Ruth M101-5?

[damonh23]

Just came through the shop recently on consignment. Long time collector recently passed away, his spouse consigned this...Should I attempt to slab it? I question it...advice welcome!

[nolemmings]

Not genuine. An artificially-aged reprint or fake.

[damonh23]

thx! Whats the giveaway? the background?

[LincolnVT]

No space in lower left side of black border. Not enough back foot showing.

[terjung]

Agreed that it is not authentic.

[damonh23]

how much you offering? lol

[Vintageclout]

100% fake

[ls7plus]

Check the print dot pattern with a loupe--preferably a 16X one. It should be regular and linear if printed from the original plate, rather than random (counterfeits were made by taking a picture of a real card, then re-screening it--they will show a random dot pattern and lack of clarity compared to one printed from the original plate). Then have it forensically examined for dating of both the ink and the lighter weight than normal cardboard stock. There are prototypes known but not graded with exactly the characteristics shown on your card (inner border; less foot showing due to different photo-cropping) which were in existence and appeared (very, very rarely) at shows long, long before this card exploded in value (a statement which I know will be controversial among the mainstream, but nonetheless remains true). THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN MAKING A COUNTERFEIT WITH SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS THAN A REGULAR CARD, i.e., card stock, inner border, and different photo-cropping), BUT EVERY POSSIBILITY SAME WAS DONE FOR PURPOSES OF FINAL DESIGN DETERMINATION.

If you decide to do each of the above, pm me as to the results. The loupe exam is an easy one. Only have the forensic exam as to both ink and stock done if the print dot pattern is what is should be, i.e., regular, linear and identical to the regular version M101-4 and M101-5 slabbed by PSA or SGC. I have no idea what the forensic examination would cost, but get a well-qualified expert if you decide to pursue the matter, and a full and detailed report.

Best of luck,

Larry

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

There are prototypes known but not graded with exactly the characteristics shown on your card (inner border; less foot showing due to different photo-cropping) which were in existence and appeared (very, very rarely) at shows long, long before this card exploded in value (a statement which I know will be controversial among the mainstream, but nonetheless remains true).

With all due respect, that's bullshit untrue. (forgot my New Year's resolution).

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

With all due respect, that's bullshit.

With all due respect, your opinion is bullshit. In the late '80's, I went to many, many shows with a loupe with which to examine cards and protect against purchasing counterfeits (yes, they were out there then--in fact, counterfeits of the '84 Fleer Update Gooden and Clemens were quite popular, as was Mattingly), and have seen both the Ruth (2) and Thorpe (1) with exactly the same characteristics: inner border, different photocropping, lighter weight card stock. I also handled them, and they were not made to appear old, but had the same characteristics to the touch and eye as say, the R316's, with similar stock. But then again, you know the old saying, "opinions are like
_______s; everyone has one.

On the other hand, I've seen many, many counterfeit or reprint Ruth's. Every single one I looked at had the random dot pattern characteristic of re-screening an original. If you're trying to make a passable counterfeit or even a desirable reprint, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in printing them on lighter card stock, with different border characteristics/photocropping.

That these two would be selected for proofs or prototypes would certainly not have been unusual--Ruth was a 20-year old phenom who went 18-8 with a 2.44 ERA in 1915, the year before the M101-4's and '5's were made, and Thorpe was still at the height of his popularity.

The above is simply based on actual observations long, long ago, when it is doubtful it would have been worthwhile to print up a bunch of such cards for purposes of profit. And if they had been, why are there not more of them WITH THE PROPER PRINT DOT PATTERN I SPOKE OF? HOW DID IT GET THERE? DID SOMEONE MAKE A DUPLICATE PLATE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHOTO THAT WAS USED FOR FELIX MENDELSOHN'S M101 SETS? To me, that would be "bullshit." Because you're ignorant with regard to a given subject doesn't make someone else's observations on that matter "bullshit."

Much more interesting than your comment would be knowing what the dot pattern of this particular card shows under magnification, and if it is indeed linear and regular as it should be, what a forensic examiner's opinion would be after testing both the ink and the card stock, which can be done by a qualified expert. Where did you get your degree in forensics from, by the way?

Larry A. Smith

[nolemmings]

When Fritsch made the reprints, he essentially took a photograph of an existing photo, which when used in the reprint process, caused there to be a slight cropping from the original. It's as simple as that. That is what you see here.

You claim that you saw "originals" or better yet, "prototypes" of the Ruth m101-5 all those years ago. Show me one. Show me a scan of one. Show me a catalog pic or any other depiction of one. Don't limit yourself to Ruth and Thorpe. Show me one of ANY card from m101-5--you get a couple of hundred to choose from. There are none, none that are not reprints. ZERO--are you following along here?

Your latest post sparked a memory of a thread several years ago when you spouted similar nonsense. There you claimed to be in possession of one of these "prototypes", and were asked repeatedly to show scans. You have had more than 5 years from that thread to do so, and yet, nada.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=thorpe

There I more kindly suggested that you were in error, and that your analysis concerning Thorpe and Ruth being the subjects of Mendelsohn prototypes was unlikely. I stand by that, and invite you again to post your scan and pray tell, since you seem to be the owner of a six-figure card, why it isn't properly slabbed so as to stand out from the many fakes that ignorant collectors like me would discard. Surely even if you don't wish to sell it you would want protections in place such that upon your passing, your heirs aren't wrongfully told that it is unauthentic, they being unable at that point to consult your expertise. Of course, maybe I am incorrect in my assumption, and that you actually have had your genuine Ruth prototype slabbed. If so, please provide us with the serial number if you are not inclined to show a scan.