Help With Babe Ruth Cut

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You run a business "Casey at Bat Collectibles"? Astounding. You know absolutely nothing about "collectibles," and their proper treatment.


Ain't the net an amazing place?

Be careful out there, boys and girls.

Thank you, David. It is challenging when there are cavalier responses with no consideration for the damage that can be done by products that is not considered. I can appreciate that it can be well intentioned, but not always thought out.

[David.liehr]

Thank you all so much your responses! I reached out to a paper restoration company in my area to see their quote.
Out of curiosity, would an autograph expert be willing to offer their opinion if this Ruth is authentic? While it’s a cool family story, I have no way to verify if it’s true or if we’ve been passing down something not authentic. If it’s not likely to be authentic, not sure it’s worth going with a company to repair it verse trying to do it myself. Ha.

[steve B]

Yes, it's worth having a professional do it.

While the right archival materials are available, they aren't cheap, and you only need a very small amount of each. So doing it right will be expensive.

You can also run into problems that are daily things for a pro, but a huge puzzle for the rest of us.
For instance, I think it's likely the tear was caused by the adhesive used in framing expanding and putting pressure on an already weak crease.
So the first problem is what exactly is that adhesive and how do you remove it without doing more damage to the paper or autograph.

After that, you need to know how to neutralize whatever you did to get the adhesive off.

After that it gets easy, a good archival paste, and mulberry paper.

I do my own preservation work, but my stuff is cheap enough that the right materials cost more than the items, so I use "next best" type stuff.

I would not work on this if it were mine, I'd send it to a pro.

[Carter08]

Worth sending to a pro for sure. I’m no expert but looks real and you have a story behind it to support that conclusion

[Bpm0014]

From that small blurry pic, it looks good. But would be nice to see it blown up. The R in Ruth looks funny though. Almost like it was traced over. But almost certainly good. One can even (roughly) date this autograph to about 1934ish to 1944ish. Does that fit the timeframe that your grandfather acquired it?

[David.liehr]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

From that small blurry pic, it looks good. But would be nice to see it blown up. The R in Ruth looks funny though. Almost like it was traced over. But almost certainly good. One can even (roughly) date this autograph to about 1934ish to 1944ish. Does that fit the timeframe that your grandfather acquired it?

That date range makes a lot of sense. Based on what I was told, he would have gotten the auto late 1930s. Are you able to click on the picture? It should load a page with a larger picture of the auto. If that doesn’t work, let me know and I can look to see about doing the picture over.

[Bpm0014]

So it was most certainly traced over at some point. Which sucks. Probably nothing sinister either. Signature was probably fading and someone (in an attempt to preserve it) traced it over to make it darker. That really stinks.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Worth sending to a pro for sure. I’m no expert but looks real and you have a story behind it to support that conclusion

+1 agreed