Ruth Cards No Longer Graded. Why?UPDATE

Pigs · July 15, 2010 4:26PM

I have this 1928 George Ruth Candy Company card and noticed a different one from the set of 6 on Ebay, PSA graded. When I checked the set on PSA's site it said "No longer Grading". Is there

anyway I can beg PSA to grade this card or am I out of luck? I'm not sure if there just weren't that many graded or not. It would be nice to get it graded because there was only one other blank

back version like mine graded. What do you guys think, will they grade this card? Thanks. Doug

mikeschmidt · July 15, 2010 4:44PM

nope -- they stopped grading it because there were fakes created a long time ago, and it is extra ordinarily difficult to properly differentiate between one of the fakes and an authentic example. SGC stopped grading them for a while, too, although they may be grading them currently.

M

fkw · July 15, 2010 5:14PM

Thats the Grading Company JOB, to authenticate a card. Why cant they tell the difference between something made in 1928 and something made in 1985?

Especially if there are design changes in caption and slight differences in the print quality and cropping.
They need to try a bit harder IMO

example of the tougher #6 card....

PS. There a few different types of reprints too....

shagrotn77 · July 15, 2010 6:09PM

That's quite a copout on PSA's part to not grade this issue because they can't spot the fakes. As previously noted, they are supposed to be experts. I feel the same way about what they did with Star basketball. They need to staff graders who can grade these issues.

BunchOBull · July 15, 2010 9:48PM

I think it's more about liability than ability.

They don't want to have to put their money where their mouth is, should they falsely slab a reprint.

onebamafan · July 15, 2010 11:29PM

Give SGC a try.

mikeschmidt · July 15, 2010 11:34PM

<< <i>That's quite a copout on PSA's part to not grade this issue because they can't spot the fakes. As previously noted, they are supposed to be experts. I feel the same way about what they did with Star basketball. They need to staff graders who can grade these issues. >>

SGC has made the same decision in the past. I don't know why it is a copout for a company to say that it simply may not have the technical competence to do something. How is it any different than PSA and SGC's decision to not grade Star basketball cards? From a grading company's perspective, the upside of grading these issues is very limited [$10- card is what, $2-5 profit?], and the downside is huge, as they may have to spend hundreds on a buyback if they mistakenly holder a counterfeit card.

This is really an esoteric vintage issue for which myriad reprints were made. I don't see many people giving PSA and SGC crap about Star basketball, so I'm not clear why the same people would crucify them for not grading this issue-

KbKards · July 16, 2010 12:34AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Star basketball problem caused by somebody simply firing up the presses again and printing more cards using the same printing gear years after the they were originally printed. It's not about being able to tell the difference between an originally printed card and a card printed later because there is no difference. I think a major key to "authentication" is the type of plastic bag the card came out of.

On the Ruth Candy Co card above and Fro Joy cards it is very easy for somebody who knows what they're doing to tell an original from a reprint. The problem for PSA is that reprints outnumber originals thousands to one. They're all over Ebay, shows, shops, flea markets and there's no shortage of people buying them as originals. I'm sure PSA and SGC have seen hundreds if not thousands of reprints submitted for grading and if they made the decision not to grade them then they're saving a lot of people money by not allowing them to be sent in for grading. If they accept them they collect a fee for telling you they're fake. If they "don't grade" the issue you're not charged a grading fee.

AFLfan · July 16, 2010 1:08AM

I have an original set of these cards, my card #3 has the San Francisco ad back. I sent them to PSA about six years ago and they came back as questionable authenticity. I know 100% for certain that my set is authentic (at least five of the six cards are, as I got them all in the same location), and would like to have them graded. I guess that I will look into SGC now.

mikeschmidt · July 16, 2010 2:11AM

I would dispute the "very easy" notion. Some of the reprints are very easy to identify -- in fact, I think there are colorized Fro-Joys, for instance. Dead giveaway.

But there are reprints made (I believe) over 50 years ago that are not easy to distinguish from the originals.

I am not sure if SGC grades these anymore, either. For two-thirds of the set, SGC has graded three or fewer examples from Fro-Joy, and for half of the George Ruth Candy Company set, SGC has graded four or fewer examples.

mikeschmidt · July 16, 2010 2:12AM

From SGC's website:

Cards we do not grade
SGC can grade most issues that measure 7" x 9" or smaller. SGC will grade most of the issues catalogued in various publications. The following is a list of a few issues that SGC does not grade. Since many new and uncatalogued items exist, this list will occasionally be updated. If you have an unusual piece that does not appear on this list, and you'd like to check to be sure we grade your card, feel free to contact Michael Goldberg.

Baseball
1928 Fro-Joy Babe Ruth
1947 Homogenized Bond Bread Ted Williams/Jackie Robinson/etc. with square corners
1954-55 Topps Sports Illustrated (Cards are on sheets in magazine)
1964, 1971, 1987-1990 Topps Coins
1971 Milk Duds On Box
1982 Columbus Clippers Don Mattingly (Black and white, blank backed)
1986-88 Jiffy Pop "Proofs"
1995 Action Packed Derek Jeter Diamond Autograph
2000 Topps HD
2001-03 Etopps
2002 Topps Tribute Materials Cards
Legends Magazine cards (Cards are on sheets in magazine)

Pigs · July 16, 2010 2:29AM

Wow! Thanks for the response guys, I didn't expect the real or fake answer at all. I figured they weren't getting enough sent in to be worth while to grade. Let me run this past you, ( this is a true

by the way). I got this card from a older woman who was friends with my mother and gave it to me as a gift 25 years ago because she knew I collected cards. She knew absolutely nothing about

the card as far as collecting and she actually wrote a letter to me stating that her father got it for her as a child. I still have that letter. My question, is it worth the time and effort to send that to PSA

as proof that's authentic? I realize it's a stretch but I would love to give it a try. Worth a try or not? Doug

I just read Marc's response above, I may give them a call. Thanks for looking that up Marc I appreciate that.

PowderedH2O · July 16, 2010 6:19AM

THIS is my kinda thread. Chock full of good information. I learned more about these issues in five minutes than I had known in years. Nice info from all who posted above.

mexisar · July 16, 2010 6:36AM

<< <i>Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Star basketball problem caused by somebody simply firing up the presses again and printing more cards using the same printing gear years after the they were originally printed. It's not about being able to tell the difference between an originally printed card and a card printed later because there is no difference. I think a major key to "authentication" is the type of plastic bag the card came out of.
>>

As far as I know what Star mostly did was use different pics/color borders/and release new sets with earlier dates on them.
For the cards that got reprinted going by memory one way to tell is the back, they are clean. The legit cards are not,the edges on the back will have some color because of the printing process?

chris777 · July 16, 2010 6:37AM

What bunchobull and kbkards said.

toc1000 · July 16, 2010 7:49AM

The grading companies have admit the obvious: there is no way to identify a good forgery.

A piece of cardboard has only that many distinct characteristics - size, stock, ink color - and if a counterfeiter gets just those three just right...

To me, the only trick is getting the appropriate cardboard stock (but how difficult could that be?)

Addendum: another obvious problem is the grader can't test the ink or carbon-date the stock (i.e., rip off a cardboard sample...)

... this ease of counterfeit makes baseball cards an investment of limited upside.

Pigs · July 16, 2010 8:31AM

... this ease of counterfeit makes baseball cards an investment of limited upside. >>

I was thinking the same thing. Taking a paper sample from a card to determine it's age would pretty much be altering the card.

Pigs · July 30, 2010 1:58PM

Well, I'm disappointed my card didn't get graded and also confused by SGC. Before I sent the card to them I emailed SGC explaining the story of the card and how I got it from the original owner(like

that would help right?), but more importantly, will they grade it? After no response I checked their page on cards they won't grade and 1928 George Ruth Candy cards weren't on that list. Also, this

issue was on their page that needed Custom Inserts, so everything looked good to send. I got the card back today labled "SGC Does Not Grade".

They did give me a $25 voucher but it would have been nice if they responded to my email so I could have saved everyone time knowing they wouldn't grade it. I will call and tell them to update

the "cards we don't grade" list. It's the only Ruth card I own during his playing days, so back into my collection it goes......Oh well, I tried. Doug

[

fkw · August 2, 2010 10:28AM

I think they SGC dont want to say its a counterfeit, because they dont know for sure. No one really knowns about it for sure.

The cards (like yours) with the smaller card number (number within a circle) have always been thought to be counterfeits by some and authentic by others.... as long as I can remember (25+ years of seeing these). Your photo is very clear compared to some fakes, but the smaller card number is different than the know authentic cards.

The only 2 that are thought to be 100% authentic are the Sepia SF back cards (because when compared to the Cleve/Blank card they show more of the picture on some edges of some # cards). and white stock high qualitly Cleve/Blank back cards. (see example picture above of the #6 card).

If you thought the cards were tough to authenticate, try the wrappers. There are 2 different tyypes of authentic wrappers too, and the fake wrappers very plentiful in flea markets etc.

Ruth Cards No Longer Graded. Why?**UPDATE**

Comments

Ruth Cards No Longer Graded. Why?UPDATE