Need Help with Identification of Ruth

[mdufrain]

Mine actually has the exact same measurement and the photo stock looks exactly like yours. So few that I see graded so I think off to psa Mr. Ruth goes.

[Leon]

Here is one from my first collection, no longer mine. The large scan is on purpose.
It is hard to tell from the scan if yours is good or not but I don't see anything that jumps out at me as bad. Yours could be a bit more grainy than this one but that could be the different pics of the cards. That all said SGC knows what to look for and all humans can make mistakes.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I gotta say I'm not thrilled with the apparent over-exposure in the OP's card. In Leon's you can clearly see small details in white backgrounds like the pinstripes on the uniform on his right leg etc... sometimes that's a sign of a reproduction. They try and avoid it getting too dark and that's the result.

[mdufrain]

Is there a difference between the premium and 5 x 7 photo? When I submitted to sgc I told them I thought it might be a premium. I had not seen the 5x7 listing of the set until today

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mdufrain

Is there a difference between the premium and 5 x 7 photo? When I submitted to sgc I told them I thought it might be a premium. I had not seen the 5x7 listing of the set until today

Not really different than a photo visually but they are on heavier stock....

[pencil1974]

Scott that could be simply the photo that was taken being blown out if its being taken with a camera on a phone. They tend to adjust to the bright side automatically. Not saying its the case but a possibility.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I agree, it's why I didn't say anything was definitive, but it does bother me, and I will point out that the image in the price guide, in the same photo as the card itself, actually shows more pinstripes.

[Leon]

I should mention that I had a board member, I think it was B. Pencil (hi Brad), send me one of these, or another card just like it, and it was an obvious reprint to me. However, I couldn't convince the other party (and I think it was Brad) it was so just went on my merry way. No doubt that specimen I looked at was not real, imo.....So there is at least one fake out there that is sort of close to looking real. The stock was all wrong on it. It looked like a Kodak type print to me (the whole thing was too uniform).

[Snapolit1]

Classic post.

1. OP: What do you guys think of this? I don't know what to make of it.

2. Reponse: I don't know. I see a few issues. Not sure. Probably not.

3. OP: Hey, don't see what you are talking about. I think it's real and I'm submitting it.

Always wonder what the point of these colloquies is.






is.

[JackR]

Got this one a while back...SGC calls them "Premiums," PSA calls them "Photos."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JackR

Got this one a while back...SGC calls them "Premiums," PSA calls them "Photos."

That is very nice. It is both a photo and a premium in my opinion. I count them as cards, others probably don't.

For the record, Brad's card discussed in this thread was checked again and is in fact a later reprint.....1970s or newer, probably.

[JackR]

Thanks, Leon. I think they're cards, too. I guess some folks might call the '53 Bowmans "photos!"