Opinions on this Ruth FDC??

[Scott Garner]

I am certainly not a Ruth expert, but I would say yes.

I would have felt that way even if I did not know that it had been deemed real.
The flow and appearance of this matches the feel of other authentic examples of Babe Ruth's sig that I have seen through the years.

[slidekellyslide]

compare it to a letter I have where Ruth wrote down the same address. Eyeballing both of them which were written only one month apart I say YES, yours is authentic.

[Westsiders]

Thanks for the responses guys. While I'm definitely not a Ruth expert, I am familiar with his signature and have/do own numerous pieces. My first impression was that it was good. After a closer look, I began to have some doubts. After researching it, I can across Ron K's book, in which he seems to specifically discuss this exact piece (and how he opines that its a forgery). So obviously there's some differing opinions on this one.

While there are aspects that I really like about it, there are some that cause me some pause.

First of all, I still can't come up with a plausible explanation as to why Ruth would address and send this to himself (and signing his name in the process). Maybe he was a collector himself, and wanted to add this piece to his collection. If that's the case, then I feel it would add great value to this piece. Obviously that's possible, but just not sure that makes sense.

Secondly, the "B" to the "a" connection is definitely atypical (though not completely unique to this piece).

Next, the "i" to the "d" connection in Riverside also seems odd (as if he was about to misspell it).

The sticker placed on the piece also seems suspicious. Why put such a generic and unappealing sitcker (and sloppily done) on such a nice piece? Was it to cover up a more glaring mistake?

I'm not making a case against this being authentic, just expressing some concerns and trying to educate myself a bit.

Thanks guys....and would love to hear any other opinions.

[johnmh71]

I have also read Ron K's book, and as much as I respect it, you should keep in mind that he has an opinion just like anybody else.

I also think your signature is good.

[slidekellyslide]

Looking at the address on your cover and the address on my letter it's almost identical..there is no problem with flow in either of them...I think your Ruth is 100% authentic. The letter I have came from a large collection of letters from this Dr Steen...they had never seen the light of day until the last 8 months...there is no autograph on mine, no need for any secretary to try and duplicate Ruth's handwriting.

[canjond]

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

[David Atkatz]

It is absolutely absurd to look at each individual letter (in any holograph material) and decide whether or not it is "correct," or "typical." Just look at the (unquestionably genuine) example of Ruth's address on Dan's letter. Look at the two capital "Y"s, in "York," and "N.Y." They are completely different, yet written a fraction of a second apart.

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is absolutely absurd to look at each individual letter (in any holograph material) and decide whether or not it is "correct," or "typical." Just look at the (unquestionably genuine) example of Ruth's address on Dan's letter. Look at the two capital "Y"s, in "York," and "N.Y." They are completely different, yet written a fraction of a second apart.

David, I know you're one of the big boys around here and have/do own some very high end Ruth pieces...so I definitely value your opinion on this. But I do disagree with it being "absurd" to look at individual letters. I completely agree that we can't judge it being good or bad by one individual letter, but I do take those very atypical variations into account.

With that said, I'm also a believer in Chirs' so-called "autograph eye". I first try to get the overall feel of the auto, and my first impression is that this piece is good. By like I said, those two variant letter connections bother me (particularly the "B" to the "a").

Just figured that with well respected opinions being on both sides of this item, it would be a great conversation piece here.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by canjond

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

It would be interesting to get it under a microscope to see what is on the top -- the signature or the postal cancellation.

If the cancellation is on top, one could argue it's plausible the signature is authentic and it would put the signature back to a time before deceptive forgeries existed.

If the signature is on top of the cancellation, it becomes much more difficult to envision a plausible scenario why Babe Ruth would be adding his name and mailing address to an envelope that had already been cancelled.

[bigfanNY]

Why only a month apart is the address changed from New York NY to New York City NY. Not good in my very humble opinion. For this and other inconsistencies already pointed out in this thread. Paul Gallagher who started the first NYC show in the early 1970's told me in 1973 that babe Ruth signed more than any other Baseball player and was forged more than any baseball player.