![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Any opinions on this Ruth autograph? I saw one of these sell in the Heritage Auction last night on same check type and customer signature except for only $5.00.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Of course it's good.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It’s good
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Awesome ruth check!!!!
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Perfectly fine
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A lot of views with only 4 opinions. Any one else?
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I was wondering why you said"of course"??
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
To compare apples to apples, here are pictures from the Heritage Auction I referred to in the original post. Obviously, does not have the Purple Cashed Jamaica stamp which appears to be a possible issue but the Bank of Manhattan red stamp appears to be a match on the check I have to the check in the auction.
Last edited by rand1com; 05-11-2021 at 03:02 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great information Jim thanks! Upon further review of the original check, you can clearly see where someone changed $5.00 into $500.00.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So if Jim's premise that someone got a period check and filled it out to Ruth in order to forge his signature on the reverse to sell it as a forgery, what was the incentive to change the original amount from $5.00 to $500?
Why would the amount make any difference? Especially since obviously the one they would have been trying to replicate which according to Heritage is indeed authentic was for $5.00. I agree upon a closer look that the two zeroes appear to have been added with a slightly different pen and perhaps as Jim surmised the red blotch covers an attempt to change the amount but again for what reason. Is a $500 Ruth check worth more than a $5 one if both are perceived to be authentic as to Ruth's signature? Also, comparing the clearing house stamps on both checks they indeed appear to be a match. I am not trying to justify that the check is authentic as for close to 15 years I have assumed that it is not. However, something does not add up in this case and I would just like a plausible answer. The Ruth signature is clearly live ink. Even if replicated by a laser as Jim guesses, the change to the amount makes no sense to me. Last edited by rand1com; 05-12-2021 at 05:58 AM. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wtb: Babe ruth signed check | fuzzybub | Autographs & Game Used B/S/T | 0 | 08-12-2017 01:21 PM |
Babe Ruth Autograph Check Cut Help Please | daves_resale_shop | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 21 | 08-31-2012 11:45 PM |
Babe Ruth Signed Check 1940 PSA/DNA | MVSNYC | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 08-26-2011 10:33 PM |
Check this one out.....Babe Ruth? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 09-25-2007 08:04 PM |
I'm going home to check my Babe Ruth underwear! | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 05-27-2007 01:16 AM |