Opinions: Fro-Joy Premium

[canjond]

I'll defer to those who may know more than I do, but this looks like a creation to me. First, the cardboard just doesn't look right. Second, I would not expect to see the background of the upper portion of Ruth (the "sky" if you will) be printed if this was period.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Thanks Jon,

I just found this one on Ebay. The one I posted is apparently missing the outer portion as compared to the one here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1928-Fro-Joy-Bab...item23034d8dd4

The seller's description states his example contains a "depressed center area......" approx 6 x 8 3/4. Total approx 8 5/8 x 12.

[canjond]

Interesting - well I might eb changing my opinion as that clearly explains why the cardboard looked so "weird" to me.

[fkw]

I dont recall ever seeing a fake premium. They werent reproduced like the sheet of cards.
Yours is just missing alot of the border, probably 80%.

I remember it on eBay.

[drc]

It's correct that the cards and the card sheets were massively reprinted way back when, but not the Ruth photo premium. Thus, if you find a Ruth photo premium it's many, many times more likely to be genuine. The infamous Fro Joy reprints problem is with the cards and card sheets, not the Ruth photo premium.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Thanks for the information.

FKW, yeah, I bought it from a seller that sells pre-war cards and seems to know what he's doing. When I received it, it never crossed my mind that it was possibly not authentic.

[Clutch-Hitter]

I sent this Fro-Joy premium to BECKETT, knowing it was authentic, and requested authentication only, no number grade. I sent it because my son will be getting my Ruth cards and an authenticated card will be less hassle, which is an excuse for me to collect cards I guess. This was BECKETT'S conclusion:



I've been collecting pre-war for approx 15 years, including Ruth cards, and it never occurred to me that they would conclude the card was not authentic. And yes, questionable authenticity means not authentic. So I e-mailed Beckett and received the following reply:

"Hello Greg,
We certainly recommend sending it to PSA or SGC for a second opinion if you are unhappy with our conclusion. We are very confident that you will get the same response from them. Also, just so you are aware, if PSA or SGC does find that the card is altered you will get the same “Questionable Authenticity” response from them that we gave.
Thanks,
BGS

So it's altered? Is it counterfeit or is it altered? They have a little check box for altered. Heck, they didn't even write a sentence on the card, no brief explanation, nothing. BECKETT can't make up BECKETT'S mind. BECKETT, the leader in grading half cards, cards with no name, etc, oh, and 1995 Topps. If anybody knows that PSA and SGC don't grade Fro-Joys, it's Beckett. No, if anything, SGC and PSA would say trimmed because of it's dimensions, and BECKETT knows they don't grade this issue, so it's an integrity issue for BECKETT to say that. Almost 50.00, man why did I send the modern card people this card? Where's that BECKETT guy that hangs around this board?

We all know what happens to a counterfeit image when a flash impacts that image directly: it wipes the image out, fluoresces and wipes it out. I intentionally used a flash for the pictures and hit the card dead center at a 90 degree angle.


This is where the depressed portion ended, which is one significant clue to anybody, wouldn't you say?