1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)

[Clutch-Hitter]

Sorry to ramble: why would anyone go to the trouble of making high quality counterfeits, using vintage paper and somehow photo engraving them, and make a stupid decision to leave the ultra important advertising off the back? Doesn't make sense at all. Respectfully

[Clutch-Hitter]

I scanned this card with default scanning setting (1st page) initially, which was bright with little conrast. These are the same scans opened with Corel Paint Paint Pro, auto correct

[Clutch-Hitter]

This 1928 Ruth Candy #1 with the ad back came from a Lew Lipset auction and will be compared to the blank back:

[Clutch-Hitter]

[Clutch-Hitter]

Fakes on both ends, 1927 Fro Joy Tunney in the middle (ice cream on it), and the two '28 Ruth Candy's (#1 has a little candy on it):

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

Sorry to ramble: why would anyone go to the trouble of making high quality counterfeits, using vintage paper and somehow photo engraving them, and make a stupid decision to leave the ultra important advertising off the back? Doesn't make sense at all. Respectfully

I assume they would leave the back blank to make things easier. Counterfeiters would print these out by the sheet and then cut the cards from the sheet. If they also had to print the advertising back, they would need to make sure that the back was centered properly with the front.

Out of curiosity, does the texture, thickness of the card with the advertising back feel the same as the blank back? e.g., does it seem as if the card stock is the same?

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by glchen

I assume they would leave the back blank to make things easier. Counterfeiters would print these out by the sheet and then cut the cards from the sheet. If they also had to print the advertising back, they would need to make sure that the back was centered properly with the front.

Out of curiosity, does the texture, thickness of the card with the advertising back feel the same as the blank back? e.g., does it seem as if the card stock is the same?

Yes, the card stock is the same. The darker portions of the #1 card bled through to the back, which causes the back to look slightly darker, that and some staining.

According to a past auction description at Legendary, there was a theory that the ones like Leon's were printed first and high demand led to the others. But there are so few like Leon's, so it seems like they would have been special, like a current insert maybe.

I read somewhere that the '28 Ruth Candy cards were manufactured for an entire year, which makes me wonder just how many balls Ruth signed. Think about the cola games we've been playing for years; the codes and such under the caps. Sometimes you lose, so why would all these cards have the winner on the back? Not all the W517's had a winner stripe; wouldn't be as interesting. FKW mentioned the last card being a chase card, which may be true, but apparently the blank backs participated in the chase. FKW theorized this because there are so few of the last card offered, but aren't there just as few of babe and wife, or maybe some others? The blank back card pictured above is real, but the conspiracy surrounding the Fro Joy's makes us read into it too much. There are two types of fakes and both are ugly.

Fro Joy sheets were counterfeited and singles were cut and sold from those sheets. There are many people out there, most everybody in fact, who think all Fro Joy's were cut from a sheet and should have dotted lines. A lot of people got ripped off with those fake sheets and still do. I bought one in 2010. Both of the reprints under the black light above were cut from fake sheets (corners of the box on back broken, cut lines, etc.).

Also, some obvious counterfeits were modeled after the blank back. It wouldn't make sense to model a low quality counterfeit after a high quality counterfeit. And just how many of the obvious reprints do you see that aren't of the batting pose? I don't believe I've ever seen one of Babe and wife, not the obvious ones, heck I don't know if I've ever seen any at all of wife and Babe offered. It's always the batting pose, maybe the standing portrait. The obvious fakes is what you usually see, but every so often a real one will show up.

So to say this is fake is to assume some master counterfeiter got some really old paper and chose the card with wife and Babe to copy, to photo engrave? No, not true. The blank back card looks like the #1 card because it's real.

I found a site today that said that paper made 1950 and later fluoresces under a black light.

Oh and let me show these cards (Thanks again Jason. Note the non-uncut sheet characteristics and the bleeding onto the back like a 33 Goudey. The cards with the lighter fronts have bleeding but less noticeable than the ones with the darker fronts):

[Jaybird]

Greg, I think you are doing some interesting work on these issues. As more and more people post their cards on this thread, I think we will see your theory proved out. Time will tell but I do appreciate that you're putting forth theories which hopefully will bring clarity to the fakes in these issues and also restore confidence in the cards that are not reprints (i.e., original to the issue).

[Clutch-Hitter]

Another couple of things:

1. The #1 card and the blank back smell the same.

2. See the stain on the right front side of the blank back and how it makes the paper the same color as the many stains on the #1 card? The stain on the blank back card is also on the back and makes the paper the same color as the stains on the #1 card. The blank back is much cleaner, but not totally clean.

3. I'm pretty sure that's a candy stain on the right front of the blank back. Many authentic Fro Joy's have ice cream stains.

4. I bought a Fro Joy grip card last year that I thought was fake although it didn't have the uncut sheet characteristics. There's a thread in which I went back and forth on it. I thought it was fake because it was much cleaner than my other Fro Joy's, like the two pictured above. BVG gave it a 2.

5. Why do so many reputable people say there are authentic blank backs, and why is it such a coincidence that this blank back looks the same as the #1 card, both in the high resolution scans and under the black light? It's because it's real.

[Leon]

This thread has been added to our permanent archive. If you look on any page, at the far right icon towards the middle-top of each page you will see our Net54 Forum Archive Center. It has quite a few of our most educational threads under it. Thanks to Greg for all of his work on this.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Thank you Leon!

[HBroll]

Greg,
Great detective work and very interesting. I have 2 raw Ruth candy cards I bought probably about 6 or 7 years ago that I would like to get your opinion on.

In the first photo the one on the right is the sepia colored blank back card #2 and the one on the left is better quality "chase" card #6 which is blank backed. Photo 2 is a copy of the backs.

The #6 card I have some concerns about. It has the smaller circled number associated with fakes and also has "Swats" instead of "swats" and the printing is closer together. On the plus side it is not cropped on 3 sides like you see on the fake cards and there is plenty of room from the top of his head to the border which is a characteristic of a real card.

In the 3rd photo I put the 2 cards sandwiched between 2 fake Exhibit cards and in the 4th photo I did the black light test. As you can see the Exhibit cards light up but the 2 Ruth candy cards do not. The Ruth candy cards pass the black light test. I do not know what to make of this. Card #6 has both characteristics of a real & fake card. Photo 5 shows the difference between a fake and real Ruth candy cards. What do you think? I appreciate your help.