1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, that's interesting for sure. I'm not sure how FKW deemed what is and is not authentic. We all know when you crop into an image, you lessen the quality, which is the case in what we're calling the fakes: cropped into the image resulting in less quality. We lumped the smaller card number in there somehow, so there must be a reason. I don't understand why a counterfeiter would crop into the image of an authentic card...

I bought a cheap Ruth Candy reprint just for this and received it in the mail today. Here's the much less than impressive "engraving" on the batting pose:[/B]









Here's the engraving on a 1970's Fro Joy that was cut from a fake sheet:









Previous Fro Joy reprint next to a real Fro Joy:









Two real Ruth Candy cards and two real Fro Joy's corner to corner (note how similar the paper is):

[Clutch-Hitter]

Several months ago I bought this, got it home, hit the front with a black light, noted no glowing, and tossed it in the closet. While searching the internet a few days ago, I came across the Legendary auction in which a 1/1 of this had been sold. I had been thinking this was nothing but a less than hundred dollar...thing. I e-mailed R. Lifson (very generous with his time even during the then current auction), and he said he wasn't sure but was concerned about the authenticity. When I couldn't find a photo of the back under a black light, realizing I didn't do that, I got the thing out and did that...

1. If the card is too dark under the black light, there may be a problem (I had to over-expose because in the normal way I do it, the thing was not even visible)
2. Check every bit of the card, not just the card as a whole
3. Always use it on the back too.

Had I known how important the real version of this "card" was when I bought this, I would have been very skeptical like with regular cards.

Note the circle where the thing should be hung from a wall and the edges in the front photo with the black light.




And here it is...I've been had!

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, I found this #6 card in a PSA holder that looks exactly like yours, non-cropped and all, and next to it a batting pose in a PSA holder (doesn't look like yours but lumped in with the #6 card). I thought these were fakes before based on FKW's observations, but are they? Hopefully he'll see this.

[HBroll]

Greg,
Nice find. I think that card #6 looks like my card. The batting pose card also looks like the better quality type card too. I scanned my card #6 at 1200 DPI and cropped it to get a better look at the printing and here is what I got. This is the "R" in New York. What do you think?

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, that card looks photo engraved. On your #6 card, the stitches on the ball and the details in Babe's hand are visible. And it It makes me think these PSA cards were real, which would make sense considering the lesser important cards are included and the images are of good quality.







But having said that, we probably shouldn't go 100% on it yet. If you get a chance, put that card right next to to your batting pose, scan both at the same time with the same resolution or higher if possible, and crop into the top corners of both (so they are included in the same image), go half way down and do the same, then do the bottoms).

Do it in such a way that we know what we're looking at, such as include the small card number in one blown up image with part of the other card as you progressively go from top to bottom with consecutive images. Start with posting the scan of both cards as they laid on your scanner and follow with the progressives. Then do the backs the same. I think doing this with both sides with each card side by side is very important, and it's very important to do it in such a way that we know what we're looking at.

If you have a camera in which the F-stop and shutter speed can be adjusted, I can talk you through getting a clear picture. Put the ISO and F-stop at the lowest setting and use the tripod. Center the meter exactly in the regular picture and then again under the black light, which will require moving the shutter speed way down. When I press the button on mine to take the picture, the shutter stays open 10-20 seconds or so.





I searched google for 1928 Ruth Candy with both city names and found this disturbing image:










Wiped the puke off my computer and found some real SGC cards that look like your batting pose and my standing portrait:










Found the card that has the small card number and the dark grey back and cropped image, which looks fake:








There aren't very many images of these cards. But from what it looks like so far,

1. the small card numbers could be real if the image isn't cropped and the back is the correct color (beige-ish, brown-ish vintage paper)

2. The few San Francisco cards I've seen don't look right, but I haven't seen many.



When it comes to the small card number, it looks like these are going to be our fakes, cropped images and all:

[Clutch-Hitter]

Frank's far left example above:

• small card number
• cropped image
• poor quality

****The cards with small card numbers that are currently presumed authentic are black and white, but not as high quality as Leon's. Sepia cards with small card numbers appear to be fake.**************

It would make sense for it to be modeled after an authentic. If so the authentic card would have a small card number, a full, non-cropped image, resulting in higher quality.

Examples of cards with small card numbers: authentic on left (presumed at this point), fake on right


Small card number, San Fran back, next to an authentic (note the cropped image on fake):



__________________________________________________ ________


Frank's middle example above

• large card number
• cropped image
• lesser quality
• San Francisco back

Cropped image is not looking good for authentic cards, and I haven't found a real looking San Fransisco example yet.

presumed real small number card next to a large number card with cropped image:



__________________________________________________ __________



Frank's far right example above:

• large card number
• non-cropped image
• quality image
• Cleveland back or blank
• Sepia (nice)
• black and white (very nice)
• Authentic

[/LIST]

[Clutch-Hitter]

The images on authentic cards are not cropped; they are shifted, either up and to the right, or down and to the left. That is why the quality is maintained in the image.

The fakes are cropped on three sides, squeezed together, which is why the quality was lost. Apparently the fakers had to do it that way.

The image of FKW's card was referred to as fake before because it looked cropped. It wasn't cropped, just shifted up and to the right.

Three sides are squeezed together on fakes, as FKW mentioned. He was incorrect about all cards with small numbers being fake, but it appears he was right when he said small card numbers should not be accompanied by bold print.

When it boils down to it, authentic 1928 Ruth Candy cards should be easy to spot in that the image will definitely be poor due to constriction of the image.

I'll leave the pictures and labels as is for the sake of the timeline and so anyone reading can see how we reached conclusions.


Ok, shift isn't quite right either:

1. The high quality cards like Leon's appear to have a shift or crop on one side only, but the other three sides remain fully intact.

2. The lesser quality cards have a shift or crop on two sides, which is what FKW's card has, and Howard's too it seems.

3. My two sepia colored cards seem to have the same amount as Leon's.

I'll put some side by side tonight, hard to tell on my phone, but its going to be something like that.

[HBroll]

Greg,

I think you are on to something about the better quality cards might be real. Like you said, the forgers would need a "model" to create their fakes and these better quality cards might be them. The one card you showed (the #2 card with the grey back) I think is fake also. My #6 better quality card has a beige/brown-ish back not a grey back like that one.

I put the cards side by side and scanned them at 1200 DPI both front and back. The #6 card (better quality one) is on the right in all of the photos. The 1st photo is the front top corners. Photo #2 is the front middle of the cards. Photo #3 is the front bottom corners. Photo 4 is the back bottom corners and photo 5 is the back middle of the cards.

I also did your "smell" test and both cards smell like an old book. I smelled one of my reprint Exhibit cards and it has a totally different smell to it. I see what you mean by that now.

I think that card in the PSA 2 Good holder is mine. I think the original owner broke it out when it was sold. I read the description in the auction and it said the lower grade cards were downgraded due to a very light crease near the bottom of the card. I looked at my card with a magnifying glass and there is a very very light horizontal crease at the bottom of the card just like the write up says.

I will be leaving to go over my mom's house for Mothers day but I will be back around mid afternoon. Thanks!

Howard

[Clutch-Hitter]

My bad Howard, if you don't mind, when you crop into it, make it big enough to get some of the part with the picture of each card in it as well and some of the text from each card in the lower parts. That way we'll be able to see the engravings and letters on the paper and the paper itself. If you have a Fro Joy, try it with that also, especially if it's clean. Dirty vs clean makes a big difference with the two issues. I'd like to put your card beside my standing portrait because it's clean plus I have some clean Fro Joys.

You know, a clean e121 might work as Leon has said in the past. Interesting how white and how good the paper looks on your #6. The one you did in which you can see some engraving looks good.

Thanks Howard