1928 George Ruth Candy Cards (Set of 6)

[Leon]

This thread has been added to our permanent archive. If you look on any page, at the far right icon towards the middle-top of each page you will see our Net54 Forum Archive Center. It has quite a few of our most educational threads under it. Thanks to Greg for all of his work on this.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Thank you Leon!

[HBroll]

Greg,
Great detective work and very interesting. I have 2 raw Ruth candy cards I bought probably about 6 or 7 years ago that I would like to get your opinion on.

In the first photo the one on the right is the sepia colored blank back card #2 and the one on the left is better quality "chase" card #6 which is blank backed. Photo 2 is a copy of the backs.

The #6 card I have some concerns about. It has the smaller circled number associated with fakes and also has "Swats" instead of "swats" and the printing is closer together. On the plus side it is not cropped on 3 sides like you see on the fake cards and there is plenty of room from the top of his head to the border which is a characteristic of a real card.

In the 3rd photo I put the 2 cards sandwiched between 2 fake Exhibit cards and in the 4th photo I did the black light test. As you can see the Exhibit cards light up but the 2 Ruth candy cards do not. The Ruth candy cards pass the black light test. I do not know what to make of this. Card #6 has both characteristics of a real & fake card. Photo 5 shows the difference between a fake and real Ruth candy cards. What do you think? I appreciate your help.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Hey Howard,

I've never seen one of those with the small number in person, just went by FKW's theory. However, his theory indicated the Cleveland ad back should be the high quality black and white cards, but my #1 card refutes that.

I'd enjoy looking at that in person if you don't mind. I'll PM my address in case you want to send it.

[Clutch-Hitter]

By the way Howard, the batting pose is definitely real.

[Clutch-Hitter]

To clarify Howard's picture with the black light for anyone who hasn't used one much, his #6 card appears to be fluoresceing, but that is because it is much cleaner than the batting pose card. That was the reason I thought my grip card was fake last year. Therefore, it would be better to compare it to a cleaner card.

Fakes are modeled after the real cards with the large card number, but fakes are also found with the small card number. So did the reprinters model the small card number after an authentic with a small card number?

FKW's research has been the only source in which I've found the small card number is a reprint, and because the Cleveland back is found on real sepia card, which refuted FKW's claim in that area, it may be possible for the small card number to exist. I only know about the two I have, which were pictured earlier in this thread. And not to discredit FKW at all, he is a card expert.

Howard's #6 card seems to be of high quality and with a back that looks vintage and has the appropriate color. The blank back fakes I've located have dark grey blank back.

The thing to do in addition to the black light is to
1. Black light the backs the same as the fronts (lesson I've learned and will share this evening)
2. Put a known authentic on a scanner very close and in line with the card in question, set the resolution high (I use 1700 mp) and scan only the area in which the cards are located. The high resolution image can be cropped extensively while still maintaining enough quality. I cropped down as low as 600x600 in the close ups, which allow the paper and printing to be seen. But it would help if the known authentic was clean in this case.

And if the card in question were a less important one, such as Babe with wife, that would help. But it does help that it's not the batting pose.

[HBroll]

Greg,
I took a photo of the backs of the 2 Ruth candy cards with card #6 (the better quality one) being on the left. I used two 3 X 5 index cards this time on each side of the cards. As you can see they do not light up. I will send you a PM later. Thanks for all your help.
Howard

[Clutch-Hitter]

Howard, that's interesting for sure. I'm not sure how FKW deemed what is and is not authentic. We all know when you crop into an image, you lessen the quality, which is the case in what we're calling the fakes: cropped into the image resulting in less quality. We lumped the smaller card number in there somehow, so there must be a reason. I don't understand why a counterfeiter would crop into the image of an authentic card...

I bought a cheap Ruth Candy reprint just for this and received it in the mail today. Here's the much less than impressive "engraving" on the batting pose:[/B]









Here's the engraving on a 1970's Fro Joy that was cut from a fake sheet:









Previous Fro Joy reprint next to a real Fro Joy:









Two real Ruth Candy cards and two real Fro Joy's corner to corner (note how similar the paper is):

[Clutch-Hitter]

Several months ago I bought this, got it home, hit the front with a black light, noted no glowing, and tossed it in the closet. While searching the internet a few days ago, I came across the Legendary auction in which a 1/1 of this had been sold. I had been thinking this was nothing but a less than hundred dollar...thing. I e-mailed R. Lifson (very generous with his time even during the then current auction), and he said he wasn't sure but was concerned about the authenticity. When I couldn't find a photo of the back under a black light, realizing I didn't do that, I got the thing out and did that...

1. If the card is too dark under the black light, there may be a problem (I had to over-expose because in the normal way I do it, the thing was not even visible)
2. Check every bit of the card, not just the card as a whole
3. Always use it on the back too.

Had I known how important the real version of this "card" was when I bought this, I would have been very skeptical like with regular cards.

Note the circle where the thing should be hung from a wall and the edges in the front photo with the black light.




And here it is...I've been had!