE AUTHENTICATED IT. This Ruth is NG, and I'd bet the farm on that!! Ask Richard Simon straight up. I haven't, but I KNOW from reading his site that he KNOWS HIS RUTHS, and there is no way that he wouldn't red flag this one. The bigger I blow it up on my software, the worse it looks! Find a Ruth check (not hard to do) and compare the 'RUTH', compare the 'Babe' if not signed George H. It isn't that terrible as far as Ruth forgeries go BUT it ISN'T RUTH's signature. Have it tested. You'll see.