1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic?

[Leon]

Hey Greg
I have usually thought the Fro Joys and Babe Ruth Candy cards SHOULD be on card stock that is similar to E121's. Now you are saying they are fake. Can you help me understand that? I am familiar with the notion of a rogue lithographic machine being in the hobby but have never heard of this particular card stock issue before. (besides a Beckett grader and myself thinking these cards could have been produced on different types of stock at time of mfg)

[Clutch-Hitter]

Sorry Leon, I worded that wrong. My #5 Grip card has to be fake, and it looks more like an E121 to me than known real Fro Joys (I know very little about E121 except for my poor Reuther). Something was wrong/different with this thing right out of the package, so I thought it may be one of the unknown type you've mentioned. Also, my son Jack was born May 1, which obviously led to little time here and messing with my cards. When I re-read my one of my posts, it seemed like I didn't see what you wrote, but I did and have 100% confidence in what you're saying. However, it is confusing trying to imagine what one of the unknown type Fro Joys looks like in a scan and agreeing with you that the blue under the light looks like reprint paper (?). Do you have a scan of one of the unknowns?

With the Grip card, I've resorted to my first impression and the pictures under the light next to my two authentic Fro Joys. I have 10 days left to get a refund, but I want to keep it if it's one of those. The same seller sold the previously mentioned Cobb (SGC counterfeit) as well after selling the Fro Joys, and he or she has also been selling 70's TCMA. In the descriptions, all the cards were from a southern estate. I have a feeling that Cobb would fluoresce big time though, unlike the Ruth Grip card.

By the way, I just got an e-mail from Beckett:

• #2 Look Out Mr Pitcher got a "3"
• #6 Crack Fielder got a "2."

Paper comparison under the black light seems to work for these.

I appreciate your time and help Leon, and sorry I worded some ideas wrong.

[Leon]

Hey Greg
No problem. Suffice it to say the card here "Bang the Babe Lines One Out" is the one I have had in my collection for quite a while. You can't really see a difference in the paper from the scans however, after close inspection of the paper stock it was determined there could not be 100% certainty that the card is good. Therefore it will not be able to be put into a holder....(unless some new information comes out leading me/us to believe it is good.)

[Jaybird]

sorry to be stupid. but to clarify, are you guys saying that the known Real cards are a rougher E121 paper and that the ones on smooth stock are questionable?

I bought two that are on smoother, whiter stock that seem to be real from what I can tell comparing the factors you mention other than paper stock. They also do not flouresce under black light like modern paper.

Leon, I would say that mine look more like the bottom image in your last post. Just a little cleaner around the edges.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Nice cards Leon and Jay! Jay, that does look like one of the unconfirmed types Leon mentioned, outstanding image!

Of course, I did not submit the Grip card to Beckett with the other two because it's clearly different, but it also is not an early 1970's TCMA either, which are more fake uncut sheet cards:



I've decided to keep the #5 Grip card since it seems to be the unconfirmed paper type.

Recently got a canoscan based on recommendations in a scanner thread. Most everything I've posted before was with pictures, which creates a white balance problem most of the time. Here's some scans with the grip card between two Beckett graded Fro Joys:




Kawika sent a scan of his authentic #5 Grip on confirmed paper, SGC graded, back in December. Here's mine next to his (Thanks Kawika):



May have mentioned this, but I've been told by someone who would know that the paper is more like 1933 Goudey, less like 1934 Goudey.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Bought another 1928 Fro Joy #5 and compared it to my existing one. What do y'all think?

The one I just bought is on the right and is smaller than the existing one. Also, my #2 Look Out....card is smaller than my #6 ....Crack Fielder. When I noticed this prior to sending them to BVG, I asked my friend in Maryland about his, and he confirmed his #2 is narrower that his #6:



With the two between the 70's reprints, black light used (the recent card is left center):

[Clutch-Hitter]

Cropped into this image (the non-compressed one) top to bottom (recent card on the right):











Jaybird mentioned how the edges should roll over, and unlike the first paper variation, I think I see that happening here on this recent card. Was wondering what y'all think? Thanks again for the help.

Also, the front image on the #5 card is much lighter than the #6 and #2 cards, which may explain why there's more lightness on the reverse? In fact, the text box on the back of the recent #5 bled through to the front, and the darker areas on the front bled through to the back. This corresponds to the #6 and the #2 cards.