1915 Sporting News Babe Ruth, original? Reprint? Fake?

[Archive]

Posted By: Russ

What do you guys think?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

see message title...need a better scan but it looks yucky

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It looks fake based on the scan, but a clearer picture would be helpful.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

Edited to say: its not mine by the way...

?t=1183331978

[Archive]

Posted By: Russ

The picture is crystal clear. That is exactly the way the card looks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Russ

Here it is shrunk down so you're not seeing every pixel giant sized.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

The straight Black lines that border the picture on Russ's card (not saying its your card literally Russ), they are NOT straight but wavy, almost like they were filled in.


The PSA graded card seems like the black lines are very straight.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Still looks fake. The left side border is not straight and continuous...the wear on the corners looks suspicious to me to be that rounded without having any other wear or creasing on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I really never was interested in the fronts of mine but I just looked and grabbed a few to add to my website, front side up....these are big scans on purpose...and these are real...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I vote real. Probably incorrectly, but I still vote real.

The gap between the black border and edge of image is about the same in both.

The same amount of foot shows relative to the right border in both cards.

Same amount of space between foot and bottom border.

There is a break in the border at the lower left corner on both cards.

I'm trying to remember where I got these "tells" from - maybe Pete Calderon's web site? I'm not sure, but for those items both scans look the same.

So I'm probably missing something, or maybe the info I have only applies to one kind of reprint. But I'd go with real.

J

ETA - just checked PC's web site and don't see anything about these cards. So now I really don't remember where I got it from.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think it will turn out to be a poor copy of an original card...not a reprint like we see with the bigger white borders....that photo is aweful and the photos on real ones were pretty good...just my opinion....

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

rather than reprint. The space between the black border line and the photo is correct, which is the giveaway with the reprint sets. But a real card can always be duplicated... This one looks rather washed out and blurry from the scan.

If you actually have the card, I would suggest searching the board history for one of David Rudd's instructional posts on detecting recent reproductions. Under magnification, if the card has a "dot matrix" look, it's a recent repro. A loupe should tell the tale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Russ

Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is bogus. First, the image is very grainy. The few legit cards I've seen from this era were much crisper, more photographic in quality. Second, and perhaps most important, the owner bought it on eBay for $700. Seems to me that if a seller is unloading a card like this ungraded, there is likely a reason.

BTW, I should note that I'm a coin guy not a card guy. So I know about as much about this stuff as Bill Clinton knows about marital fidelity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

The Ruth Is A Fake!

The real Ruth card has a thicker bold type!
(BABE RUTH P.- Boston Red sox 151)




http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=70725