Goudey Ruth opinion

[Lucas00]

The card is very fuzzy and overall just not sharp looking at all like the real card. The biggest giveaway to me is when you compare his eyes. The low quality shadow almost makes it look like his eyes are a black void. On a real copy you can see the white in his eyes. They are defined and the shadow looks natural.
His socks and belt should look blue. Not black like this fake. And his shoes should look much more detailed and richer in color.

Just a few small things I notice looking at them side by side.

[RCMcKenzie]

Dr. Frank, is this a comedy bit? It looks like someone folded it this morning.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Dr. Frank, is this a comedy bit? It looks like someone folded it this morning.

The card has been in an acrylic slab for at least 20 years. I’m the first one to touch it since the turn of the century.

[rjackson44]

Horrible

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The card has been in an acrylic slab for at least 20 years. I’m the first one to touch it since the turn of the century.

Fair enough. If I'm wrong, and it's genuine, it won't be my first mistake today. Along with everyone else's notations above, the card's corners look like they were rounded with a pair of scissors.

[vthobby]

Reprint. Sorry Frank but I think you knew that.

Peace, Mike

[Smarti5051]

I am no expert, but comparing it to mine, the black pinstripes in the uniform look far more muted in your example, but the red looks several hues darker red than mine. Yours looks closer to maroon, whereas mine is closer to a traditional red. Also, your copyright above "BIG" looks almost black, whereas the color is clearly red in my example, albeit darker than the red bottom border. Maybe a clearer scan would change the analysis, but putting a picture of mine next to your picture suggests yours is fake.

[Leon]

I took moderator privilege and put a real one under Frank's. Frank's has very white borders, poor lithography and artificial aging, otherwise it's pretty nice.
.