F52 Fro Joy Ruth - SGC NO

[Clutch-Hitter]

- Fro Joys, including the Tunney cards are very rare. Tunney more so, perhaps
- Distributed over a small time span, many survived due to Babe Ruth
- Beckett's population is inaccurate due to cracked slabs
- If a printing plate exists(ed), there'd be more
- Leon said E121 like paper for Fro Joys, and I agree.
- paper used for Fro Joys was also used for the high quality 1928 Ruth Candy cards, or at least remarkably simlar paper (not the sepia variations)

- If the #3 Ruth batting has bled through to the back from the darker spots on the front, in addition to the points below, its good (boxes connected of course)

- If you scan it at 800 dpi or higher and crop (zoom) into the picture part, you'll be able to tell by the dot pattern. Very high quality with perfect dots. The forgeries do not duplicate the pattern in the white areas, although the darker areas are strkingly similar.

- The better forgeries, which do not resemble the low quality singles cut from fake sheets do fluoresce purple, although not much. Photograph it next to the authentic portrait card under a black light. Singles from the fake sheet flouresce brightly

- Paper used for the better forgeries is not smooth

- The sheet that was forged in the 70s was and continues to be the main problem, with people being ripped off for decades due to singles cut from the low quality forgeries

- 1928 Ruth Candy cards consists of several variations. The forgeries are easy to spot.

I've never seen a fake of either in an SGC holder

Let me get this straight, SGC recently resumed grading Ruth Candy cards but not Fro Joy?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

- Fro Joys, including the Tunney cards are very rare. Tunney more so, perhaps
- Distributed over a small time span, many survived due to Babe Ruth
- Beckett's population is inaccurate due to cracked slabs
- If a printing plate exists(ed), there'd be more
- Leon said E121 like paper for Fro Joys, and I agree.
- paper used for Fro Joys was also used for the high quality 1928 Ruth Candy cards, or at least remarkably simlar paper (not the sepia variations)

- If the #3 Ruth batting has bled through to the back from the darker spots on the front, in addition to the points below, its good (boxes connected of course)

- If you scan it at 800 dpi or higher and crop (zoom) into the picture part, you'll be able to tell by the dot pattern. Very high quality with perfect dots. The forgeries do not duplicate the pattern in the white areas, although the darker areas are strkingly similar.

- The better forgeries, which do not resemble the low quality singles cut from fake sheets do fluoresce purple, although not much. Photograph it next to the authentic portrait card under a black light. Singles from the fake sheet flouresce brightly

- Paper used for the better forgeries is not smooth

- The sheet that was forged in the 70s was and continues to be the main problem, with people being ripped off for decades due to singles cut from the low quality forgeries

- 1928 Ruth Candy cards consists of several variations. The forgeries are easy to spot.

I've never seen a fake of either in an SGC holder

Let me get this straight, SGC recently resumed grading Ruth Candy cards but not Fro Joy?

Great summation Greg. Thanks. As far as I am aware (I could be wrong) SGC has always graded the Babe Ruth Candy Cards. I think I have had 10-15 graded by them and I don't recall them ever saying they didn't grade them, only the Fro Joys.

[slidekellyslide]

They authenticate autographs, they should authenticate Fro Joys. They've handled them, they know what to look for.

[bcornell]

PSA doesn't grade them, either

In PSA's case, they graded a fake (scroll down the thread to see it).

Probably, both of them figure it's not worth the trouble to grade this issue. It certainly keeps the prices down...

[pokerplyr80]

I don't know enough about these cards to really form an opinion. But as someone else said it is unfortunate that the fakes have gotten so good that even the "experts" can't tell the difference and have determined that it's not worth the risk of encasing fake cards and being forced to buy them back.

I would hope and expect that PSA and SGC would be able to figure out a way to tell the difference but perhaps the issue is too rare to make it worth the trouble.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Leon,

Didn't know that. Thanks