Need Help with Identification of Ruth

Leon · #1 08-27-2017, 07:08 PM

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 · #2 08-27-2017, 07:19 PM

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 · #3 08-27-2017, 07:20 PM

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 · #4 08-27-2017, 07:28 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 08-27-2017, 07:49 PM

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 · #6 08-27-2017, 09:14 PM

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 · #7 08-28-2017, 07:16 AM

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).

pencil1974 · #8 08-28-2017, 05:44 PM

Hi Leon, yes I do have one that is not known but is not on any type of post-1940 paper and definitely not Kodak type of paper. The printing technique is also right for the era. This is industry knowledge of printing and paper not just my idea of what I want to believe or not.

So I would hesitate to say that anything is a reprint without fully knowing the context of how it was made. . I appreciate baseball/collecting knowledge which is great but you are talking a field that I help produce billions of dollars for companies and know the ins and outs of because I have to.

Now if someone wanted to make their own 1/1 item on archival paper, pay for printing plates, press set up and press time and happen to have an original negative to make the artwork from then yes I agree and see where mine could be a reprint but would be probably more expensive than what a reprint is worth. Just simple math it doesn't make sense.

I also know that in my field have a different proofs made that I will pay a lot of money for. I probably have at least 50 Marlboro packs that were made that are 1/1's full functioning packs that are around $500 each to make to make sure that I like the color of sunshine ink or the soft touch. If I don't they never make it to market. 100 years years from now or probably way sooner this may end up in someone else's hands and they will not know what the hell it was or what it was used for as there nothing indicating it as a proof. So if from my point of view as CD I would want to see different options/costs before I picked a direction to go. Not saying mine is a proof or that this is but unless your sitting in the room when the pressman brought it in or sales team/art department or whom ever there will always be open questions.

Snapolit1 · #9 08-28-2017, 07:43 PM

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 · #10 10-10-2017, 06:45 PM

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

Leon · #11 10-15-2017, 09:40 AM

Quote:

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 · #12 10-19-2017, 08:29 PM

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ruth photo type identification	JoeyFarino	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	1	01-02-2016 07:16 AM
Dating and Identification for 1934 Tour of Japan postcard with Ruth	glchen	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	9	08-16-2014 01:19 PM
Identification of Ruth & Gehrig Cards	Buythatcard	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	06-24-2012 08:47 PM
Identification of Ruth Panel	glchen	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	28	12-18-2011 09:38 AM
Need help Ruth PC Identification ?	insidethewrapper	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	11-25-2011 06:51 PM