Is this Ripken Signature Real?

[righteousmike]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0675102218

Was browsing through the completed listings and saw this guy, any thoughts? The price is what caught my attention, early signature?

 

[George_Calfas]

Fake looked at that sig and said "Damn, that's fake"

 

[aaron41984]

Not even a reasonably decent fake.

 

[Russ S.]

Nope.
Fake as Sam's wet dream's ****.

 

[Topnotchsy]

Far from a Ripken expert, but that does look somewhat similar to his early sigs. Don't know if anyone who posted before is an expert, but if not, I'd wait to hear from one to say for sure (since it's not as far off as it might seem by comparing to more recent sigs.)

compare:

 

[Russ S.]

Far from a Ripken expert, but that does look somewhat similar to his early sigs. Don't know if anyone who posted before is an expert, but if not, I'd wait to hear from one to say for sure (since it's not as far off as it might seem by comparing to more recent sigs.)

compare:

:shock:

It's still not close bud.
Nowhere near his '92 Elites, or this late 80's auto I have.

Hence the reason it only sold for $40. The real Ripken collectors knew better.

 

[elmalo]

This one was signed in the early 80's

 

[Russ S.]

 

[TomMurry]

Looks an awful lot like the OP's picture.

FCB is NOT the place I would go to ask about the legitimacy of signatures.

 

[Russ S.]

Looks an awful lot like the OP's picture.

FCB is NOT the place I would go to ask about the legitimacy of signatures.

Not too close if you know Ripken Autos. Which I've seen a few in my time collecting him since '87. I have a few too.

Just looks off to me, and I've RARELY seen, if at all, a "Looping J" that wasn't complete.

 

[Topnotchsy]

Far from a Ripken expert, but that does look somewhat similar to his early sigs. Don't know if anyone who posted before is an expert, but if not, I'd wait to hear from one to say for sure (since it's not as far off as it might seem by comparing to more recent sigs.)

compare:

:shock:

It's still not close bud.
Nowhere near his '92 Elites, or this late 80's auto I have.

Hence the reason it only sold for $40. The real Ripken collectors knew better.

Was not saying it was legit or saying it looked exactly like the one that was PSA'd, just that if one is comparing it to his current sig and saying it is definitely fake, they should remember that his old sig was very different. As I mentioned though, I am sure a big Ripken autograph guy would be able to offer a more definitive statement.

 

[RITM]

"not the place to ask about the legitimacy of signatures"

If it is Ripken I totally disagree.

 

[RITM]

Sig has been authenticated, 1982/1983 era.

 

[Krom]

Far from a Ripken expert, but that does look somewhat similar to his early sigs. Don't know if anyone who posted before is an expert, but if not, I'd wait to hear from one to say for sure (since it's not as far off as it might seem by comparing to more recent sigs.)

compare:

:shock:

It's still not close bud.
Nowhere near his '92 Elites, or this late 80's auto I have.

His sig was different close to his rc year. The 92 and late 80s are more like what he signs now.
Hence the reason it only sold for $40. The real Ripken collectors knew better.

 

[jonebone]

If I were grading it I'd give it an "undetermined". Not an obvious fake, but not obviously legit either. If you were buying it for your collection, just wait out and grab one that is easy as day to spot. No one wants a "debatable" autograph, real or not.

 

[Russ S.]

If I were grading it I'd give it an "undetermined". Not an obvious fake, but not obviously legit either. If you were buying it for your collection, just wait out and grab one that is easy as day to spot. No one wants a "debatable" autograph, real or not.

Absolutely agree.
As I am by no means a Ripken expert, I've only collected him since '87, I wouldn't pay $4 for that card.
It's just too sketchy for my liking. And that is MY personal opinion.