Opinions on this Ruth FDC??

[Westsiders]

Any opinions on this "self addressed" and signed Ruth FDC?

Not a "gotcha" post at all. For full disclosure, this piece has been fully certed by one of the alphabet companies (on more than one occasion)....and received a "likely genuine" by the other.

On the other hand, this piece was specifically discussed as a forgery in Ron K's book.

Interested to hear your opinions.

[Scott Garner]

I am certainly not a Ruth expert, but I would say yes.

I would have felt that way even if I did not know that it had been deemed real.
The flow and appearance of this matches the feel of other authentic examples of Babe Ruth's sig that I have seen through the years.

[slidekellyslide]

compare it to a letter I have where Ruth wrote down the same address. Eyeballing both of them which were written only one month apart I say YES, yours is authentic.

[Westsiders]

Thanks for the responses guys. While I'm definitely not a Ruth expert, I am familiar with his signature and have/do own numerous pieces. My first impression was that it was good. After a closer look, I began to have some doubts. After researching it, I can across Ron K's book, in which he seems to specifically discuss this exact piece (and how he opines that its a forgery). So obviously there's some differing opinions on this one.

While there are aspects that I really like about it, there are some that cause me some pause.

First of all, I still can't come up with a plausible explanation as to why Ruth would address and send this to himself (and signing his name in the process). Maybe he was a collector himself, and wanted to add this piece to his collection. If that's the case, then I feel it would add great value to this piece. Obviously that's possible, but just not sure that makes sense.

Secondly, the "B" to the "a" connection is definitely atypical (though not completely unique to this piece).

Next, the "i" to the "d" connection in Riverside also seems odd (as if he was about to misspell it).

The sticker placed on the piece also seems suspicious. Why put such a generic and unappealing sitcker (and sloppily done) on such a nice piece? Was it to cover up a more glaring mistake?

I'm not making a case against this being authentic, just expressing some concerns and trying to educate myself a bit.

Thanks guys....and would love to hear any other opinions.

[johnmh71]

I have also read Ron K's book, and as much as I respect it, you should keep in mind that he has an opinion just like anybody else.

I also think your signature is good.

[slidekellyslide]

Looking at the address on your cover and the address on my letter it's almost identical..there is no problem with flow in either of them...I think your Ruth is 100% authentic. The letter I have came from a large collection of letters from this Dr Steen...they had never seen the light of day until the last 8 months...there is no autograph on mine, no need for any secretary to try and duplicate Ruth's handwriting.

[canjond]

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

[Runscott]

I think it can help to look at individual letters and their connections to other letters, especially in the context of two similar items like this - if both 'are authentic', and they appear to be, then it gives you ideas of variations in the person's signing habits;e.g.-two different 'r's in 'New York', two different connections between 'e' and 'r' in 'Riverside', 'B' and 'a' seeming to connect, etc. Once you know that such anomalies exist in Ruth's writing, they won't bother you as much when you run across them in the future.

[steve B]

There's a ceremony of some sort for nearly every stamp. Some bigger than others. The one for the baseball centennial would have been a big one since it was part of the opening of the HOF.

Unaddessed FDCs weren't common until the early 30's. The ones unadressed were usually made by dealers. The addressed ones were usually done by people attending the opening ceremony, and by people sending in mail orders.

There were 398,199 FDCs for the baseball centennial. Most of the addressed ones would have been made by individuals bringing a SASE buying a stamp and handing it in to be mailed. The ones to be mailed would have gone through the regular machine canceller for that town, and delivered as mail. That's probably how the Ruth one was made.

Handstamped ones like the Johnson were either handed back to the person receiving it, or went on unusual mailpieces or other items. The stamp could have been put on just about anything. Postcards, foreign addresses and stuff like registered mail are common back then. More recently ones on large postcards or photos are popular.

Cacheted covers would have been available from a variety of dealers, and some were probably there selling cacheted envelopes for people to have cancelled.

The small picture was probably added by a later owner.
Aside from that, the cover is what I'd expect from a popular guy who was busy but either wanted or had to attend the first day ceremony. A simple envelope addressed to himself, and simply stamped and handed in to whatever clerk was available just then. A nice simple souvenir for very little effort. He wouldn't even have to keep track of it , it would probably be waiting in his mail box when he got home.

I won't comment about the autograph, but the cover is the sort of cover I'd be more comfortable with.

Steve B

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's a ceremony of some sort for nearly every stamp. Some bigger than others. The one for the baseball centennial would have been a big one since it was part of the opening of the HOF.

Unaddessed FDCs weren't common until the early 30's. The ones unadressed were usually made by dealers. The addressed ones were usually done by people attending the opening ceremony, and by people sending in mail orders.

There were 398,199 FDCs for the baseball centennial. Most of the addressed ones would have been made by individuals bringing a SASE buying a stamp and handing it in to be mailed. The ones to be mailed would have gone through the regular machine canceller for that town, and delivered as mail. That's probably how the Ruth one was made.

Handstamped ones like the Johnson were either handed back to the person receiving it, or went on unusual mailpieces or other items. The stamp could have been put on just about anything. Postcards, foreign addresses and stuff like registered mail are common back then. More recently ones on large postcards or photos are popular.

Cacheted covers would have been available from a variety of dealers, and some were probably there selling cacheted envelopes for people to have cancelled.

The small picture was probably added by a later owner.
Aside from that, the cover is what I'd expect from a popular guy who was busy but either wanted or had to attend the first day ceremony. A simple envelope addressed to himself, and simply stamped and handed in to whatever clerk was available just then. A nice simple souvenir for very little effort. He wouldn't even have to keep track of it , it would probably be waiting in his mail box when he got home.

I won't comment about the autograph, but the cover is the sort of cover I'd be more comfortable with.

Steve B

That's a lot of great information. Thanks!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's a ceremony of some sort for nearly every stamp. Some bigger than others. The one for the baseball centennial would have been a big one since it was part of the opening of the HOF.

Unaddessed FDCs weren't common until the early 30's. The ones unadressed were usually made by dealers. The addressed ones were usually done by people attending the opening ceremony, and by people sending in mail orders.

There were 398,199 FDCs for the baseball centennial. Most of the addressed ones would have been made by individuals bringing a SASE buying a stamp and handing it in to be mailed. The ones to be mailed would have gone through the regular machine canceller for that town, and delivered as mail. That's probably how the Ruth one was made.

Handstamped ones like the Johnson were either handed back to the person receiving it, or went on unusual mailpieces or other items. The stamp could have been put on just about anything. Postcards, foreign addresses and stuff like registered mail are common back then. More recently ones on large postcards or photos are popular.

Cacheted covers would have been available from a variety of dealers, and some were probably there selling cacheted envelopes for people to have cancelled.

The small picture was probably added by a later owner.
Aside from that, the cover is what I'd expect from a popular guy who was busy but either wanted or had to attend the first day ceremony. A simple envelope addressed to himself, and simply stamped and handed in to whatever clerk was available just then. A nice simple souvenir for very little effort. He wouldn't even have to keep track of it , it would probably be waiting in his mail box when he got home.

I won't comment about the autograph, but the cover is the sort of cover I'd be more comfortable with.

Steve B

Good info Steve..