PM1 Ornate Frame Pinbacks

[bcbgcbrcb]

I was just previewing the upcoming, incredible Legendary Auction and, of course, the first items listed are the above. Has there ever been anything definitive showing the 1915 date of issue such as a newspaper ad, etc.? I find it quite odd that the Ruth pictures him in a batting pose when all other pitchers in that set are shown in pitching poses. Through the end of the 1915 season, Ruth had played in 47 games with 37 of those as a pitcher. I am assuming the remianing ten were probably pinch hitting appearances.

Has anyone researched this further already? This 1915 date is really key as it would pre-date Ruth's Sporting News RC's and make this the earliest catalogued Ruth item picturing him individually in a MLB uniform.

[ctownboy]

My question about this pinback wasn't concerning him in a batting stance but WHY was he in the set to begin with?

If this set came out in 1915, then Ruth had only appeared in a total of 4 Games in 1914. So, unless this set came out after the 1915 season ended, then the people putting this set together, in my opinion, wouldn't have had much reason to include Ruth.

Also, I don't see his name underneath the photo. According to the Old Cardboard website, only two PM1's are known to NOT have a name under the photo; Chief Bender and Johnny Kling. Ruth is listed but nothing is said about his NOT having his name under the photo.

David

[ullmandds]

I was thinking similar thought...while the image resembles ruth how do we know for sure it is him?

[glchen]

I think it's Ruth, but I was also wondering if the date was correct. It looks like the same image in the pin as this iconic Ruth photo. Does anyone know the dating for the photo?

[Bicem]

Had no idea there was a Ruth in that set.

I'm sure more date research could be done by looking at uniform styles, would not surprise me at all if 1915 is incorrect.

[ullmandds]

SO comparing to the photo to the pin...what should Ruth's jersey say...Boston?

[drc]

I don't know about the other details, but the guy in the pin is Babe Ruth. It's an issue of famous baseball players, and that certainly ain't Walter Johnson.

[nolemmings]

Perhaps they released these pins over a span of years. I see where one of the Pins (lot #13) is an Evers with Chicago designation-- he hadn't played for the Cubs since 1913. Maybe the pins with no names were issued in different (later) years than those with names.

It does look like Ruth in a Red Sox uniform though. Moreover, Okkonen's uniform database says Boston wore pinstripes when showing "Red Sox" in 1916 and 1917, but plain/solid backgrounds in 1915, and this pin looks to lack pinstripes.

[Jlighter]

I'm curious how much these will sell for. Two at Love of the Game failed to sell.

http://loveofthegameauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=291&searchby=0&searchvalue=None&page=6&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=25&category=6&seo=1915-PM1-Ornate-Frame-Pins-Johnny-Evers.

http://loveofthegameauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=292&searchby=3&searchvalue=Pin&page=2&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=25&category=1&seo=1915-PM1-Ornate-Frame-Pins-Frank-Chance

[Bridwell]

I've seen a few of these ornate frames with non-sports pictures in them. Is it possible for someone to switch the inside photo???

[Rob D.]

I've seen a few of these ornate frames with non-sports pictures in them. Is it possible for someone to switch the inside photo???

Ron,

I have a Lajoie in both the ornate frame and the stickpin styles that Legendary is selling, and I bought both of mine in eBay auctions. Before looking at them in person, I had the same question. But after examining them closely using a magnifying glass, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be possible to remove and replace the photos without it being very noticeable. The photos just seem so thin and fragile. Maybe someone else with more experience handling these will chime in.

Rob

[glchen]

I think it's Ruth, but I was also wondering if the date was correct. It looks like the same image in the pin as this iconic Ruth photo. Does anyone know the dating for the photo?

I found the Conlon photo from an old Legendary auction, and according to the auction, the photo is from c.1918. Link (http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=53882)

[autograf]

My understanding is that pin was only found in the last 2-3-4 years and was privately sold before it could go to auction. About 6-8 of those in that auction were mine sold to him via an intermediary. I don't see how something like that could be faked or created but nothing's impossible anymore I guess. A very neat pinback. To my knowledge, one of a kind.

[Jlighter]

Looks like Mr. Nash has commented.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=16105#more-16105

[steve B]

Looks like Mr. Nash has commented.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=16105#more-16105


Now here's a prime example of something we discussed the other day.
-Begin cranky old guy
It's Loupe, not loop. If he's going to hold himself out as a high end expert getting at least the terminology of the tools of the trade right matters.
-End cranky old guy

When will he do the obvious companion article that looks at wether the issue date is solidly 1915 or the set was issued over a period of a few years.

If some of the other photos are Conlons, it should be fairly easy to get dates.

Steve B

[glchen]

It looks like Legendary has updated the description for the PM1 Ruth pin, basically saying that these pins could have been issued over a period of years, so that the Ruth pin could have been issued around 1918, consistent with the Conlon photo that was probably used as the base. They also added some additional authentication info.

I do have a couple of other questions, however. In their decription, Legendary mentions a Bressler PM1 pin, in order to show that other PM1 pins could have been issued after 1915. However, there is no Bressler pin in the Legendary auction or the oldcardboard checklist. Is it known that a Bressler PM1 pin exists? (Scott is also used in the same context, so does Scott also exist?) If these pins do exist, it would go a long ways to show that these pins were issued over a period of years, so that it would be very likely that Ruth was included among them.

Legendary has also seemed to prove that the pin itself is authentic. Still, however, going back to Rob D's post, is it possible to carefully bend the settings on the back of the pin, remove the backing, and replace the photo with another photo?

[egbeachley]

I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be possible to remove and replace the photos without it being very noticeable. The photos just seem so thin and fragile. Rob

They wouldn't have to replace the thin and fragile photo that was ruined when removed. Just add a new one just like they were inserted originally.

[drc]

A number of years back I had a PM1 Cobb. The image surface was smoothly rounded and like enamel (perhaps they're celluloid-- it was good while ago I had one) and, at the time, it seemed the image was directly on the enamel-like surface. It was not like a little flat frame you could easily remove and insert paper photos.

[Republicaninmass]

The 176 subject 1915 Cracker Jack set did not choose to include Ruth

That would have been a stunning card!

[glchen]

Just noting another thread which shows that this PM1 pin shows a Washington Senators player (likely Sam Rice) in a uniform 1917 or later, which supports the theory that the set was released over a period of years: Link (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=134934)

[Bridwell]

The prices on these in the auction seemed pretty low to me. The Ruth went for big bucks but a Ty Cobb went for $896, incl. BP. A Walter Johnson sold for $717, Johnny Evers for $359. Four went for the $200 opening bid and 3 got no bids at all.

They were a great deal, as long as they weren't ever opened. If the backs can be opened it creates some doubt.