Babe Ruth Signature Authenticity Question

[Josephew]

I purchased this cut signature at an online estate auction. Don’t know anything about the history of it, just that they were liquidating the estate of a 90+ year old man that died.

Is it worth risking the cost to attempt to get it authenticated?

I’ve attempted to upload a couple of photos including a closeup that shows that it is written with a pen of some sort and isn’t a photocopy. Also, there is a watermark on the back. I know the odds are not good of it being legit but I’m hoping someone with experience can give me some feedback.

[ooo-ribay]

I’m no expert, but it looks good to me.

[CardPadre]

I have a Ruth auto, but am not completely versed in the total knowledge of authentication. What stands out most to me is the "u" in your Ruth is very atypical as the stroke really never starts below the letter like that.

There are some super experts here that I'm sure will chime in on the totality of the signature eventually.

[rand1com]

It was signed "Sincerely Babe Ruth", just not by "Babe Ruth" IMO.

Letter formation is just not right for the "Babe." Also, I have seen many Ruth signatures with the "Sincerely" added and don't remember ever seeing a comma after the "Sincerely" as this one has. I do not think it is authentic but wait for other opinions.

[Snapolit1]

Admittedly no expert either, but that looks good to me. I'd buy that if someone was selling at a reasonably low price and take a shot.

[packs]

If not authentic, it was signed a very long time ago by someone else. You can't fake that kind of aging in the ink and you don't typically see it in forgeries because they were almost always recently signed.

[Bpm0014]

It’s 100% good just very rushed. You can clearly see that this has been in a matte/frame. The “uth” is super atypical for sure, but if he didn’t have a good hard surface to sign on, we often see that. It’s good, slightly atypical, rushed, and somewhat faded. I never suggest sending it to get a cert, however in this case I would considering all of those factors.

[Bpm0014]

I can probably even give you a time frame for this. Most likely 1932-1944.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

It’s 100% good just very rushed. You can clearly see that this has been in a matte/frame. The “uth” is super atypical for sure, but if he didn’t have a good hard surface to sign on, we often see that. It’s good, slightly atypical, rushed, and somewhat faded. I never suggest sending it to get a cert, however in this case I would considering all of those factors.

I like your confidence!

I’d like to know if the OP got it for a song.

[Leon]

Yes, it is worth the cost to get this one authenticated.

I don't collect autographs but have seen, probably +/-10,000 Ruth autugraphs. When I first saw it, I said "that looks good". That is my scientific rationale.
Good luck, welcome to the forum, and in the future please put autograph questions in the autograph section, made for autographs. Any questions on anything forum related just send me a private message.
.

[Kco]

This one is on the money, definitely worth submitting.

[rand1com]

I have looked at thousands of Ruth autographs over the last 30 years and have never seen even (1) that has that beginning stroke to the “u”. It may indeed be authentic but is certainly not a “dead on” example.

[Bpm0014]

I agree with you. Never saw the “u” like that. The “th” is also atypical. However I’ve studied Ruth extensively; it’s good just weird/different. I’m not sure who said it was “dead on”. It certainly isn’t. But it’s undoubtedly good.

[Carter08]

I’m not even an amateur but I did a google search for psa authentic ruth signatures and a bunch seem to have a start to the u. Auto authentication is a tough world I suppose.

[rand1com]

Actually, the quote was "on the money" from a previous post. I would say that is the same as "dead on."

I know you are an expert on Ruth and defer to your opinion but I also don't like the "c" or the "r" in "sincerely" nor the comma after "sincerely" which is also the first example I have ever seen with one. Too many "oops" for my liking.

It would not surprise me if it comes back from a major authentication company as "unable to render an opinion."

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I’m not even an amateur but I did a google search for psa authentic ruth signatures and a bunch seem to have a start to the u. Auto authentication is a tough world I suppose.

They all have a curved starting stroke. This one has an abrupt upright stroke. That is the difference between this one and all others I have ever seen.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by rand1com

They all have a curved starting stroke. This one has an abrupt upright stroke. That is the difference between this one and all others I have ever seen.

Got it. I saw curved as well.

[Bpm0014]

It would not surprise me if it comes back from a major authentication company as "unable to render an opinion."

The “a” is hard to replicate. And this one is fine. The “u” is definitely abnormal but if someone is trying to pass a forgery they are not going to make an abnormal “u”. I promise you it’s good. And again, I never ever advocate for a TPA…but in this case I do. It’s a good autograph, and the TPA should back that up and ease any worries.

[MVSNYC]

A few things I don't like...as mentioned above, the "u" in Ruth always starts with a curved element entering the letter. The "e" in Babe always has a final upswing to the start of the "R". Finally, I don't like the "S" in Sincerely.

Not saying it's fake, but has a few issues, IMO. I'd send it in to get authenticated.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by rand1com

I know you are an expert on Ruth and defer to your opinion but I also don't like the "c" or the "r" in "sincerely" nor the comma after "sincerely" which is also the first example I have ever seen with one. Too many "oops" for my liking.

If we want to be accurate, a self-anointed expert at best.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

If we want to be accurate, a self-anointed expert at best.

I disagree. I believe he is indeed an expert on Ruth autographs. I admit that although I have some expertise on Ruth I think he has studied him more and is likely correct in this assessment,

[Bpm0014]

If we want to be accurate, a self-anointed expert at best.

I’ve helped numerous people (more than I can count) purchase Ruth autographs on here and other boards. I’ve never charged. Never asked for a thing. I answer every PM and help in any way I can. And thoroughly love helping people out and educated them and sharing everything I know. If you don’t help or assistance it’s all good brother; I mean that. But some people aren’t that knowledgeable and need some help.