Babe Ruth used thin Sharpies?? Fishy Dual UD SP Auto on ebay

I am by no way an expert when it comes to Ruth. But if you want to get schooled in Ruth auto's i would study the Personalized auto's of his as i would think the majority of those are real. After watching that HBO special about the guy who did the perfect Mantles and Ruth i have alot of skepticism about Vintage and there was alot of Cloud surrounding the phone 4 card auto that had the 4 vintage legends.

2nd, Mr. Spence is the one who authenticates these for Upper Deck, and we have all seen bogus auto's of players we collect passed by Spence.

The ink on this card looks wayyy to young. Maybe it is just me but this Ruth besides that looks off. Yes it is friday night and I'm home and i have nothing else to do but this a place where I could make a thread like this where i can just share my thoughts and Opinions about our great hobby, but it is Freedom and thats why we love it.

Looks like fountain pen to me, and the yellowing of the paper looks legit as well.

the fading within the ruth sig appears as if it was done with a fountain pen which was about right for the time he would be signing autos like this. jmho

Definitely a fountain pen. I own several and recommend everyone purchase one, even a cartridge pen...it's a very "authentic" experience.

Fountain pen...

It looks to rigid to be a Ruth auto, and UD has been known to toss out fake cuts... but that's not for me to decide.

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

hofmichael said:

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

Click to expand...

All 3 of the above examples are different as well. Does your sig look the same every time? Mine certainly doesn't.

chashawk said:

hofmichael said:

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

Click to expand...

All 3 of the above examples are different as well. Does your sig look the same every time? Mine certainly doesn't.

Click to expand...

*edit*
There is always tell tale signs that help determine if a signature is authentic or not.Stuff like angles and flow are all things looked at when authenticating.

chashawk said:

hofmichael said:

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

Click to expand...

All 3 of the above examples are different as well. Does your sig look the same every time? Mine certainly doesn't.

Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the point I always make when people claim certain letters look different. I could sign my name 1000 times and I doubt I'd get more than 5 that look completely identical. Surely there would be many that look very close, but let's just remember Ruth wasn't signing his name with a stencil.

Everyone knows that signature will look a little different from day to day and year to year. In talking with PSA/DNA about several players and authentication "flow" is a major part of consideration and with Ruth the upper loop in the "R" is extremely important. The pace in which a person signs their name is normally more consistent than the appearance.

Real or fake, that is a piece of shat card and UD sucks ass for making that, seriously, make the window fit the auto, not vice versa!!! Fracking morons!!!

I know people clamor for "I want pack pull, manufactured made cards" BS to me. I would rather buy a cut of Mantle and Ruth and put them in 200lbs hands to make a quality card that looks great and doesnt cut off the auto in any way.

Just my $.02 worth.

Ian Stewart said:

:lol: @ OP thinking that said card was signed in Sharpie.

Click to expand...

Well, he said thin sharpie? haha, i think he should stick to Mcgwire autos.

Who is Nickey Mantl ?

hofmichael said:

chashawk said:

hofmichael said:

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

Click to expand...

All 3 of the above examples are different as well. Does your sig look the same every time? Mine certainly doesn't.

Click to expand...

There is always tell tale signs that help determine if a signature is authentic or not.Stuff like angles and flow are all things looked at when authenticating.

Click to expand...

You weren't talking about flow. You cited specifically how certain letters looked, captain ******.

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped leaving the MT.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

chashawk said:

hofmichael said:

fkw said:

The actual signature does look off IMO too. Pen is OK

The middle of the 2 humps in the "B" and the very end of the "B" are unusual but not unheard of.
The tail on the "e" is to close to the "e"
The beginning of the "u" is too high as well, and is VERY unusual for him on a flat item.
He does miss ther "t" sometimes with the slash.

Just too many of these inconsistencies for me to think he signed this, but you never know he may have had 12 beers before....

You would need to see the whole (ruined) item this lame cut was chopped from to get more of a clue if it was authentic. If it was part of an Autograph book its always good to see the other sigs in determining if its authentic. Or if it was a letter, receipt, etc. or if there was also other words he wrote with it.

ie.

Click to expand...

I also agree that the cut looks no good also.The "B" is horrible and and the the height of the "u" in Ruth is almost always about the same on both sides.The second "b" in Ruth has no rounding on the bottom,almost like a v.

Click to expand...

All 3 of the above examples are different as well. Does your sig look the same every time? Mine certainly doesn't.

Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the point I always make when people claim certain letters look different. I could sign my name 1000 times and I doubt I'd get more than 5 that look completely identical. Surely there would be many that look very close, but let's just remember Ruth wasn't signing his name with a stencil.

Click to expand...

Anyone else notice that the hair in the card pictured above seems to be slightly too fine to come from the head of the Bambino? As any DNA expert will tell you, the Babe had a full head of thick, lucious hair. :lol: You "signature experts" kill me, always looking to prove that autographs are fake! ::facepalm::