1930 Goudey- Babe Ruth- questionable authenticity? - Page 2

Archive · #51 03-20-2007, 02:21 PM

Posted By: ramram

If you're having tests on it you may run into a "Catch 22". The testing process requires samples to be taken from the card which would possibly hinder a return of the card, through the courts or otherwise.

Rob M.

Archive · #52 03-20-2007, 02:25 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz

is the opinion of others that such a piece does not exist or that it does, but this one is fake?

Archive · #53 03-20-2007, 02:28 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

I believe this is the only one anybody has seen.

Archive · #54 03-20-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well they'd be wanting to fabricate something with Ruth... and it would need to be from when he was a player... couldn't be 33 or 34 because we know what those Goudeys look like. 30 makes sense to me, so long as you're not trying to fool everyone.

Archive · #55 03-20-2007, 03:28 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback

If a modern fake is unique or close to it, it's likely a computer print.
This is because there are big upfront costs to making lithographs and similar
'printing house' prints, so there has to be a big print run to bring the cost per card down. In
other words, if someone made a modern lithograph Babe Ruth fake, there would
probably be tons of the cards floating around-- just as we see Fro Joy reprints
all around. On the other hand, a forger can make a single fake on his home computer
at reasonable cost.

Certain kinds of computer printing, in particular laser printing and
photcopiers, are simple to identify with a microscope. And, obviously, if a card
is a laser print it's modern. This type of printing was invented in 1937,
didn't come into widespread use until years later and MLB cards, scorecards
or calendars have never been made by photocopiers or home laser printers.
Not even Donruss or Upper Deck ever made a baseball card on a photocopier.

Archive · #56 03-20-2007, 04:12 PM

Posted By: Paul

Scott Gaynor's post may answer the question "why 1930?" It's possible that Goudey produced a blank-backed calendar in 1930 and this is that calendar. If a forger wanted to add a picture of Ruth to something, that would be an ideal item. Obviously, this is all speculation on my part and I have no idea if it's real or not beyond what's been said in this thread.

Archive · #57 03-20-2007, 04:22 PM

Posted By: Steve M.

and that makes it all the more problematic since any "paper" analysis would date it to the period.

Archive · #58 03-20-2007, 04:31 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback

If the scenario is that calendar side is original and the front modern, analysis of
the printing would identify this. The front and back printing would be made with
different types of printing. If both sides were printed at the same time in 1930, the
same type of printing would be used back and front ... Again, there's a good chance
the pic of Ruth (if modern) would be a computer print.

Archive · #59 03-20-2007, 04:32 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

So far we know that PSA, Mastro, Rob Lifson, Scott Gaynor and Joshua Evans feel the item is not authentic. These are some very big names in the hobby with lots of experience. If the 4 auction houses mentioned above would not take the item to sell then it is pretty compelling argument the item is not authentic. Not sure what other proof one would need to prove fraud. Frankly, if any of them had a pet dog, I would take the dog's opinion over Verkman's as to the legitimacy of the item. Steve is a snake oil salesman of sorts and I do not consider him to be one of the most reputable dealers out there.

Also if Steve was so sure that the item was legitimate then why wouldn't he just take the item back and sell it to someone else? I think that Steve knows that the item is questionable and prefers to roll the dice.

Greg

Archive · #60 03-20-2007, 05:10 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I'd really like to know why/how the experts concluded that it was not real, or that it was questionable. Not maligning anyone, just wondering what went into the thought process. Absent an explanation, I would disagree with any assessment that there is overwhelming evidence. "Never seen one before" would not go very far with me either, so I hope it was looked at closely.

Maybe someone can research when it was that Big League chewing gum first hit the market. It has probably been assumed all along that it debuted in 1933 with the cards. If true, then a reference to the brand name three years prior would seem bogus. Some google research would tend to suggest that '33 was the issue date, but I wonder if those just worked on the assumption that the gum always accompanied the cards. Here, this "card", even if genuine, was almost certainly not intended to be sold with the gum, but was there Big League gum sold in other packaging in 1930?

The genuine back, fake front doesn't make much sense to me. The back clearly references the Babe, with two lines of centered type. Why have such reference and then use a blank or unrelated front? Could that name and team info have been added? Doubtful, IMO. Why leave that conspicuous if not prominent front center area blank with the year on the sides? Why not just one big 1930 in the middle?

Are there collectors of, or resources about ink blotter advertisting from the period who/that could be consulted? Seems like alot remains up in the air about this "piece".

Archive · #61 03-20-2007, 05:24 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

Why would Goudey print a calendar in 1930 with the "Big League Chewing Gum" logo and crossed bats and a ball, when they had yet to produce a single baseball card? What would have been their connection to baseball in 1930?

Archive · #62 03-20-2007, 05:24 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I've always found this website to be a great resource when it comes to all things Goudey:

<a href="http://www.goudey.org/Goudey/Gum/index.shtml"

The site owner is a member of the Goudey family and a super-nice guy. I pointed this item out to him when I initially saw it in the auction. He is a great guy and has done a lot of research on the history of the Goudey Gum company; his website is an outstanding chronicle of that. I did not notice any reference to a Big League Gum in 1930.

-Al

Archive · #63 03-20-2007, 05:44 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback

One relevant question is when was Big League Chewing Gum introduced by Goudey? Presumably the brand name was trade marked, so one could look it up at a patent and trade mark site.

For what it's worth, the image of Ruth is from way before 1929 or 1930. Would Goudey use a years old pic of Ruth?

Archive · #64 03-20-2007, 05:50 PM

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I would say you have the word of Mastro, Lifson, Evans and Hunt....if that ain't good enough for the hobby then nothing is. Josh Evans even states it was offered to him and he could tell right away it was a "Color xerox copy". What more does anyone need?

Archive · #65 03-20-2007, 06:03 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz

as I said, I'm not maligning anyone, but I like to keep an open mind. Xerox copy of what? this thing supposedly doesn't exist. And didn't someone say that Lifson opined over the phone, without having it in hand? These folks may very well have a short and sweet explanation as to why it's not authentic, all I'd like to know is why. Frankly, even if they came on and said first hand "because I said so", that would be more than hearsay from others.

Barry--my point exactly. What was Goudey's connection to big league basseball in 1930? Did they release their Big League gum that year (or earlier)? Putting out market feelers?--remember, no real gum cards for quite some time prior to 1930. If not, it's a pretty stupid mistake by the fakers to place a calendar year that could not possibly jibe with the gum, especially since it would seem easy enough to just pick a more plausible year.

Archive · #66 03-20-2007, 06:15 PM

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Todd, I would take the word of Josh Evans since he apparently had it in hand....And never mistake forgers for being smart. How many Red Rock calendars do you see on ebay from years that Ruth had absolutely nothing to do with Red Rock cola?

Archive · #67 03-20-2007, 06:39 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz

if an "expert" can tell in about two seconds that this a color xerox, then the buyer should have little difficulty prevailing in Court. Color me skeptical.

Archive · #68 03-20-2007, 06:41 PM

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I wish the buyer would come back and let us know what is going on. Perhaps he's already sought legal advice and no longer can post about it? Maybe that's why Verkman hasn't chimed in either?

Archive · #69 03-20-2007, 06:45 PM

Posted By: Paul

I agree with David (cycleback) that the basics should be checked. Use a black light. Use a microscope & see if it's photo engraved. Some cards were photo engraved for many years after 1930, but the ink will have a distint look around that time period. Experts like David, or a (self proclaimed) semi expert like myself could help. I bought one of those fifty dollar "Digital Blue" microscopes, & they work great for taking 10x, 60x, or 200x digital pictures.

Archive · #70 03-20-2007, 10:07 PM

Posted By: scgaynor

I remember the first thing that raised a red flag with me was the fact that Ruth's name was on it, but there was nothing else related to Ruth (remember mine was blank backed). If it had stats printed on the back or a slogan like "Babe Ruth chews..." it would have made sense, but his name just floating for no apparent reason seemed odd. Also, the type and style of Ruth's name is similar to that on 1933 Goudey cards, but three years before they were issued.

Also, on the one that I saw, the black printing was shiny, while the background was dull. In college I worked in a copy and printing shop so I can usually pick up on the difference between a xerox copy and an item that has been printed. Toner from a copier tends to be very shiny and appears to sit on top of the paper, while printing is dull and, especially on a vintage piece, is sort of "in" the paper (it is kind of hard to explain, but pretty easy to see if you are holding the item in your hand). For me, It just had too many red flags to take a chance on it.

Something else I just noticed, everything on that piece can be photoshopped from another piece. The Ruth name from the back of a 1933 Goudey, the Goudey logos at the bottom from a Goudey wrapper, the calendar from anyplace on the internet. My guess is that any 8th grader with a basic working knowledge of photoshop could produce that piece in a few minutes.

Scott

Archive · #71 03-20-2007, 10:13 PM

Posted By: Larry

It seems that if someone deliberately made this card to defraud, they would have made several....There is one way that somebody that has time may be able to definately confirm if the card is real...The US Trademark office phone # is 1-800-786-9199...They have "dead" trademark records that record the date of filed trademarks back prior to 1930 if you can find the right person or pay a fee possibly.

If the trademark "Big League Chewing Gum" was filed after 1930 and before 1933, the card is not real however it is possible that a prototype could have been made using the 1933 format as seen on the back font. This can be identified as stated by prior posters by using a microscope to see if the ink pattern dates. The front and back paper must be independently tested to see if the paper was manufactured in that era, as the back may be real and the front could have been attached but that does seem unlikely. This might require a very small sample to be removed which will cause collateral damage. If you can establish the date of the trademark, this will conclusively see if the item could have been made in 1930. Maybe someone wants to call the government # listed, at least it is a starting point.

Archive · #72 03-20-2007, 10:46 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback

If it's a Xerox, it would be easy to identify as a fake. Xeroxes, photocopiers and
laser printers all use the same printing technology (electrographic printing, aka
Xerography). This process doesn't actually use ink, but a powdery toner that is fused,
or melted, to the paper. This probably helps explains the mentioned shiny, 'ink sitting
on top' appearance. If one has a good microscope this printing is easy to identify because
you can see the specks of toner powder.

The above is a microscopic pic of a laser printed letter. The tiny specks floating around the
edges of the letter are specks of toner fused to the paper. Looks like it needs a dusting. A
Xerox or photocopier would have the same appearance. In part because baseball cards old and
new use real liquid ink, not powdery pigment, no genuine baseball card will have this dusty
appearance. And, as mentioned before, Xerography wasn't invented until after 1930.

Anyone who owns a laser printer, as opposed to an inkjet, has likely noticed two things: the
toner cartridges are messy with dry colored powder. You often need a vacuum cleaner to clean up
after changing cartridges. The second is that the 8x11" prints come out of the printer warm, even hot.
That's because the printer fused, or melted with heat, the toner power onto the paper.

With almost all other printing, including lithographs and woodcuts and even inkjet printers, liquid
or at least wet ink is used. This explains the 'wet sheet' ghosts on the T206s, where sheets were put
on top of each other before the ink dried. It explains why the print comes out of an inkjet printer
wet and you have to wait a while before it's dried. And, as these use wet ink instead of dry dusty pigment
powder, they won't have the dusty appearance under a microscope.

Archive · #73 03-21-2007, 02:52 AM

Posted By: Martin Neal

Just a thought, but all these Ruth items listed here are fakes. I have seen at least 3 other "wrappers" listed on Ebay and I am pretty positive they are fakes as well. A friend of mine purchased the 6 Ruth cards and the wrapper shown in the scan. The cards are not that impressive as far as reprints go, but the wrapper was done quite well. It seems quite plausable that these Babe Ruth cards and the Goudey Babe Ruth discussed here could have been produced by the same person.

Archive · #74 03-21-2007, 07:17 AM

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

One think not mentioned is the size of the card. I asked about the measurements, haven't seen anything. Mentioned a black light way back up there...

The card 'looks' to be the size of a modern day baseball card. When did that dimension come into use? 1957??? It wasn't 1930. And Larry's observations about clip sources for the various bits of print on the card seem sound.

There's no way the card is real.

Archive · #75 03-21-2007, 07:38 AM

Posted By: Steve M.

I disagree. The card is real. It's just not authentic to Goudey nor the period.

Archive · #76 03-21-2007, 08:16 AM

Posted By: Steve

MARK,

If you are going to post things on a public forum, please make some REMOTE effort to tell the truth. Let me work backwards here as this is the first that I have heard of this thread as I was away.

1. BARRY AND OTHERS ARE CORRECT. I TOLD HAVERKOS TO SEND THE CARD TO ME TO GET IT TESTED AND IF IT DID NOT COME BACK FROM 1930, HE WOULD GET A REFUND. THIS IS 1000% ACCURATE AND I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED THAT THIS WAS LEFT OUT. HAVERKOS DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT AS I WOULD "HAVE HIS CARD AND THE MONEY"

2. To BOTN, to make obnoxious and inaccurate comments, I suppose is what you do in life. Keep fixing Cracker Jack Walter Johnsons and enjoy your life.

3. Now, from the beginning:

A. We sold this card both times on a consignment basis and it was not owned by us. The first time this was auctioned, I believe May 2005, this had probably 20 different bidders, including many experienced hobbyists, AND NOT ONE WORD POTENTIALLY QUESTIONING ITS AUTHENTICITY WAS STATED TO ME; IF SO, I ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE PULLED THE LOT AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR COMPANY POLICY.

B. This item was re-consigned to us a year and a half later by the winning bidder. We again auctioned this off and did hear ONE WORD from anyone questioning this piece as we would have ABSOLUTELY withdrawn this from auction. We did not try to get this slabbed by anyone as we figured because it is so unique the grading companies would be reluctant to grade it. Had Mr Haverkos asked me before the auction if I would guarantee this would be slabbed, I would have said absolutely not given the nature of the card.

It is nice that everyone now questions this but NOT ONE PERSON here can say that one word was emailed or said to me EITHER time this was auctioned. With that said, if the card is not real, and the only way to determine this is to date the paper, which I offered to do at my expense, we will compensate the winning bidder. Leaving out vital details on public forums is frankly a disgusting way of trying to disparage someones reputation.

If anyone wants to go into this in further detail (besides BOTN/SCHWARTZ), feel free to email me or call our office.

Steve Verkman

Archive · #77 03-21-2007, 08:21 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Test the card!

Archive · #78 03-21-2007, 08:26 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

That was a HUGE omission from the original post...

Archive · #79 03-21-2007, 08:54 AM

Posted By: JimCrandell

Thanks Steve,

Good to get your side and always good to see national dealers posting here.

Jim

Archive · #80 03-21-2007, 08:56 AM

Posted By: ScottIngold

What a difference a second side make's.

Archive · #81 03-21-2007, 09:07 AM

Posted By: leon

I appreciate your response. I do understand your concern about the grading companies not slabbing a unique type card. I have some Headin' Home cards and SGC, so far, will not slab them (though I think they told me at the last National that they will now)....even though I am absolutely positive they are good...and had Kevin Struss (Mastro) and others agreeing with me. They said they just didn't know enough about them. I know you probably don't want to get into too much of a public debate but let me ask you one question, and this might solve the problem.

Would you be willing to let Mark send the card to GAI (have Baker look at it), to PSA *(have whomever their head grader is look at it), and have him send it to SGC (and have Scott H, and Bob L, look at it)....even though they might not slab it, if they all said it was not real, would you refund the money? thanks again.....

Archive · #82 03-21-2007, 09:13 AM

Posted By: cmoking

"HAVERKOS DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT AS I WOULD "HAVE HIS CARD AND THE MONEY"

If the buyer DID NOT TRUST the seller, then this is a perfectly understandable attitude to take.

Archive · #83 03-21-2007, 09:25 AM

Posted By: Steve

Leon,

The problem with this and this touches on a larger issue in the hobby is that the grading companies do not have a machine that can test for the aging of paper. From what I understand, this is a very expensive machine that might run six figures. Without out a point-of-fact scientific answer, anything else is subjective; this obviously is related to other cards as well. I am willing to pay the expense of this process but without the card, of course this is not possible - Steve

Archive · #84 03-21-2007, 09:29 AM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

This is so far in the open now that the buyer should be able to send it back to CSA or an agreed upon third party so that the next step can be taken. This card could really make the rounds:

Lab for testing
SGC
PSA
GAI
Expert A
Expert B
Expert C

In any case if I were CSA I would want to have the issue resolved just to clear the air. I would have thought that something could have been worked out sooner. There are a lot of trustworthy people in this hobby and I'm sure someone could have been made an agreed upon (by buyer and CSA) middleman. Whose court is the ball in now.

Archive · #85 03-21-2007, 09:35 AM

Posted By: leon

I think we can actually have a friendly debate on the board, at least once in a while . I hope this is one of them. As I, and others have pointed out, only testing the paper does no good. We all remember the 2 jokers with the fake Wagner that had a good Piedmont back stuck to it. The paper tested was good... but the card was silly looking. Early paper and cardboard can be had any day of the week. My main concern is with the ink/type of printing, as David pointed out above. Do you know if the printing has those Xerox/copy looking dots around the letters? Not that this would be 100% proof if it doesn't, but it would help, and if it does, then we know it's not 1930's (I think).....thanks again

Archive · #86 03-21-2007, 12:41 PM

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

It seems to me seller and buyer should agree on a neutral expert and agree in advance to be bound by his opinion. I agree with Leon there is more to it than dating the paper.

Archive · #87 03-21-2007, 04:37 PM

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well there certainly was a second side that needed telling. Thanks for posting it.

The card still doesn't seem to be authentic (thanks for the correction up there), and I still would not pay $5 for it, shipping and all.

It seems to me that the seller's concern that the card wouldn't grade is an indication of doubt as to authenticity, and not concern that it merely wouldn't grade. If it had graded it would have sold for more, resulting in more commission. And if the seller were confident of authenticity then grading would have been sought.

The buyer, consignor and auctioneer, or seller, or whatever, all need to get together with cash and card, and resolve the matter. Lawyers X 3 will result in less cash to divvy up when the card finds a home among the protagonists. If they can't agree, then let the lawyering begin!

NATCARD · #88 01-10-2021, 05:12 PM

I found this thread after another example of this card? walked into my office today. Does this change anything or are they both fakes or man and not company made?

Seven · #89 01-10-2021, 05:47 PM

Nothing to add on the authenticity aspect, but this was an interesting read to say the least, was a solution ever arrived at? Was a conclusion about the card ever made?

drcy · #90 01-10-2021, 06:16 PM

If it walked into your office that proves it's a recent creation. Calendars simply don't live for 90 years.

Case closed.

todeen · #91 01-10-2021, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven

Nothing to add on the authenticity aspect, but this was an interesting read to say the least, was a solution ever arrived at? Was a conclusion about the card ever made?

Concur. I would love to know the outcome.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Peter_Spaeth · #92 01-10-2021, 06:32 PM

14 years must be a record for bumping an old thread.

chalupacollects · #93 01-10-2021, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NATCARD

I found this thread after another example of this card? walked into my office today. Does this change anything or are they both fakes or man and not company made?

To me it looks like two pieces of paper glued together if you look at the edges..probably the same with the original one...

chadeast · #94 01-10-2021, 08:43 PM

https://oldcardboard.com/enews/2007/enews35/enews35.htm

See about half way down the page in the link above. According to this site, the card was eventually returned for a refund.

#95 01-10-2021, 09:06 PM

[QUOTE=NATCARD;2054646]I found this thread after another example of this card? walked into my office today. Does this change anything or are they both fakes or man and not company made?

[/QUOTE/

Being a professional creative director and commercial artist for over 30 years I can tell that’s a copied fake from the photos on this post. Printing even from that many years ago is much cleaner that that image. So much visual evidence of copy quality even from where I sit. I bet you put a loop to that and you'll see all kinds of fuzzy dust around the images especially the text. That photo even looks like a copy of a copy.

NATCARD · #96 01-11-2021, 06:01 AM

So, this piece di walk into my office with some stunning N172 old judges including what i think may be 3 or 4 that would grade the best ever including 1 spotted tie. There were t206's with a cobb and young as well as a bunch of other stuff. This piece has been in the mans possession for 30+ years. By far not something created in the last 30 years. Maybe created in the 70's but not recently. Jeff W

ALBB · #97 01-11-2021, 06:22 AM

that is eerie, reading post by a few collectors that have passed on

#98 01-11-2021, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NATCARD

So, this piece di walk into my office with some stunning N172 old judges including what i think may be 3 or 4 that would grade the best ever including 1 spotted tie. There were t206's with a cobb and young as well as a bunch of other stuff. This piece has been in the mans possession for 30+ years. By far not something created in the last 30 years. Maybe created in the 70's but not recently. Jeff W

I don’t think anyone is specifically saying it was created recently only that is not an authentic piece from the 1930s. Fakes have been created for as long as there have been originals to copy.

todeen · #99 01-11-2021, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NATCARD

So, this piece di walk into my office with some stunning N172 old judges including what i think may be 3 or 4 that would grade the best ever including 1 spotted tie. There were t206's with a cobb and young as well as a bunch of other stuff. This piece has been in the mans possession for 30+ years. By far not something created in the last 30 years. Maybe created in the 70's but not recently. Jeff W

Well, did you purchase the other cards?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

NATCARD · #**100** 01-11-2021, 06:17 PM

No. They may be consigned to me. Not in a rush to part with them.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1932 Babe Ruth Sanella Authenticity?	Archive	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	3	02-01-2009 05:23 PM
N4: QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	12-04-2008 06:30 PM
The 1930 ruth goudey calendar makes another appearance!!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	20	08-24-2008 11:58 PM
Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	103	03-28-2007 02:19 PM
Goudey Babe Ruth???	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	9	06-20-2003 06:48 AM