Ruth auto on Ebay - Opinions??

[Runscott]

Okay, I'll go out on a limb and say...

...the same guy who signed that card, also signed this ball auctioned by Heritage last October: Heritage Babe Ruth Ball and it DOES have a PSA/DNA LOA:

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, I'll go out on a limb and say...

...the same guy who signed that card, also signed this ball auctioned by Heritage last October

Why?

The "a" has a totally different shape. On the ball, you can see the flow, confidence and fast speed with which the "abe" was constructed. It has a "bounce" to it.

To me, the "abe" on the card appears tentative and drawn. The stem of the second b is especially wobbly looking. No "bounce"... a flat looking signature.

Maybe they are both good, maybe they aren't. It's not my area of expertise. But just using general autograph analysis, it seems to me there are notable differences between the two.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Why?

The "a" has a totally different shape. On the ball, you can see the flow, confidence and fast speed with which the "abe" was constructed. It has a "bounce" to it.

To me, the "abe" on the card appears tentative and drawn. The stem of the second b is especially wobbly looking. No "bounce"... a flat looking signature.

Maybe they are both good, maybe they aren't. It's not my area of expertise. But just using general autograph analysis, it seems to me there are notable differences between the two.

I completely see your points - thanks. I got hung up on the end of 'Ruth', which normally the forgers screw up badly.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, I'll go out on a limb and say...

...the same guy who signed that card, also signed this ball auctioned by Heritage last October: Heritage Babe Ruth Ball and it DOES have a PSA/DNA LOA:

I also see a "very thin limb."

[Forever Young]

Here they are close together...

Very interesting as there are definitely some glaring similarities; angles, slant, flow of the entire sig as a whole as well as many of the individual letters; end of the "b" through the "e" and the start of the "R".

However, the one up top(ebay) looks slowly drawn; each letter starting and ending with much thought(ex: end of the R/start if the U). And then there is the obvious "a" but I agree with most that one letter does not define a piece.

To me, the one on the bottom looks like one would sign their own name on a ball like they have done it without thinking. The one on the top looks like one a very good forger would do on a flat looking at a similar exemplar as the ball and done it before. IMNHO

I went back and forth on this one for a bit here but thought I should give a definitive opinion either way if I was going to open my yapper.. The problem is, I am not expert on Ruth Signatures.

Any of our autograph experts on here actually have a difinitive opinion??? Psa dna gave their opinion. What is yours?? Way to give a opinion either way Scott..Good post.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Here they are close together...

Very interesting as there are definitely some glaring similarities; angles, slant, flow of the entire sig as a whole as well as many of the individual letters; end of the "b" through the "e" and the start of the "R".

However, the one up top(ebay) looks slowly drawn; each letter starting and ending with much thought(ex: end of the R/start if the U). And then there is the obvious "a" but I agree with most that one letter does not define a piece.

To me, the one on the bottom looks like one would sign their own name on a ball like they have done it without thinking. The one on the top looks like one a very good forger would do on a flat looking at a similar exemplar as the ball and done it before. IMNHO

I went back and forth on this one for a bit here but thought I should give a definitive opinion either way if I was going to open my yapper.. The problem is, I am not expert on Ruth Signatures.

Any of our autograph experts on here actually have a difinitive opinion??? Psa dna gave their opinion. What is yours?? Way to give a opinion either way Scott..Good post.

Yep, I see your points as well. I guess I've been looking at that green '27 Yankees ball too long, so my definition of 'slowly written' has changed.

[JimStinson]

What about compared to this one ? Differences ? Similarities ?
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[johnmh71]

I am by no means an expert either, but it does appear as though the "a" on the ball and the earlier example provided by Jim are much more alike than the ebay offering.

[Runscott]

??????? (this is fun)

The one on the left is PSA/DNA authenticated. I've seen this same style 'R' authenticated plenty of times - is it characteristic of a particular Ruth signing period?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

What about compared to this one ? Differences ? Similarities ?
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Jim,

Can you give us your opinions?

Ben

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

What about compared to this one ? Differences ? Similarities ?
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Since I've already gone out on a 'thin limb' (that the limb-referencer was unwilling to join me on...or even to approach the tree), and since I'm not a professional authenticator and therefore can go out on such limbs without fear ...

1. overall - letters in left one aren't proportionate to one another (left side of 'a' higher than right side; same for 'u')
2. overall - left one is written more slowly
3. left one - bottom of letters don't form as straight a line
4. left one - loop in middle of 'B'
5. left one - loopier bottom of 'h'
6. similarity - both somewhat slowly written, but not as slow as the Ruth in the green ball
7. similarity - 't' shorter than 'h', general slant of letters

[Runscott]

It seems like most people are kind of afraid to express their opinions about Babe Ruth autographs.

Since Ruth autographs are the most commonly forged, and many have gotten by the authenticators, I don't see the harm in going over the problems in detail so that we can avoid getting fooled in the future. The fact that a 'good' single-signed Ruth ball will sell in a major auction for over a $100K, but a questionable one will still sell in a major auction, but for much, much less, indicates that collectors will pay a helluva lot of money for something they have serious doubts about. That just seems plain stupid to me.

[Exhibitman]

My opinion: Don't buy a Ruth autograph on Ebay.