ruth check question

[w7imel]

I want another ruth check and have had eyes on this one for a while. Does it look fine for me to pull the trigger? Negotiated a good price but want to run it by you guys before I do buy. Im no Ruth expert by any means but appears to be written in his hand. Are there any concerns? Thanks

[David Atkatz]

It's fine. Here's mine--written three months before, and in excellent numerical agreement:

[Runscott]

The signature looks great. And at first glance, so does the handwriting. If you hold off a little while, there will be a great signed Ruth voucher in Al's next auction - the vouchers are a little larger, as is Ruth's signature.

[w7imel]

here is my first one everything look ok on this one as well?

[w7imel]

what are vouchers? any pictures? and is it signed Babe ruth or GH ruth? I have always wanted a "babe ruth" but you guys have scared the piss out of me to buy anything other than a check. hahah lol. If I could ever find something that everyone agreed on I might buy.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by w7imel

what are vouchers? any pictures? and is it signed Babe ruth or GH ruth? I have always wanted a "babe ruth" but you guys have scared the piss out of me to buy anything other than a check. hahah lol. If I could ever find something that everyone agreed on I might buy.

Not sure but all the checks I have seen where GH Ruth.
The counter check I saw was GH Ruth but so much larger than the regular check that you see. The signiture looks twice the size.
If you have ever watched an old movie. They would ask do you have counter check or a voucher. It was very common at that time. They would would say what bank. No account number and then it would be cashed.

[drcy]

To answer W7's question, the mentioned Ruth bank payment voucher resembles a check but is bigger. Babe was his nickname and you're supposed to sign a check or other financial/legal contract document with your formal legal name. That would explain the lack of Ruth checks and vouchers signed 'Babe.'

[johnmh71]

Originally Posted by shelly

Not sure but all the checks I have seen where GH Ruth.
The counter check I saw was GH Ruth but so much larger than the regular check that you see. The signiture looks twice the size.
If you have ever watched an old movie. They would ask do you have counter check or a voucher. It was very common at that time. They would would say what bank. No account number and then it would be cashed.

Which one would be considered more rare and how does it affect the value?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

Which one would be considered more rare and how does it affect the value?

I was only able to find three vouchers by googling, so they are not easy to come by, which is why I acquired it. I hope it affects value in a very positive way.

[David Atkatz]

Supply and demand, Scott. Everyone is familiar with checks, and Ruth's are pre-printed "Babe Ruth." Much bigger comfort zone.

[shelly]

I agree with Scott. I have seen hundreds of GH Ruth Checks but almost never see a counter check. The last time I saw one I think was about five years ago. I am sure if it is going into auction it will be certed.
I think it should sell for more because it is an item you dont see very often. Just an opinion.

[David Atkatz]

I once had--and subsequently sold--a Gehrig-signed paper party hat. Only one I've ever seen. Probably the only one anyone's ever seen.

It didn't make me rich. (Supply and demand.)

[drcy]

Buyer perception does influence, but the average person who sees the Ruth voucher and isn't told its name would call it a bank check because that's basically what it looks like. It would be accountants and seasoned autograph collectors who call it a voucher not a check. If I hadn't been informed of the correct terminology by Scott, I would call it a check.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Supply and demand, Scott. Everyone is familiar with checks, and Ruth's are pre-printed "Babe Ruth." Much bigger comfort zone.

That's why I said "I hope". My gamble was that collectors might want a larger signature on a tougher item - 2 such collectors would be enough. I could be wrong of course. I'm surprised at how many collectors (not just in this thread, but I have had PM's as well) are asking if signed Ruth checks are good - his signatures on these appear (to me) to be his most consistent. And while I am not a COA fan, the JSA letter that comes with mine might provide additional comfort.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I once had--and subsequently sold--a Gehrig-signed paper party hat. Only one I've ever seen. Probably the only one anyone's ever seen.

It didn't make me rich. (Supply and demand.)

If it was larger than Gehrig's normal paper party hats, and the signature was larger, I think it might have sold for more than his normal small ones that are pre-printed with his name.

[r2678]

Does the fact that most of his checks are signed by his initials GH instead of Babe hold down their value, or does the perceived authenticity of a check balance that out?

[Klrdds]

In my opinion the value is because it is a Ruth piece specifically a check regardless of signature type, and a check is a great Ruth piece for any collection. I view the G H Ruth signature on my Ruth check as just another variation of his signature. As a purist if you collect Ruth autographed items you could do as I and many others have done and collect all variations of his signature on items, it makes a fun search/project.

[w7imel]

And to Scott's reply about so many people asking if Ruth checks are ok. Its because the autograph forgeries have made myself as well as I'm sure most of us leary of dropping several thousand bucks on something that at least someone with years experience hasn't looked at for a quick second opinion.

[Runscott]

I understand. If you google Ruth checks you will find a far far smaller % of forgeries than any other type of signed Ruth item.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I understand. If you google Ruth checks you will find a far far smaller % of forgeries than any other type of signed Ruth item.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

This is very true. Though by no means automatically genuine, checks, contracts, and official documents afford collectors with items that have a less likely chance of being forged.

Within Ruth's lifetime, many proxies signed for the Babe, fellow players, clubhouse personnel, caddies, secretaries, etc., etc., a frenzied demand for Ruth signed baseballs and photos in comparison to others of notoriety.

An ever-increasing forging trend has further diluted the genuine ones to an unimaginable degree, the existing number of genuinely signed Ruth baseballs staggeringly low compared to the seemingly endless supply, far more rare now than most can conceive of.

Going with checks and official documents/contracts is one way to tip the odds of authentic acquisition back to at least 50/50 (as these too have been counterfeited or altered, due diligence still should be maintained).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by w7imel

And to Scott's reply about so many people asking if Ruth checks are ok. Its because the autograph forgeries have made myself as well as I'm sure most of us leary of dropping several thousand bucks on something that at least someone with years experience hasn't looked at for a quick second opinion.

As you spend more time studying examples of Ruth's signature, you will hopefully become more comfortable with non-legal signed items. With all the forgeries out there, it certainly is more rewarding to acquire an item that you had to work harder to feel comfortable with. I have a Ruth-signed notecard as an example, and love the story behind it.

I haven't trusted most Ruth-signed balls but at the National a friend of a friend brought a 1928 Ruth home run ball to my table for an opinion. I was surprised at how easy it was to feel comfortable that it was real, even without the amazing story behind it. After this experience I made a mental note to myself: Don't rule out Ruth-signed balls, but make sure you can see them in person before purchasing.

Nothing wrong with getting second opinions. One person might feel very comfortable buying Ruth checks, but not so much buying a ball. Others might not feel comfortable with anything, which is also fine.

[w7imel]

Thanks again for all advice. I got my Check out and under magnification along with several other "know good examples". I think I'm finely starting to understand the "Bouncy" term you guys always talk about. I also starting to see the points where more pressure is exerted to the pen during signature strokes. The fake seem a whole lot different like the signature has no natural flow. Also interesting to see how ink looks twice as dark in spots where letters are retraced during authentic signatures vs forgeries....Thanks again guys for helping me "take my game to a new level" Very glad I got a little more serius about the hobby. May save me alot of headache down the road.

Mike

[Leon]

Nice checks, guys. Thanks for sharing too..

[yanksfan09]

here's mine.... took photo under a yellow light, makes color look different.

[w7imel]

++++++++++++++ Very nice!!!!! You also got a check he made out to claire. I bought mine for that reason, because you get 2 ruth signatures on same check. Thanks for sharing.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by w7imel

++++++++++++++ Very nice!!!!! You also got a check he made out to claire. I bought mine for that reason, because you get 2 ruth signatures on same check. Thanks for sharing.

No problem, yours is very nice too. Now 3 Claire Ruth-Ruth checks in this thread....

[w7imel]

Very nice!!!!! Any others out there? What kind of yellow light behind it? I want to take picture of mine that way as well.

[yanksfan09]

It was just one of those soft yellow light (not white light)energy efficient spiral bulbs above it, not behind. I just moved it under light bulb because the room was dark. I wasn't really trying to give it any kind of color effect just needed adequate lighting to get a good shot but then noticed the check looks a bit different in the photo.