Babe Ruth Signature Authenticity Question

[swarmee]

Same parallel with trading cards that not everyone agrees are trimmed or altered, or jerseys/bats which may or may not be game-used. Anywhere there is value, there is fraud and uncertainty.

[ruth-gehrig]

I would trust Brendan more than anyone else when it comes to Babe Ruth signatures!

When Ruth signatures are brought up I frequently want to present this one. Not mine. Can only imagine what the pack opener thought when they first laid eyes on this if they were familiar with Ruth's "typical" signature.

[rand1com]

That is one ugly Ruth autograph if indeed authentic. I would not want it unless I witnessed him signing it and since he died 8 years before I was born, that is impossible.

But, there are plenty of potential buyers because "someone" judged it authentic. Looking at the back of the card and seeing if PSA/DNA or JSA signed off on it would be interesting. Sometimes, they just state that a qualified authenticator judged the autograph authentic.

For me, I trust Jimmy Spence over the others but that is personal preference. I have bought and sold many PSA/DNA authenticated autographs as well and they are also good. Does not mean that either of them are infallible. It is an educated opinion. No more, no less. if that is not good enough, stay away from autographs.

[ruth-gehrig]

And here is the back......Loa from Spence

[rand1com]

Well, based on my previous statement about Spence, I accept his opinion at face value.

The dual combo with Gehrig certainly has value but it is ridiculous not to place a more representative example of Ruth in one of the premiere pulls from this product. If I had pulled this one even if I knew it was authentic, I would have been ticked about the example of Ruth. But, I don’t open wax to gamble on so no chance I would have pulled it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Same parallel with trading cards that not everyone agrees are trimmed or altered, or jerseys/bats which may or may not be game-used. Anywhere there is value, there is fraud and uncertainty.

A trimmed or altered card is still genuine, and bats and jerseys (flannels, anyway) are very hard to fake. There may always be the possibility a player didn't actually use a bat or jersey, but the item itself can be determined to be genuine. Unless it's a very valuable piece, creating a fake bat or old jersey that would fool any serious collector would not make financial sense.

Unlike someone taking pencil or pen to old paper, genuine baseball, photo, or card.

For instance, I could spend $5 today, buying a 1963 Topps Ken Hubbs card, and faking an autograph on it. But there's virtually no way to create a counterfeit 1961-64 Hubbs H&B bat, or a flannel jersey that would match exemplars down to the materials, thread color and stitching, pass the table lamp and black light tests, include all appropriate tagging, age, wear, puckering, etc.

Originally Posted by rand1com

That is one ugly Ruth autograph if indeed authentic. I would not want it unless I witnessed him signing it and since he died 8 years before I was born, that is impossible.

But, there are plenty of potential buyers because "someone" judged it authentic. Looking at the back of the card and seeing if PSA/DNA or JSA signed off on it would be interesting. Sometimes, they just state that a qualified authenticator judged the autograph authentic.

For me, I trust Jimmy Spence over the others but that is personal preference. I have bought and sold many PSA/DNA authenticated autographs as well and they are also good. Does not mean that either of them are infallible. It is an educated opinion. No more, no less. if that is not good enough, stay away from autographs.

Exactly. I can say I definitely have a 1963 Bob Allison Twins home jersey. Can't say for certain Allison wore it, unless I am able to find a conclusive photo match, but I am 100% certain the item was prepared for him in '63 and is genuine. The guy with that ugly Ruth? He cannot make any assertion whatsoever. To me, spending dough on a bunch of "maybes" wouldn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling. The uncertainty would nag at me, never to be satisfactorily resolved. I'd have nightmares of Ed Filbertson carefully penning the Ruth, then looking up at me, laughing maniacally.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Mark17

A trimmed or altered card is still genuine, and bats and jerseys (flannels, anyway) are very hard to fake. There may always be the possibility a player didn't actually use a bat or jersey, but the item itself can be determined to be genuine. Unless it's a very valuable piece, creating a fake bat or old jersey that would fool any serious collector would not make financial sense.

Unlike someone taking pencil or pen to old paper, genuine baseball, photo, or card.

For instance, I could spend $5 today, buying a 1963 Topps Ken Hubbs card, and faking an autograph on it. But there's virtually no way to create a counterfeit 1961-64 Hubbs H&B bat, or a flannel jersey that would match exemplars down to the materials, thread color and stitching, pass the table lamp and black light tests, include all appropriate tagging, age, wear, puckering, etc.



Exactly. I can say I definitely have a 1963 Bob Allison Twins home jersey. Can't say for certain Allison wore it, unless I am able to find a conclusive photo match, but I am 100% certain the item was prepared for him in '63 and is genuine. The guy with that ugly Ruth? He cannot make any assertion whatsoever. To me, spending dough on a bunch of "maybes" wouldn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling. The uncertainty would nag at me, never to be satisfactorily resolved. I'd have nightmares of Ed Filbertson carefully penning the Ruth, then looking up at me, laughing maniacally.

Even with game used items, the difference in price between a game issued jersey of an all time player and a game used jersey of same player is monumental.

Yes, the jersey may be real but the value is negligible compared to a game used one and you are counting on mainly experts just the same as on autographs to determine the liklihood of game use.

The opinions of John Taube on game used bats carries weight in the market whereas someone else unknown in the hobby with more knowledge than him carries zero weight.

It is all just something to collect anyway and the added value is only important if you are selling.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Even with game used items, the difference in price between a game issued jersey of an all time player and a game used jersey of same player is monumental.

Yes, the jersey may be real but the value is negligible compared to a game used one and you are counting on mainly experts just the same as on autographs to determine the liklihood of game use.

The opinions of John Taube on game used bats carries weight in the market whereas someone else unknown in the hobby with more knowledge than him carries zero weight.

It is all just something to collect anyway and the added value is only important if you are selling.

What Taube has, besides a ton of personal knowledge of bats, are access to shipping records and an extensive database of exemplars. For instance, I once asked him about a Billy Williams 1961-64 GU bat. It matched factory records, had the uniform number written on the knob, looked good in every way, except all the ball marks were on the wrong side of the barrel, as though used by a righthanded hitter.

John then asked, "Which side of the barrel has the widest grain?" An odd question, I thought, but I replied, the side with the ball marks. John said that's what all of his exemplar Williams bats showed, and then he explained to me that some players thought wider grain made a harder hitting surface, so they'd go label up or label down depending which side had the widest grain.

With jerseys, use can never be certain without a photo match (and even they can be deceiving.) Unless a player chewed tobacco and left stains (like my 1960 Sal Maglie coaches shirt) it's about impossible to determine who put the wear on a shirt. Could've been done in subsequent season(s) in spring training or the minors by a different man. But that's like saying a player might not have used a fishing pole he owned, or driven the car registered to him, etc.

Autographs are far, far easier to fake, and fake completely. I hope we can agree on that because I think it's an obvious thing.

[rand1com]

No question there are more autograph forgeries than fake jerseys. However, the experts who authenticate autographs glean the same kind of knowledge about autographs that Taube has on bats. If Spence and Grad and the PSA/DNA guys all agree on an autograph it is very, very likely it is authentic. However, they do disagree from time to time even on Ruth so yes it can be a catch 22.

[Bpm0014]

I would trust Brendan more than anyone else when it comes to Babe Ruth signatures!

Thank you, brother; that means a lot to me.

[MVSNYC]

As an aside...John Taube is a savant when it comes to bats. Ive owned many game used bats over the years (currently only own one), and I would never touch a bat unless it had a full PSA/DNA Taube letter. Many of the ones I've owned, I acquired directly from him. Great guy.