Babe Ruth Signature Authenticity Question

[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.