Options
Any experts on 1928 Babe Ruth Candy that can opine on this?
kencope
Posts: 416 ✭✭
I'm certainly not an expert in this issue and don't own a known example to compare against. The card stock is certainly old, but could be 1950s stock for all I know. Even under loupe, I'm still guessing. I have this and three others from the set. Can anyone give me some guidance?
0
Comments
My vote would be NO.... but SGC does grade them so I would send it to them asap to be sure. The others that were sold by that seller look totally fake.
I had number 5 in the set of 6 I believe. The set for some reason has many fakes floating around. Mine was graded by SGC and in reading up on the fakes they did say fakes are easily identified by the dotted printing in the photos. That's what that one looks like.
It's not real. The font is different on the front on the graded example.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
as for the possible "50's stock", is the card in hand? if so, black light it and see if it glows, or was altered and has anything else that glows like build ups, agents, etc. forget exactly which year, but i think anything after '54 or so will illuminate quite differently under those lighting effects.
and not familiar w this particular issue, but font variances do occur. wouldnt write it off immediately, but probably a good indicator though.
Thanks. I had thought SGC wasn't grading them anymore either. Will get one of them off now.
Vols - There are different variations of the card, one printed in Cleveland and one in San Francisco, as well as blank back or offer variations of those. They vary as much as different type set and even different text. Do appreciate the input, though.
Thanks, do you still have yours? I've read the same thing about the dotted printing, looked at mine under loupe, and am still unable to tell for sure. If you have yours, would be a lot easier as I could ask you questions about the particulars of the dots. Appreciate you posting!
I don't know anything about these. That said, is the bleed on the small a's in "Candy" and "bar" a determinant on the San Francisco version? Based on your comment, vols version must not be a SF autographed premium.
I sold it a few months ago through PWCC. I had a bad scanner then so it probably doesn't help with clarity on the card.
I'm not an expert of this set at all, and I've never owned any cards from it because of the difficulty to determine authenticity. However, I'm not so sure that the card that Ken has is fake. The front certainly looks like reprint quality, but that may be because of the residue in front of the card. The other card in this thread certainly look a lot nicer. However, I thought that there was a "high quality" version of this set and a "low quality" one. Therefore, it's possible that Ken has one of the low quality cards. I thought that blank backs were more common fakes, so the ones with writing on the back had a better chance to be authentic. (not guaranteed, of course)
There's this thread that had a lot of information on determining authenticity for this set that the OP may want to take a look at: Link
Unfortunately, most of the pictures that would be most helpful are no longer there. You may want to try to contact that poster that gave a lot of information in that thread to take a look at your scans to give his opinion before you send to SGC. I'm not saying this card is authentic; I'm just not completely sure, and it might be worth to have someone take another look. Good luck!
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
It's in SGC's hands now, so will have their opinion soon enough. If not authentic, I plan to ask them what exactly to look for to help us all out a bit with this issue. Thanks for all of the input!
Observation: The OP's does not have a period after Home Run Candy Bar but the one Vols posted does have the period.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.