Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket

[thetruthisoutthere]

This is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Babe Ruth 700th Homerun Day (July 13, 1934) autographed ticket.

Little Red Riding Hood is the name of the 5-12 year old (she was in her 70's according to the consignor in 1992) girl who went to the Tiger-Yankees game at Navin Field on July 13, 1934.

Why Little Red Riding Hood? Why not?

The consignor couldn’t remember her name (but did remember the story of the ticket in detail), so I’m giving her the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father went to the Detroit Tigers baseball game on July 13. 1934. They were seated in the upper deck of Navin Field holding a rain check ticket stamped July 13, 1934.

By the way, where are all of the other tickets from that day (July 13, 1934)? I have read there might be one other ticket from that day that has surfaced (but you would think such an historic baseball occasion would have had other tickets surface).

They watch the game (careful not to crease her ticket...geez, she probably kept it in a rigid toploader) and the ballgame finishes about two hours twelve minutes later.

Little Red Riding Hood and her father departs Navin Field and navigate approximately four miles to The Fisher Building.

But wait. What made Little Red Riding Hood and her father traverse to The Fisher Building immediately after the game? Was the radio interview with The Babe advertised somewhere? Where? Did the radio station invite the public into the interview?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father have been holding on to their tickets for a few hours now. Was it their plan to have The Bambino autograph her ticket that day?

They arrive at the Fisher Building and find their way up to the radio station. And, of course, the radio station lets any member of the public right into the show, as I am sure they always did.

Little Red Riding Hood instantly recognizes Mrs. Ruth and sits down right next her?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father walk into the radio station unabated?

No one else in that room recognized Mrs. Ruth? No one else in that room requested an autograph from Babe Ruth?

Wow, it was certainly a strange day for Little Red Riding Hood.


The Babe Ruth signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket sold for $12,000.00 over at Huggins & Scott.

Only $12,000 for a true 1/1 Babe Ruth item?

The Babe autographed thousands of baseballs, but that ticket is a true 1/1, is it not?

Where are all of the other tickets from that ballgame? Look at the ticket that Huggins & Scott sold. Not only did it survive in great condition, but it is signed by Babe Ruth?

The winner of that Babe Ruth signed ticket thinks they got a real bargain paying only $12,000.00 for a true 1/1.

It will surface again in the near future.



Here's the Babe Ruth signed ticket that sold over at Huggins & Scott:


96750


Here's an Eddie Gaedel signature penned by the same person who penned the Babe Ruth signed ticket sold over at Huggins & Scott:


96753


Here's an authentic Eddie Gaedel signature.


96754

[mr2686]

Chris, thanks for the helpful info. Nice use of comparisons and interesting take on the "story". I think there are a few parts of the story that are more believable than others, but taken as a whole leads to more than a few concerns.

[mighty bombjack]

I have to ask: why do you keep asking about the other tickets to this game? You seem to be implying that there is a conspiracy to hide the other tickets. What does the general lack of tickets to this game have to do with this particular ticket? I don't understand.

[Runscott]

Chris, is this what you've been doing for the last several weeks? :confused:


Stories change over the years, facts get forgotten or modified. A bad 79-yr old story means little. A good story wouldn't have meant much either.
The two Gaedel signatures aren't even remotely similar. The Ruth looks at least close to a real Ruth. The example you have given isn't even credible.

[slidekellyslide]

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

[7nohitter]

Oh boy...and I thought I was in a for a non-eventful day...

[mighty bombjack]

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

I agree on all counts. Most of the OP is pretty meaningless. The part about the actual sig might end up being relevant...

[travrosty]

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

this is exactly right, i will translate chris' post.

fluff,

here is a gaedel i believe to be signed by the same hand.

fluff.

i agree with slidekellyslide, is it illegal to ask how the ruth and gaedel are signed by the same person? that's all that matters. you dragged an auction house and two authentication companies into a mud pit because of ?

so you don't believe the backstory, so what? the backstory doesn't make the ticket real nor does it make it fake. you are short on facts and hard evidence so you belittle the backstory. the backstory means nothing to me, but evidence does. do you have any? When someone spends that much time making fun of the backstory, means they got what? for proof? If you had some, you wouldn't even bother mentioning the backstory, as PROOF trumps all.

[ss]

Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

[Big Dave]

If this is your "proof", it is not convincing in the least.

[David Atkatz]

Every single occurrence, when looked at individually, is highly unlikely.

Consider the chain of events that had to occur in order to bring your parents together. One improbability after another.

And yet, we're all here.

(One of us, though, as my father used to say, is ''not all there.")

[HRBAKER]

We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

[travrosty]

We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

why doesnt chris prove that the ruth signed ticket and the gaedel and the other ruth he showed are by the same hand. can you elaborate, mr. chris?

[D. Bergin]

Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[shelly]

Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

[earlywynnfan]

Regarding the radio show, many shows had a live audience (often behind glass, so you couldn't hear them over the air.) Tickets to these would be given out beforehand, usually for free.

So a family is going to the big city to see a radio show, because they have tickets. While there, why not take in a baseball game? While at the station, who do we see, but Babe Ruth! And he's signing autographs for the crowd afterwards!! "Daddy, can I get his autograph? Sure, honey, but I don't have anything -- wait, have him sign my ticket stub."

Chris, I make no assertions about the whole of your post, but I think the scenario I just posted is extremely plausible. Once again, you have made a post with lots of sizzle and no steak. I look forward to you coming on again two weeks from now to clear this up a little.

Ken

[Scott Garner]

I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

Shelly,
The "Babe Ruth signed 700 HR ticket" most likely had the year 1934 printed (not stamped) in the disclaimer text at the bottom of the stub, which was the way Tigers tickets were printed in the mid-late 1930's. The auction of similar 1934 tickets that Lance Fittro posted in the original thread clearly showed this.

As I stated before, it was unusual for Detroit to stamp the date of games on Emergency tickets in the earlier years, FWIW.

[shelly]

Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.96765

[Frozen in Time]

Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

I agree with those that have posted regarding the relative weight of the story. Details of what a "70" year old person recounts as well as the consignor's recollection of what she said should not be taken as foolproof and by themselves, do little one way or the other in determining authenticity of either the ticket or the auto.

In addition, I see little, if any, similarities in letter formation or pressure points between the "a" in Babe and the "g" in Gaedel. The same goes for the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. Certainly nothing strong enough to lead me to think they were both done by the same hand.

So, I go back to what I said in the original "Ruth" thread and that is what exactly is the purpose of these "cryptic" posts? Where is the new information/evidence?

[slidekellyslide]

Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

[cardinalcollector]

Mr. Williams,

This is what you said:


I am disappointed that Spence certed that.

If I recall correctly, PSA rejected that Babe Ruth awhile back.

It's not authentic.


And this is your proof?

This is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Babe Ruth 700th Homerun Day (July 13, 1934) autographed ticket.

Little Red Riding Hood is the name of the 5-12 year old (she was in her 70's according to the consignor in 1992) girl who went to the Tiger-Yankees game at Navin Field on July 13, 1934.

Why Little Red Riding Hood? Why not?

The consignor couldn’t remember her name (but did remember the story of the ticket in detail), so I’m giving her the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father went to the Detroit Tigers baseball game on July 13. 1934. They were seated in the upper deck of Navin Field holding a rain check ticket stamped July 13, 1934.

By the way, where are all of the other tickets from that day (July 13, 1934)? I have read there might be one other ticket from that day that has surfaced (but you would think such an historic baseball occasion would have had other tickets surface).

They watch the game (careful not to crease her ticket...geez, she probably kept it in a rigid toploader) and the ballgame finishes about two hours twelve minutes later.

Little Red Riding Hood and her father departs Navin Field and navigate approximately four miles to The Fisher Building.

But wait. What made Little Red Riding Hood and her father traverse to The Fisher Building immediately after the game? Was the radio interview with The Babe advertised somewhere? Where? Did the radio station invite the public into the interview?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father have been holding on to their tickets for a few hours now. Was it their plan to have The Bambino autograph her ticket that day?

They arrive at the Fisher Building and find their way up to the radio station. And, of course, the radio station lets any member of the public right into the show, as I am sure they always did.

Little Red Riding Hood instantly recognizes Mrs. Ruth and sits down right next her?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father walk into the radio station unabated?

No one else in that room recognized Mrs. Ruth? No one else in that room requested an autograph from Babe Ruth?

Wow, it was certainly a strange day for Little Red Riding Hood.


The Babe Ruth signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket sold for $12,000.00 over at Huggins & Scott.

Only $12,000 for a true 1/1 Babe Ruth item?

The Babe autographed thousands of baseballs, but that ticket is a true 1/1, is it not?

Where are all of the other tickets from that ballgame? Look at the ticket that Huggins & Scott sold. Not only did it survive in great condition, but it is signed by Babe Ruth?

The winner of that Babe Ruth signed ticket thinks they got a real bargain paying only $12,000.00 for a true 1/1.

It will surface again in the near future.



I am not an autograph collector but I have followed this thread with interest. I was really hoping you would come back with something credible. The above story is ....a story. Smoke, mirrors and deflection. Anyone can see that. I mean, you called out an Auction House, and an Authenticator, and now the consignor with a story about little red riding hood. Again, that's all you got?

Not that it matters, but why should I, and others, believe anything you say from now on?

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know H&S or anyone else in this thread. Just one guys opinion.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

[David Atkatz]

Attention.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

[Scott Garner]

Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.96765

Shelly,
Thanks for the close up scan.
The stub's tear is conveniently just above where the year 1934 would have appeared on the stub. To see an example of what I am talking about please refer to the Tigers 1934 eBay auction lot in the 1st Babe Ruth ticket thread.

[shelly]

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

[travrosty]

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

OMG. How humble.

[David Atkatz]

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.I'll tell you. Once again.

Attention.

[travrosty]

He overplayed his hand on what he thought his name was worth in the "trust me" dept. and don't ask me any questions because I am better than 98% of you.

[slidekellyslide]

Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

You want all of us to bow down to your "autograph eye" I guess...I don't know. You've still not shared one single bit of proof. NOT ONE. You don't even answer direct questions. You ran and hid for nearly two weeks when the heat was on....I think it's pretty obvious that you've damaged your reputation.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Ticket stub again.


96772

[thenavarro]

Usually when I read threads that are "battling" over disputed autographs, I usually fall on Chris's side of the ledger. I have no opinion on this particular ticket, as I have zero experience in dealing with ticket stubs from that era, nor do I profess to know that particular style of Ruth's (or a forgers) signature. However, I do get quite disgusted with people continuing to rub David's face into the mistake he made over his forged '27 Yankees baseball. I find it to be contemptable, unprofessional, disconcerting, malicious, heartless, demeaning, and otherwise uncalled for. When trying to justify or prove themselves, one should tout their own resume, rather than belittling someone elses. It doesn't really matter who has the biggest penis amongst competitors, what matters is if it's big enough or swung well enough to get the job done.

[Scott Garner]

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

Shelly,
What I am trying to say is the ticket (that is deemed to be Ruth's 700th HR game) WOULD HAVE a year printed on it had the tear conveniently not been applied on the stub where it was.

Ironic? Yes.
Does this absolutely prove anything? Nope.

[travrosty]

I know boxing autographs quite well, but I would never put a % on the people I felt I knew boxing autographs better than. that's arrogance.

And when I do notice an auction item that isn't right, and wish to call it out. I show all the proof I have, every bit, totally transparent. I don't just say that I am Travis R. so that should be good enough for you 98% that don't know jack about it. (that's not my attitude about it but some here have that attitude.)

I asked for his hobby resume on vintage baseball before on a thread and never got a response. If he is top 2% on Ruth, it should be fantasic hobby resume on vintage baseball. I will be happy to provide my resume on boxing to anyone that asks so I can't be called a hypocrite.

[Scott Garner]

Ticket stub again.


96772

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.

[shelly]

That is why I asked if this type of ticket was used just for the 34 season or could it have been used in other years.

[travrosty]

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.



but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


I did ask chris once for his opinion on a joe dimaggio autographed baseball that an antique shop had for sale in my area once, and for the record, he said no good. i didnt buy it because i dont know dimaggio. chris knows dimaggio, and ruth and cy young, and all the rest.

my favorite story on a thread about cy young.

baseball expert comes on and says that cy young couldnt have possibly signed the ball, because the ball was manufactured after young had died.

soon after, mr. chris comes on and says 'look at that horrible piece of junk'. This thread is getting to be a parody of itself. Why start it if no evidence is shown and just to stir up a hornets you know what nest?

[Scott Garner]

[QUOTE=travrosty;1121067]but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


Travis,
That is correct.

[slidekellyslide]

And here we still are with no evidence of fraud....NONE. All we have is an autograph eye that claims to be better than 98% of us. So I guess we should all just shut up unless we're in the 2%.

[Frozen in Time]

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I'm clearly not part of the long debate between Chris and other members of this forum. Nor am I by any means an authority on any autograph. But having followed the original Ruth thread and this one, I believe a much more relevant question would be " What did we gain by your posting of the original Babe Ruth thread and this one?" To date, in my humble opinion, not much.

[D. Bergin]

A confirmed 700 HR Ruth ticket I imagine would bring a couple grand on it's own, so I think that's a bit relevant in this situation in what is being offered here. Authenticity of signature aside, It's more then just a Babe Ruth signature on the back of any random ticket.

Same issue with the Un-Autographed Ted Williams 500HR ticket offered right next to it in the same auction. Even if the ticket style matches up with the right year it's still a quite a stretch to assume they are from the correct game.

Who date-stamped these tickets and when?

[Big Dave]

Should just go back to posting videos about Coach's Corner. At least there the things were obvious to us 98 percenters.

As for the rest of his posts....reminds me of that old song from the 70s........Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me.

[travrosty]

The thing about it is, all we got is attitude from the original poster, and all have asked from day 1 is some proof. that's what it boils down to.

[PhilNap]

Chis, less than a year ago you posted this in another thread. Has something since changed?

Mike, thank you for the nice comment, but I would never call myself an expert.

[shelly]

What I find truly amazing is that the so called TPA's haters are now defending them. What made this happen?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Chis, less than a year ago you posted this in another thread. Has something since changed?

No, Phil, nothing has changed. I have never claimed to be an expert. I have claimed to be very knowledeable about autographs.

Who on this board would you consider an expert?

[travrosty]

What I find truly amazing is that the so called TPA's haters are now defending them. What made this happen?

no one is defending the tpa's . i said i didnt know if it was good or bad, or if spence screwed up or not, just that if you are going to call out spence, have some proof. chris might end up being right, but not just because his name is christopher williams.

[Big Dave]

Shelly,

Nobody is defending the TPAs. What seems to be the general thing here is for Chris to either put up or shut up. It has been over three weeks and still nothing.

[shelly]

Thanks, that is an honest reply.:)

[travrosty]

here is a couple of emergency stamped tickets from 1934 july12, that went with this lot.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/90-1934-1939-detroit-tigers-baseball-ticket-stub#.UXRqAkbfjU4

[shelly]

Travis, two of the rain checks have a printed date the other two have stamped dates. My question was. Are the generic tickets from that year only or could they have been from other years as well. I dont care what the stamp says.

[travrosty]

i posted it for discussion purposes, i am not a ticket guy.

but they seem to match form, so i would think someone would have a hard time CONCLUSIVELY debunking the ticket from the way it looks based on these others that have surfaced. unless they are fake too? not likely.

whether or not the ticket can be definitely ruled in is up to debate, but conversely, it would be hard to DEFINITELY rule it out either. they do look the same.

did chris have any ticket bombshell he wanted to show?

[shelly]

If he did I am sure it would have been done by now. I am just curious how they can say it was that date.

[PhilNap]

No, Phil, nothing has changed. I have never claimed to be an expert. I have claimed to be very knowledeable about autographs.

What's the distinction?

Who on this board would you consider an expert?

Other than the couple of guys on here who are long time dealers I don't profess to know the credentials of the rest.

[thetruthisoutthere]

What's the distinction?



Other than the couple of guys on here who are long time dealers I don't profess to know the credentials of the rest.

Who are you referring to?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner
James and all,
Interesting...

FWIW, I would not trust this to be a real Ruth 700th HR ticket.

I personally have not seen vintage Tigers tickets that have been stamped with a date. In fact, as a baseball ticket collector of over 40 years, I will tell you that I do not recall EVER seeing a Tigers stamped date ticket prior to 1969. I have, however, seen lots of emergency tickets like the one featured in this auction with designations like Game X, Game K, etc.

I do recall seeing a genuine printed date ticket to Ruth's 700th HR. At least one exists in the hobby. As I recall it has an uneven tear at the perforation, almost appearing to have a "fang" shaped tear....

(chris williams response)
+1 and more......


shelly, i post that photo (that huggins and scott posted in the last thread) because someone said they doubt these stamped tickets exist, and chris +1 them, agreed with them.

well here are two stamped emergency tickets from the day before, july 12, 1934. now unless people think those are fake, then there is precedent for stamped emergency tickets from july, 1934 out there. why did chris do a +1?

because the year is cut off, it isnt possible to confirm it is from 1934, but not possible to confirm it isn't either. but it can put to rest the theory that the 700 hr ticket must be a fake because no one has seen stamping like that before. it could be real. but game used balls same way, no one can prove that they were used in the game for sure, but if they fit the pattern and form of game used balls from that game, you have to have a leap of faith somewhat. The stamped huggins and scott ticket does follow form for what it shows people. you have to then go on to the autograph.

for the auction house to say it is from 1934 is them saying it's from 1934. it probably is, the consignor says it is, not 100% definitely yet as far as i can tell. but we have seen auction houses say this is babe ruth's first home run bat, and another one says they have the first homerun bat. the ticket cant disprove the autograph or backstory, but the autograph can disprove everything.

it comes down to the autograph.

[David Atkatz]

Who are you referring to?To whom are you referring? ;)

[travrosty]

the distinction between expert and very knowledgable about autographs is that if someone has someone else right where they want them and want to go in for the kill, they are an expert, if they screwed up and have some backtracking to do, they are very knowledgable about autographs.

can i get a +1 ?

[PhilNap]

Who are you referring to?

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

[earlywynnfan]

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

I can't speak for anyone else who has gotten bogged down in two threads, but with all the time I've spent reading this, I feel I'm dumber than I was three weeks ago.

Ken

[Deertick]

My main question centers around the ticket authenticity. It has struck me that the the ticket was cut. It certainly did not enhance the presentation of the autograph. What it did do was cut off very critical pieces of evidence toward dating it.
Notice the precision of the stamping of the other examples. I wonder if anyone could duplicate that freehand on two consecutive tickets while doing presumably hundreds? But look closely at Seat 26. Does it not appear that it was stamped after tearing? Could that be why the ticket was trimmed?

I want to add that I believe that Chris made a premature call on this because he felt his hand was forced due to the time-sensitive nature of the situation. I don't believe he has all of the pieces of the puzzle that many are demanding, and very likely now, never will. But my guess is he will keep trying.

Without any financial gain, I doubt many of us would do the same.

[David Atkatz]

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

[Scott Garner]

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

+1

[mschwade]

I am sure this has been pointed out between the two threads at some point, but notice that the only other Emergency ticket (not to mention stamped) was for the same Tigers-Yankees series opener when Mr. Ruth entered the series sitting on 699 for his career.

Difference is Set Z in H&S, Set A in the sold lot. Perhaps a darker ticket in H&S as well?

[shelly]

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

[Deertick]

+1

Man, I have it on my screen and it appears pretty clear that the 4 is complete and the tear (flaking?) extends beneath the stamp. I can't seem to save my enlargement to post it here. Maybe someone else can?

[David Atkatz]

It is very clear that the stamp does not extend over the tear.

[mschwade]

FYI, not sure if anyone can do anything with this or not, but here's another 1934 example. Both 1.27 + .13 tax for a total of $1.40. Perhaps this may be a different price in other seasons?

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1934-Red-Sox-Tigers-Navin-Field-Ticket-Stub-Sunday-Sept-9th-Game-/00/s/NjIyWDQ4MA==/z/OZsAAOxy3lFRCcm2/$T2eC16FHJF8E9nnC6LTTBRCcm2NY-!~~60_3.JPG

[mighty bombjack]

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.
I don't know why Chris, but your intent is not enough. I think you do have a great eye, but everyone is wrong sometimes, no? You haven't givn us any reason to think that now isn't one of those times for you.

I have never had any reason to have anything but respect for you and your posts on these boards, and that really hasn't changed. I'm not calling you names, and will read what you post with the same interest that i always have. But I can tell you this: if you are hit by a car and killed tomorrow (and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen and that you live as long as you hope to), than this Ruth will be accepted by 100 percent of us, as we don't have your eye. And then it will be real. See what I mean?

So if you have something else to share, please do, but otherwise this ticket is likely to sell for even more than it did this time when it comes up for auction again.

I can't say it much nicer than this.

[David Atkatz]

So if you have something else to share, please do, but otherwise this ticket is likely to sell for even more than it did this time when it comes up for auction again.No reason why it shouldn't, Wayne.

[mighty bombjack]

No reason why it shouldn't, Wayne.

Indeed. I wish I owned it.

[shelly]

Let me ask any one on this board a simple question. If the stamp was not on the ticket. How would you know its from 1934? This a generic ticket. Did the Tigers use this ticket in any year but 1934? If was made just for the 34 season then it is all about the autograph. If not, it does open a can of worms.
I am not trying to do anyting but find out the true facts about this ticket not the autograph.

[Scott Garner]

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

Shelly,

I don't know how many different ways I can answer this. The ticket does not say that it is from 1934. It is definitely from this era as we have seen other exemplars that show this.

There is nothing that 100% refutes that this ticket couldn't POSSIBLY be from the game played on July 13, 1934.

As a ticket collector, I can tell you that there are examples of other baseball ticket stock that a printed (not stamped) year is nowhere to be seen on the ticket. The Cleveland Indians did this for many years. However, there was one huge difference between these tickets and the Ruth signed "700th HR" ticket. The Indians tickets included the day of the week (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) At least these provided you with an additional clue to help you match it up with the corresponding year. The Detroit ticket does not allow you this luxury. It becomes much more of a leap of faith.

Without the autograph being legit, the ticket would have minimal value because of the absence of the year and the possibility of it being, from say, 1933 or 1935. Some collectors may have some possible interest, but many would not, FWIW...

[thecatspajamas]

Anyone have another Tigers ticket from 1933 or 1935 to compare? Matt showed another from 1934 which had the same base price and tax. I can't quite make out the details on the 1930's ticket lot that has been posted, which included years other than 1934, but even with all the squinting I've done looking at the low-res image that Worthpoint retains, it looks to me like only 1934 tickets were pictured in that one shot.

[shelly]

Promise this is the last question. Could that ticket without a stamp on it be from another year other than 1934, Scott yes or no. Any one else yes or no. If no that is it. No or yes nothing more.
I am now beeing mean and nasty.:eek: I am also very tired. At my age the only thing you have to remember is the seat up or down. You guys have no idea how many times I called for help:rolleyes:

[D. Bergin]

Anyone have another Tigers ticket from 1933 or 1935 to compare? Matt showed another from 1934 which had the same base price and tax. I can't quite make out the details on the 1930's ticket lot that has been posted, which included years other than 1934, but even with all the squinting I've done looking at the low-res image that Worthpoint retains, it looks to me like only 1934 tickets were pictured in that one shot.


Well, if the date stamp is authentic, they were on the road in 1932, 1933, 1935 and 1936 on that date.

[thecatspajamas]

Found a few others. These are (in order) from 1932, 1933 (lower right ticket in the group), 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943. To based on the price, 1937 is out. 1932 looks to be a different style of ticket (horizontal orientation rather than vertical), though the one I show is not an "emergency ticket," so would it be possible for those to have a different layout? I'm not sure, but even so, that leaves a possibility of 1933-36, 1938-41, and 1943 based just on the price. (I couldn't find an example for 1942). And to my eye, the "style" of ticket is very similar from 1933-43, so I could easily see them using the same "emergency tickets" for multiple years (ruling out 1937 and 1942 due to price differences). Did they actually do this? I have no idea. I'm just trying to help cover all the bases in what way I can.

[D. Bergin]

here is a couple of emergency stamped tickets from 1934 july12, that went with this lot.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/90-1934-1939-detroit-tigers-baseball-ticket-stub#.UXRqAkbfjU4


Thanks Travis. Looks like the ones shown that are stamp dated were the day right before Ruth's 700th HR.

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks Travis. Looks like the ones shown that are stamp dated were the day right before Ruth's 700th HR.

My theory is that the Tigers had to print up extra tickets for that series in expectation of higher crowds due to the possibility that Ruth would get #700.

[travrosty]

Promise this is the last question. Could that ticket without a stamp on it be from another year other than 1934, Scott yes or no. Any one else yes or no. If no that is it. No or yes nothing more.
I am now beeing mean and nasty.:eek: I am also very tired. At my age the only thing you have to remember is the seat up or down. You guys have no idea how many times I called for help:rolleyes:

shelly, the buyer accepted it as 1934, if it wasn't, there doesnt seem to be a way to know 10000%. either way it doesnt prove or disprove the autograph.

#1 rule for authenticators is make sure the item being signed was available during the lifetime of the signer, it was.

[Scott Garner]

Found a few others. These are (in order) from 1932, 1933 (lower right ticket in the group), 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943. To based on the price, 1937 is out. 1932 looks to be a different style of ticket (horizontal orientation rather than vertical), though the one I show is not an "emergency ticket," so would it be possible for those to have a different layout? I'm not sure, but even so, that leaves a possibility of 1933-36, 1938-41, and 1943 based just on the price. (I couldn't find an example for 1942). And to my eye, the "style" of ticket is very similar from 1933-43, so I could easily see them using the same "emergency tickets" for multiple years (ruling out 1937 and 1942 due to price differences). Did they actually do this? I have no idea. I'm just trying to help cover all the bases in what way I can.

Excellent detective work, Lance and Dave!

Please also note the following facts and observations:

1) The 1932 Tigers ticket is from the LEFT side of the ticket, not the right side. Tigers tickets from every one of these years was horizontal on the left and vertical on the right. The vertical stub is the correct portion of the stub that was to be given to the patron, thus they are called "patron's stubs"

2) The left side of the ticket is what is referred to in the ticket collecting hobby as an "usher's stub". This is the portion of the ticket that the ticket taker was to deposit in the ticket box as the patron entered the stadium. Occasionally (rarely) a ticket taker would hand the patron the wrong side of the stub. I've always taken this to be the work of an inexperienced or new ticket taker. Usher ticket stubs like these show up in the hobby, but only about 5% of the time. One notable exception to this would be St. Louis Cardinals tickets from the 1970's and 1980's. The Cards had a habit of reselling usher's stub tickets to historic games such as Bob Forsch's 2nd no-hitter and Steve Carlton's 300th win. There are LOTS of usher's stub tickets to these games out there as a result, FWIW.

3) The difference in ticket price noted by Lance, $1.40 vs. $1.60 does NOT eliminate Tigers tickets from the year 1937. This is merely a difference in ticket price because of seat location. Lower deck 1st tier box seats sold for a premium, $1.60, during this era as opposed to the standard $1.40 for upper reserved seats or lower deck reserved seats. This is common at all stadiums.

4) The Tigers kept their seat prices and ticket stock appearance steady for MANY years (perhaps 10+ years), which makes solving this puzzle challenging.

5) Please note that by 1945 Tigers tickets were $1.50 for upper reserved seats and $1.80 for lower reserved seats.

6) The "military green" ticket color exhibited by the "Ruth 700" ticket was common for many years at Briggs Stadium (Tiger Stadium). I recall seeing tickets of this color as late as 1952 or so.

7) The ticket could possibly be from 1939 or 1941, because the Tigers did play at Briggs Stadium on July 13th and the ticket prices were most likely the same.
When I re-checked Dave's work about the Tigers playing out of town for several of these years he is correct.

8) I am beginning to believe that the ticket is most likely from 1934 and Ruth's 700 game. Finding a date stamp that is, to my eye, identical to the other Emergency tickets in the Tigers 1934 lot that sold on eBay, would be extremely challenging. Date stamps are a bit like typewriters; they each have their own unique font and size since different companies manufactured them. The stamp was applied at the same angle on the "Ruth 700" ticket as it was to the other Emergency tickets from the Yankees series surrounding 700 in 1934. Briggs Stadium issued all of their tickets from one very small ticket booth at the corner of the stadium. It's very likely that one ticket office employee was in charge of all stamping of tickets during this period of time. Same angle of stamping, same date stamp used in application of the stamp. The ink applied to the 700 ticket appears to be old, not recent, FWIW.

If the Babe Ruth signature holds up under scrutiny of the Babe Ruth sig experts, I would now not exclude this ticket as possibly being from the Ruth 700 game.
Just my 2 cents... ;)

[Scott Garner]

shelly, the buyer accepted it as 1934, if it wasn't, there doesnt seem to be a way to know 10000%. either way it doesnt prove or disprove the autograph.

#1 rule for authenticators is make sure the item being signed was available during the lifetime of the signer, it was.

Correct Travis!

[canjond]

Also interesting to note that every one of those tickets posted appears to be in nice "sharp" condition, at least as they appear on my iPad screen. That, too me, debunks the "ticket looks too nice to be authentic" argument.

[Scott Garner]

Also interesting to note that every one of those tickets posted appears to be in nice "sharp" condition, at least as they appear on my iPad screen. That, too me, debunks the "ticket looks too nice to be authentic" argument.

That was never the case. Lots of older baseball tickets have survived in terrific shape with sharp corners through the years. It all has to do with the randomness of the patron that attended the game.

Most patrons threw ticket stubs away, and did not save them. It stands to reason that the patron that did "save" the ticket stub would be more likely to take care of them since they cared enough to even hang on to them in the first place.

Damage to older tickets usually is exhibited on the back of the ticket. Many times, the older stubs that survived were glued into scrapbooks or scorebooks. If they are not removed carefully, this is when back damage or paper loss occurs to the ticket. Very common, BTW...

[mschwade]

Damage to older tickets usually is exhibited on the back of the ticket. Many times, the older stubs that survived were glued into scrapbooks or scorebooks.

And she certainly wouldn't be gluing a ticket stub in a scrapbook that had a Babe Ruth signature on the back, if that was her original intentions when she left the game.

[Scott Garner]

And she certainly wouldn't be gluing a ticket stub in a scrapbook that had a Babe Ruth signature on the back, if that was her original intentions when she left the game.

Very true

[Scott Garner]

My theory is that the Tigers had to print up extra tickets for that series in expectation of higher crowds due to the possibility that Ruth would get #700.

Possibly so, Dan. Additionally, Ruth and Co. always drew better attendance than other AL teams, FWIW. You definitely know that the Yankees drew much better crowds than a team like the lowly St. Louis Browns (apologies to all Brownies fans out there ;))

[thecatspajamas]

From the July 19 issue of The Sporting News. I believe the presence of "circus seats" validates the use of emergency tickets, and the article also elaborates on how the seats were not needed based on actual attendance, but were there anyway just in case. Seems the press had been talking up a sell-out crowd, which had the reverse effect of scaring attendees away.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/24/CircusSeats_1.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/24/CircusSeats_2.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/24/CircusSeats_3.jpg
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll13/thecatspajamas99/L-/24/CircusSeats_4.jpg

[thecatspajamas]

Excellent detective work, Lance and Dave!

Please also note the following facts and observations:

1) The 1932 Tigers ticket is from the LEFT side of the ticket, not the right side. Tigers tickets from every one of these years was horizontal on the left and vertical on the right. The vertical stub is the correct portion of the stub that was to be given to the patron, thus they are called "patron's stubs"

2) The left side of the ticket is what is referred to in the ticket collecting hobby as an "usher's stub". This is the portion of the ticket that the ticket taker was to deposit in the ticket box as the patron entered the stadium. Occasionally (rarely) a ticket taker would hand the patron the wrong side of the stub. I've always taken this to be the work of an inexperienced or new ticket taker. Usher ticket stubs like these show up in the hobby, but only about 5% of the time. One notable exception to this would be St. Louis Cardinals tickets from the 1970's and 1980's. The Cards had a habit of reselling usher's stub tickets to historic games such as Bob Forsch's 2nd no-hitter and Steve Carlton's 300th win. There are LOTS of usher's stub tickets to these games out there as a result, FWIW.

3) The difference in ticket price noted by Lance, $1.40 vs. $1.60 does NOT eliminate Tigers tickets from the year 1937. This is merely a difference in ticket price because of seat location. Lower deck 1st tier box seats sold for a premium, $1.60, during this era as opposed to the standard $1.40 for upper reserved seats or lower deck reserved seats. This is common at all stadiums.

4) The Tigers kept their seat prices and ticket stock appearance steady for MANY years (perhaps 10+ years), which makes solving this puzzle challenging.

5) Please note that by 1945 Tigers tickets were $1.50 for upper reserved seats and $1.80 for lower reserved seats.

6) The "military green" ticket color exhibited by the "Ruth 700" ticket was common for many years at Briggs Stadium (Tiger Stadium). I recall seeing tickets of this color as late as 1952 or so.

7) The ticket could possibly be from 1939 or 1941, because the Tigers did play at Briggs Stadium on July 13th and the ticket prices were most likely the same.
When I re-checked Dave's work about the Tigers playing out of town for several of these years he is correct.

8) I am beginning to believe that the ticket is most likely from 1934 and Ruth's 700 game. Finding a date stamp that is, to my eye, identical to the other Emergency tickets in the Tigers 1934 lot that sold on eBay, would be extremely challenging. Date stamps are a bit like typewriters; they each have their own unique font and size since different companies manufactured them. The stamp was applied at the same angle on the "Ruth 700" ticket as it was to the other Emergency tickets from the Yankees series surrounding 700 in 1934. Briggs Stadium issued all of their tickets from one very small ticket booth at the corner of the stadium. It's very likely that one ticket office employee was in charge of all stamping of tickets during this period of time. Same angle of stamping, same date stamp used in application of the stamp. The ink applied to the 700 ticket appears to be old, not recent, FWIW.

If the Babe Ruth signature holds up under scrutiny of the Babe Ruth sig experts, I would now not exclude this ticket as possibly being from the Ruth 700 game.
Just my 2 cents... ;)

All good information, and Scott's attention to and evaluation of the details is much appreciated. I've definitely learned a thing or two (or three) about tickets as a result of this thread, (which is more of an education than I expected going into it ;) ). I always appreciate your breakdowns of the information at hand, Scott, as opposed to my "lookee here what I found!"

[slidekellyslide]

Theory confirmed...thanks for doing the research Lance!

[shelly]

Thanks for all the help. I at least found out what was the most important part of the puzzle. Was a generic ticket from that game stamp or no stamp.
It now comes down to if the autograph is authentic or not. That will be up to you to decide.

[Scott Garner]

Theory confirmed...thanks for doing the research Lance!

I agree. Nice job, Lance!

[RichardSimon]

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

[Runscott]

From the July 19 issue of The Sporting News. I believe the presence of "circus seats" validates the use of emergency tickets, and the article also elaborates on how the seats were not needed based on actual attendance, but were there anyway just in case. Seems the press had been talking up a sell-out crowd, which had the reverse effect of scaring attendees away.



Chris didn't show us anything like this - makes me wonder if he's presenting theories and throwing away facts

[Forever Young]

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

A theory here would be yes for regular printed tickets and no for "circus tickets" which would make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps someone can confirm.

[Scott Garner]

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

Richard,
That's an interesting question.

For the most part, Tigers tickets would have had printing on the back. No advertising, just information mostly regarding the teams right to revoke admission to patrons under certain circumstances. There also would be the brand of the ticket company that manufactured the ticket. During the 1930's and 1940's the Tigers used Ansell-Simplex Ticket Co. of Chicago, IL. This would typically be on the back of all ticket stock.

However, Emergency tickets may not have had the same treatment. Without having the opportunity to examine the back of other Emergency tickets from this era, I wouldn't know if they did or didn't have this printing. In looking through other Tigers tickets that I own, I do see at least one example from the 1950's where I DO NOT see printing on the back. These tickets are season tickets though, not regular box office tickets, thus possibly explaining the difference in printing process.

I hope this helps.

[slidekellyslide]

Chris didn't show us anything like this - makes me wonder if he's presenting theories and throwing away facts

Obviously he's in the 98% that know nothing about ticket stubs. :D

[Scott Garner]

A theory here would be yes for regular printed tickets and no for "circus tickets" which would make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps someone can confirm.

Hi Ben and all,

I have never heard of Emergency tickets being called "circus tickets" FWIW. When I think of circus tickets I think of "raffle" style smaller tickets. The bleacher tickets that Lance showed are somewhat like generic circus tickets. These also had the disclaimer printing on the back. I have quite a few of these from this era.

One additional point to note. Briggs Stadium had PLENTY of capacity to handle large crowds in excess of 26,000 fans in attendance (capacity of the stadium was listed at 36,000). They should not have had to add extra seats, just sell them generic bleacher seats....

[thecatspajamas]

Hi Ben and all,

I have never heard of Emergency tickets being called "circus tickets" FWIW. When I think of circus tickets I think of "raffle" style smaller tickets. The bleacher tickets that Lance showed are somewhat like generic circus tickets. These also had the disclaimer printing on the back. I have quite a few of these from this era.

One additional point to note. Briggs Stadium had PLENTY of capacity to handle large crowds in excess of 26,000 fans in attendance (capacity of the stadium was listed at 36,000). They should not have had to add extra seats....

My understanding in reading the article was that additional seating ("circus seating") was set up in anticipation of a greater-than-capacity crowd. The press talked it up about how the stadium was bound to be filled to capacity, but the reality of game day didn't live up to the hype. The writer also stated that the additional seats likely weren't needed for the game on Sunday (the 15th), but remained in place anyway. The article also laments the effect that the added seating, apparently at ground level on the field itself, had on game play (kids running around on the field, doubles becoming inside the park home runs, etc), so even though the stadium was not filled to capacity, the field-level seats clearly were occupied to some extent.

Also note that the term "circus" was only ever applied to the additional seating in the article, not the tickets themselves. I don't know if this was an official term for that style of seating, or was something unique to this article. The author certainly seems to have thought that the proceedings more closely resembled a circus than a baseball game, which could have led to him coining the term...?

[Scott Garner]

My understanding in reading the article was that additional seating ("circus seating") was set up in anticipation of a greater-than-capacity crowd. The press talked it up about how the stadium was bound to be filled to capacity, but the reality of game day didn't live up to the hype. The article also laments the effect that the added seating, apparently at ground level on the field itself, had on game play (kids running around on the field, doubles becoming inside the park home runs, etc), so even though the stadium was not filled to capacity, the field-level seats clearly were occupied to some extent.

Also note that the term "circus" was only ever applied to the additional seating in the article, not the tickets themselves.

Gotcha! ;)
I'm sure that the Tigers organization, in an attempt to capitalize on all of the hype and hysteria surrounding the pennant race and Ruth's 700th HR game, wanted to sell more expensive $1.60 seats, not cheap bleacher seats. $$ is always a great motivator, LOL.:D

[Runscott]

Everyone participating in this thread has 'Circus Seats'.

[Scott Garner]

Everyone participating in this thread has 'Circus Seats'.

:D:p

[Forever Young]

:D:p

That was my point:)

[thecatspajamas]

Ta da! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[mr2686]

Gotcha! ;)
I'm sure that the Tigers organization, in an attempt to capitalize on all of the hype and hysteria surrounding the pennant race and Ruth's 700th HR game, wanted to sell more expensive $1.60 seats, not cheap bleacher seats. $$ is always a great motivator, LOL.:D

I guess that was par for the course from the baseball owners. The funny thing was that despite having the games on radio, and the Great Depression, Detroit finished first in attendance in 1934. You wouldn't think that the game would need to be "played" up, but money talks.

[David Atkatz]

So, to get back on track, every bit of physical evidence either points to, or is consistent with this being a genuine 700 HR game ticket.

I wonder where "the Michigan forger" obtained it? ;)

[mr2686]

I guess another question would be, even if he obtained it, it would have cost him an amount unusual for a forger to fork out considering he would only have one shot at creating such a convincing Ruth, so why not dummy up a fake ticket instead?

[David Atkatz]

I hope you realize, Mike, I was being a bit of a smartass.
Of board members that have spoken, a majority of those in the "98%," and even a few in the elite "2%" feel the signature is genuine.

All physical evidence is consistent with the ticket being genuine, as well.

I'm sure the buyer will be happy with his purchase.

[mr2686]

Yes I did David. I was just taking the point a litte further. I still stand by my first post in this thread that the OP had good info. I base that strictly on his previous posts that did not tell us anything that would help us determine why he felt the sig was bad. With this tread, we learned that he did not believe the story and why, and whether we agree with all of it or not, it did start a very interesting ticket investigation on this very thread. The other part was to compare the Ruth with a Gaedel (as well as a real Gaedel), which to many of us proved that this forger not only does a terrible Gaedel, he didn't seem, with that comparison, to have the skill to do a Ruth THAT well.
All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.

[shelly]

Mike, I agree. To me it was the ticket first then the signiture. That is why I wanted to find out if the ticket was correct. I again want to thank everyone that went far and :) above what usually happens on here. It was nice seeing people working together and not takeing pop shots at each other.
Now its up to each person to decide is the autograph real or not.

[Forever Young]

Ta da! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Weeee! Haha

[David Atkatz]

All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.No, Mike, he didn't.

He presented a story outlining why he isn't happy with the provenance. He presented no information at all as to why he thinks the signature is the work of the so-called Michigan forger.

[mr2686]

Although he didn't elaborate, he did show additional work of "the forger" for us to draw our own conclusions...which I think we did. I do know what you're saying David, but I've given up at getting any additional type of info in situations like this, but hey I'm just a dumb 98 percenter.

[slidekellyslide]

Yes I did David. I was just taking the point a litte further. I still stand by my first post in this thread that the OP had good info. I base that strictly on his previous posts that did not tell us anything that would help us determine why he felt the sig was bad. With this tread, we learned that he did not believe the story and why, and whether we agree with all of it or not, it did start a very interesting ticket investigation on this very thread. The other part was to compare the Ruth with a Gaedel (as well as a real Gaedel), which to many of us proved that this forger not only does a terrible Gaedel, he didn't seem, with that comparison, to have the skill to do a Ruth THAT well.
All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.

What info did he have? He thought it was rejected by PSA. It wasn't...he had no clue it was certified by JSA. It was. He believed it was rejected by Heritage. It wasn't... He disappears for over a week when questioned about all of this. He comes back and gives us a Red Riding Hood fairy tale that totally deflects from the autograph and focuses on the ticket.

These threads completely illustrate what is wrong in the autograph hobby and what is right in the memorabilia hobby. What did we learn about Babe Ruth autographs? Nothing. What did we learn about ticket stubs? A whole heck of a lot. We also learned something about the game played that day. Lots of collectors chimed in with their FACTS about the game and ticket stub. What did we learn from the 2 percenters? Nothing.

[JT]

+1

[Leon]

What info did he have? He thought it was rejected by PSA. It wasn't...he had no clue it was certified by JSA. It was. He believed it was rejected by Heritage. It wasn't... He disappears for over a week when questioned about all of this. He comes back and gives us a Red Riding Hood fairy tale that totally deflects from the autograph and focuses on the ticket.

These threads completely illustrate what is wrong in the autograph hobby and what is right in the memorabilia hobby. What did we learn about Babe Ruth autographs? Nothing. What did we learn about ticket stubs? A whole heck of a lot. We also learned something about the game played that day. Lots of collectors chimed in with their FACTS about the game and ticket stub. What did we learn from the 2 percenters? Nothing.

In one of the threads it was pointed out, by SS, that the Ruth signature had some potential issues with it. In comparing some of them how many legitimate Ruth autographs have the A in Babe be open?

[David Atkatz]

What info did he have? He thought it was rejected by PSA. It wasn't...he had no clue it was certified by JSA. It was. He believed it was rejected by Heritage. It wasn't... He disappears for over a week when questioned about all of this. He comes back and gives us a Red Riding Hood fairy tale that totally deflects from the autograph and focuses on the ticket.

These threads completely illustrate what is wrong in the autograph hobby and what is right in the memorabilia hobby. What did we learn about Babe Ruth autographs? Nothing. What did we learn about ticket stubs? A whole heck of a lot. We also learned something about the game played that day. Lots of collectors chimed in with their FACTS about the game and ticket stub. What did we learn from the 2 percenters? Nothing.+!

[slidekellyslide]

In one of the threads it was pointed out, by SS, that the Ruth signature had some potential issues with it. In comparing some of them how many legitimate Ruth autographs have the A in Babe be open?

What did we learn? Are there no legit Ruth autographs with an open "A"?

[Runscott]

I guess another question would be, even if he obtained it, it would have cost him an amount unusual for a forger to fork out considering he would only have one shot at creating such a convincing Ruth, so why not dummy up a fake ticket instead?

As Shelly said, now that we're through analyzing the ticket (for now, anyway), we can look at the signature.

I haven't heard anyone say that this signature is "convincing".

[Scott Garner]

As Shelly said, now that we're through analyzing the ticket (for now, anyway), we can look at the signature.

I haven't heard anyone say that this signature is "convincing".

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me. :)

[shelly]

What did we learn? Are there no legit Ruth autographs with an open "A"?

No one said that. There no such thing as always.

[Leon]

What did we learn? Are there no legit Ruth autographs with an open "A"?

Not many....?

[David Atkatz]

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me. :)That's right. In this case, I agree with Jimmy Spence. (I have made a mistake or two in my 50+ years of collecting, and I have made a judgement or two on this very board without looking as closely as I should have, so ya'll gotta factor that in.)

But I believe the signature is good.

[Runscott]

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me. :)

Haha. In any statistical analysis, you would throw out the highs and lows. I threw out a low.

[David Atkatz]

Ha ha. You must be high. :)

[Runscott]

Ha ha. You must be high. :)

Well-played, sir :)

[David Atkatz]

Thank you.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Mr. Jim Stinson once commented:

Actually autograph authentication is pretty easy ....No magic wand, and simple formula is when in doubt... BOW OUT ! That includes 1% of doubt.


I have no doubt.

[thecatspajamas]

Mr. Jim Stinson once commented:

Actually autograph authentication is pretty easy ....No magic wand, and simple formula is when in doubt... BOW OUT ! That includes 1% of doubt.


I have no doubt.

FWIW, I believe Jim was talking about making a decision whether to purchase an autograph or not.

[shelly]

It now comes down to the autograph. I would love to know what PSA,Stinson,Richard and Ron has to say about this signiture. If you trust Spence I think you would trust these guys. The problem with this is I dont think anyone of them wants to step on each other toes:rolleyes:

[David Atkatz]

I have no doubt.No evidence, either.

[Deertick]

Hi Ben and all,

I have never heard of Emergency tickets being called "circus tickets" FWIW. When I think of circus tickets I think of "raffle" style smaller tickets. The bleacher tickets that Lance showed are somewhat like generic circus tickets. These also had the disclaimer printing on the back. I have quite a few of these from this era.

One additional point to note. Briggs Stadium had PLENTY of capacity to handle large crowds in excess of 26,000 fans in attendance (capacity of the stadium was listed at 36,000). They should not have had to add extra seats, just sell them generic bleacher seats....

Scott, I believe capacity was 26,000 and was increased to 36,000 the following year.

Good analysis here!

I have a question as to when and why they would issue these emergency tickets. Why were they issued on the 12th (Attendance: 20K) and 13th (22.5K), but not the 14th (Sold Out)? Why would they stamp the date on them? Am I wrong in the assumption they would have A-Z? Wouldn't any ticket taker be told it was an 'A' day?
These may be dumb questions, but I'm sure someone here knows. :)

[shelly]

I want the people that ripped Chris for not saying anything to know that you are all wrong. I emailed a few people that I have respect for to back off because Chris did exactly what you wanted him to do.
He called Josh and told him the name of the forger, the tell and told him where the guy is from. Not only that, he told Josh to relay everything he said to Jimmy. I know this because I was on the other line. Not only that, I emailed Josh and he shined me off. The reason he did not post he had done it would have given the forger more info than was necessary.
Those people can verify that fact if they want to.

[David Atkatz]

The reason he did not post he had done it would have given the forger more info than was necessary.Really? Well, you've just posted that he had done it. What have you given away?

[Scott Garner]

Scott, I believe capacity was 26,000 and was increased to 36,000 the following year.

Good analysis here!

I have a question as to when and why they would issue these emergency tickets. Why were they issued on the 12th (Attendance: 20K) and 13th (22.5K), but not the 14th (Sold Out)? Why would they stamp the date on them? Am I wrong in the assumption they would have A-Z? Wouldn't any ticket taker be told it was an 'A' day?
These may be dumb questions, but I'm sure someone here knows. :)

Hi Jim,

I went back and re-read the info on Briggs stadium capacity available on the internet. I had two sources state that the capacity of Briggs Stadium was expanded to 30,000 in 1923, but you are correct in that they didn't expand to capacity of 36,000 until 2 years after Babe's 700th HR game in 1934.

Here is my original post about the Emergency tickets used in 1934 and my questions about the use of them after reading Josh from Huggins and Scotts post in the first thread:

"Very interesting...
I'm curious where the photo of all the tickets came from?
I see that it says eBay on the screen shot, but I'm intrigued how this image shows a ticket issued only one day apart (wow!) from the alleged Ruth 700 HR ticket. That's an amazing coincidence! They obviously are stamped identically, at the same angle, yet the Emergency Tickets are "A" tickets one day, and "Z" the following day- in July, no less (half way through the season)!
FWIW, about 22,000 were in attendance for Ruth's 700th HR. Did this require that the Tigers issue emergency tickets? I looked at all the surrounding games at DET on the 1934 schedule and they all appear to have similar attendance, especially with the Yankees in town. I saw attendances ranging from 20,000-26,000 during this homestand. I would also note that at least 4 games at DET prior to the NY series that featured Ruth's HR drew at least as many fans. One of the games drew 30,000 fans and the game on July 4th drew 40,000 fans for a twin bill. Would Ruth's 700th HR be Emergency ticket "Z" if it was at a minimum the 6th high attended game in DET in 1934?
I don't know, and I'm quite certain that no one knows for sure. It just seems odd to me, FWIW...

I certainly can be wrong, but I stand by my assertion that I have not seen other earlier vintage Tigers tickets stamped in this fashion prior to the screen shot that you posted"

FWIW, I now believe, given all of the new evidence submitted, that they would have issued Emergency tickets for the July 14th game as well, especially if they were anticipating a blow out turnout because of all the PR and the pennant battle between the Tigers and the Yanks.

You are correct in that the ticket takers would all be privy to the Emergency tickets being "A" or "Z" or whatever depending on the day.

[JT]

I want the people that ripped Chris for not saying anything to know that you are all wrong. I emailed a few people that I have respect for to back off because Chris did exactly what you wanted him to do.
He called Josh and told him the name of the forger, the tell and told him where the guy is from. Not only that, he told Josh to relay everything he said to Jimmy. I know this because I was on the other line. Not only that, I emailed Josh and he shined me off. The reason he did not post he had done it would have given the forger more info than was necessary.
Those people can verify that fact if they want to.


And this will change what? I don't believe the auction house, the buyer, the seller, or JSA will rescind the sale, purchase, authentication or anything involved with this. Regardless of what Chris may or may not have finally stated to Josh, everyone actually involved with this transaction appears to be happy as nothing has been stated to rebuke that assumption.

As for everyone being wrong, I believe everyone was right when any statements you are referring to were made.

[shelly]

If you read what I said. You are wrong in thinking that Chris did nothing.Nothing more than what you asked him to do. What the auction house did with that info was up to them.
I am only stating that Chris did what most of you on this site asked him to do. Because he did not say anything to you or anyone else on this board I can now see why. Your damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
I really think that this site has become who can we pick on next. There was so much pilling on that you should all be ashamed.
I am who I am and you take shots at me.
Chris has never hurt this hobbie and always tried to help. You hurt the one person that has done more to help than anyone of you on this site. If I am wrong name that other person.:mad:

[David Atkatz]

What corroborating evidence did Chris present?

[travrosty]

he didnt do what we asked. we asked for proof and he didnt show any.

he could have NOT started the thread and go directly to h and s and spence but that wouldnt give him the opportunity to brag because why start the thread if he isnt going to show proof other than to brag and bring attention to himself that he knows something and the rest don't?

you cant rally people behind your cause and build a consensus if everything, and i mean everything you do in your life regarding the hobby is a big SECRET! how is it picking on someone to ask for proof of their serious charge? no one should pile on if someone comes on here and says i know something and you dont deserve to know and i am right and you can't disagree because i am the top 2% and you aint ship?

w t heck? NOW I have seen it all. I am sure lots of lawyers in the courtroom would love to try that trick when prosecuting someone. I know they are guilty so don't even bother asking me how I know! He prosecuted this autograph and didn't present any hard evidence. And again, if you counter that he let h and s and spence know everything, then so what? he could have done that anyway without starting the thread and thumbing his nose at the rest of us telling us we are not worthy of his information? I want to know his history and background regarding vintage baseball autographs.

he flames atkatz and bretta but doesnt answer me at all. i know all i will get is that he doesn't owe me or anyone else anything regarding his hobby resume concerning vintage baseball. fighting forgeries and knowing babe ruth and vintage baseball autographs are two different things.

[Bestdj777]

Why would they stamp the date on them? Am I wrong in the assumption they would have A-Z? Wouldn't any ticket taker be told it was an 'A' day?
These may be dumb questions, but I'm sure someone here knows. :)

I would think they would stamp it for the benefit of the ticket holder. It is likely that at least a handful of people purchased more than one ticket for the series. Without a date stamp, it might lead to confusion.

[JT]

If you read what I said. You are wrong in thinking that Chris did nothing.Nothing more than what you asked him to do.

Shelly,

And how recently did Chris share this information? It wasn't during the auction was it?

[shelly]

he didnt do what we asked. we asked for proof and he didnt show any.

he could have NOT started the thread and go directly to h and s and spence but that wouldnt give him the opportunity to brag because why start the thread if he isnt going to show proof other than to brag and bring attention to himself that he knows something and the rest don't?

you cant rally people behind your cause and build a consensus if everything, and i mean everything you do in your life regarding the hobby is a big SECRET! how is it picking on someone to ask for proof of their serious charge? no one should pile on if someone comes on here and says i know something and you dont deserve to know and i am right and you can't disagree because i am the top 2% and you aint ship?

w t heck? NOW I have seen it all. I am sure lots of lawyers in the courtroom would love to try that trick when prosecuting someone. I know they are guilty so don't even bother asking me how I know! He prosecuted this autograph and didn't present any hard evidence. And again, if you counter that he let h and s and spence know everything, then so what? he could have done that anyway without starting the thread and thumbing his nose at the rest of us telling us we are not worthy of his information? I want to know his history and background regarding vintage baseball autographs.

Travis, when you are asked a question do always answer it? I know that you have a friend that knows the Babe's sig, please ask if he would buy or not.:D

[shelly]

Shelly,

And how recently did Chris share this information? It wasn't during the auction was it?

Yes the date was 4/8/2013 at 12;33 est,

[David Atkatz]

I don't believe a word of it.

[Leon]

I don't believe a word of it.

I was contacted by Shelly on the day of the auction, before it was over. He and I spoke for a good little while on the phone.

[David Atkatz]

And?

[JT]

Yes the date was 4/8/2013 at 12;33 est,

If that is true, I can only assume whatever Chris stated was not sufficient in any way to override what others thought and believed, nor does it appear to even now.

[shelly]

If that is true, I can only assume whatever Chris stated was not sufficient in any way to override what others thought and believed, nor does it appear to even now.

Then the question is would you spend $ 12000 on this piece knowing what you have read. If you say yes why not buy a 1/1 that you think was a great bargin?
If you could not afford it I understand.

[David Atkatz]

Since when is the test of authenticity "Would you buy it?"

Ruth either signed that ticket, or he didn't. Who would or would not buy it is totally irrelevant.

[JT]

Then the question is would you spend $ 12000 on this piece knowing what you have read. If you say yes why not buy a 1/1 that you think was a great bargin?
If you could not afford it I understand.

Shelly,

I would not mind owning that item as I have not seen anything to disprove it's authenticity, but that kind of money is way above my pay scale.

[shelly]

No problem, I am talking about the people on this site that have a ton of money and have said what a great item this is. I would think that in a year they could double there money.

[Deertick]

Hi Jim,

I went back and re-read the info on Briggs stadium capacity available on the internet. I had two sources state that the capacity of Briggs Stadium was expanded to 30,000 in 1923, but you are correct in that they didn't expand to capacity of 36,000 until 2 years after Babe's 700th HR game in 1934.

Here is my original post about the Emergency tickets used in 1934 and my questions about the use of them after reading Josh from Huggins and Scotts post in the first thread:

"Very interesting...
I'm curious where the photo of all the tickets came from?
I see that it says eBay on the screen shot, but I'm intrigued how this image shows a ticket issued only one day apart (wow!) from the alleged Ruth 700 HR ticket. That's an amazing coincidence! They obviously are stamped identically, at the same angle, yet the Emergency Tickets are "A" tickets one day, and "Z" the following day- in July, no less (half way through the season)!
FWIW, about 22,000 were in attendance for Ruth's 700th HR. Did this require that the Tigers issue emergency tickets? I looked at all the surrounding games at DET on the 1934 schedule and they all appear to have similar attendance, especially with the Yankees in town. I saw attendances ranging from 20,000-26,000 during this homestand. I would also note that at least 4 games at DET prior to the NY series that featured Ruth's HR drew at least as many fans. One of the games drew 30,000 fans and the game on July 4th drew 40,000 fans for a twin bill. Would Ruth's 700th HR be Emergency ticket "Z" if it was at a minimum the 6th high attended game in DET in 1934?
I don't know, and I'm quite certain that no one knows for sure. It just seems odd to me, FWIW...

I certainly can be wrong, but I stand by my assertion that I have not seen other earlier vintage Tigers tickets stamped in this fashion prior to the screen shot that you posted"

FWIW, I now believe, given all of the new evidence submitted, that they would have issued Emergency tickets for the July 14th game as well, especially if they were anticipating a blow out turnout because of all the PR and the pennant battle between the Tigers and the Yanks.

You are correct in that the ticket takers would all be privy to the Emergency tickets being "A" or "Z" or whatever depending on the day.

Thanks Scott. I find this facinating,

Why were emergency tickets issued?
Was it only for the upper deck?
How would they keep track of seats so there were no duplicates sold? These weren't SRO, or lawn, or even GA. These were section/ row/ seat. :eek:

And can anyone answer WHY they were date stamped? Early purchase can be a possible explanation.
Has anyone found any others beyond the 2009 eBay lot. From any date beside the day before this ticket? Am I being too much of a PITA? :o

[shelly]

Why do you think your being anyting but interested is a pita.
I think the one place that no has gone to is the company that said the ticket not the autorgraph is real. I would love to know how they authenticated that ticket. If was not stamped how did they know it was from 1934.
Scott, don't get upset. I think that the company that said the ticket is authentic should explain why.:)
If there is secret to this then I wouild really be upset, that would mean that the ticket could be faked.
Leon, can you find this out?
Scott please correct me. The only 700 hr ticket you have seen was dated on the ticket and sold for $2500 plus. There is no other ticket out there except the one that is not a real ticket but one that is stamped. Hof,Yankees, Tigers, all of the place that you would think have a ticket don't. It is like Jimmey Spence authenticating an autograph that has no exemplars.

[cubsfan-budman]

Why do you think your being anyting but interested is a pita.
I think the one place that no has gone to is the company that said the ticket not the autorgraph is real. I would love to know how they authenticated that ticket. If was not stamped how did they know it was from 1934.
Scott, don't get upset. I think that the company that said the ticket is authentic should explain why.:)
If there is secret to this then I wouild really be upset, that would mean that the ticket could be faked.
Leon, can you find this out?

I think this is great. you're coming over to Travis' side!

[Scott Garner]

Thanks Scott. I find this facinating,

Why were emergency tickets issued?

Emergency tickets (aka E-tickets) are sold if an event is unscheduled, or if additional tickets were required above and beyond the original amount that was printed prior to the season starting. Season ticket holders received a small number of E-tickets with their other pre-printed tickets at the beginning of the season for games that were unscheduled.

Think about it, this is the Great Depression Era. Baseball teams were not drawing attendances like 2013. Many teams were struggling financially. Computer generated ticket technology didn't yet exist. A team would pay a contracted ticket company to print a certain designated number of tickets for each game. If the game had poor attendance, the ticket stock is wasted and was thrown away (money wasted). In order to not waste money on ticket printing costs, a team would use E-tickets. E-tickets were a generic ticket with no printed date. Also it should be noted that, if a rain out occurs earlier in the season, a make up day or game may have had to be scheduled later on in the year. E-tickets would need to be used for events such as these if a game was not made up for in a double header.

Was it only for the upper deck?

No, these seats could be sold for anywhere in the stadium where they did not already have an assigned seat. Every stadium has "reserved" sections of seats with seat numbers and "unreserved" section where no seat numbers are issues. Your ticket would gain you entrance to this section and then it became first come, first serve. Bleacher sections and G/A (General Admission) are some examples of this.

How would they keep track of seats so there were no duplicates sold? These weren't SRO, or lawn, or even GA. These were section/ row/ seat. :eek:

If you had tickets to an event that was cancelled or postponed it would be my assumption that your original ticket would be brought along to direct you to the correct seat. If you were in the Bleacher unreserved section, you would go back to the bleacher section. If additional seats (circus seats) were added to the lower level like in the 1934 Yankees/ Babe Ruth 700 HR series at DET, I have no idea. I wasn't a fly on the wall in 1934! ;)

And can anyone answer WHY they were date stamped?

They were date stamped instead of printed for reasons that I explained in the first answer.

Early purchase can be a possible explanation.

Not that I am aware of

Has anyone found any others beyond the 2009 eBay lot. From any date beside the day before this ticket?


Not me, but I haven't really looked for it.

Am I being too much of a PITA? :o

No worries, this is all about learning and having fun with your hobby. :)

BTW, I would also like to mention a couple of other specific historic baseball games that Emergency tickets were used (both were unscheduled games):

1) Denny McLain's 31st win in 1968 at DET. McLain also served up Mickey Mantles 2nd to last career HR in this game. No printed or stamped date on this ticket at all.


2) HOF Wade Boggs' career ML debut at CWS. No printed or stamped date on this ticket.

Unless you knew what you were looking for, you would never know these tickets if you saw them.

It should be noted that many of my answers come from knowing friends that worked in baseball ticket offices for many years, FWIW...

[shelly]

I think this is great. you're coming over to Travis' side!

It really has nothing to do with what side I am on. I just want to know how they came to the fact the ticket is authentic. I dont want them to say it is because there is a stamp on it.
If you look at my history on this site I have nerver sided with Spence or Psa.
Travis and I might not see eye to eye but both of us want to know the truth.Travis just goes about a little different than I do:D
I still want to thank everyone that whent the distance to find out if that ticket is authentic or not.
I really think it is time for the company that said it is authentic to explain. If I spent over $12000 I would like to know. This is not an autorgraph I really think there is no secret to this. Is the ticket without a stamp from that year no more no less and why?

[Runscott]

It really has nothing to do with what side I am on.

Shelly - we're talking autographs. You have to pick a side. One side is right and the other is wrong - that's why it's so easy to buy a Babe Ruth autograph and know it is not a forgery. Hasn't this sub-forum taught you anything? :confused:

[shelly]

Shelly - we're talking autographs. You have to pick a side. One side is right and the other is wrong - that's why it's so easy to buy a Babe Ruth autograph and know it is not a forgery. Hasn't this sub-forum taught you anything? :confused:

Yes, it has. Instead of looking at the autograph let us find out if the ticket is authentic. Then like I have said over and over again it is up to you to decide if that autograph is real or not. I dont think the signiture is authentic. If the ticket is not authentic then it suports my thinking. I only want to know why that the comapny said that ticket was from that year without saying it had a stamp Do you think that is a question that should not be asked?

[travrosty]

Yes, it has. Instead of looking at the autograph let us find out if the ticket is authentic. Then like I have said over and over again it is up to you to decide if that autograph is real or not. I dont think the signiture is authentic. If the ticket is not authentic then it suports my thinking. I only want to know why that the comapny said that ticket was from that year without saying it had a stamp Do you think that is a question that should not be asked?

all we want is answers and people to explain why they think something is bad, or good. now if we could just get chris to explain. shelly is on my side but lets vet the autograph now.

[travrosty]

If that is true, I can only assume whatever Chris stated was not sufficient in any way to override what others thought and believed, nor does it appear to even now.


agreed

[Scott Garner]

Why do you think your being anyting but interested is a pita.
I think the one place that no has gone to is the company that said the ticket not the autorgraph is real. I would love to know how they authenticated that ticket. If was not stamped how did they know it was from 1934.
Scott, don't get upset. I think that the company that said the ticket is authentic should explain why.:)
If there is secret to this then I wouild really be upset, that would mean that the ticket could be faked.
Leon, can you find this out?
Scott please correct me. The only 700 hr ticket you have seen was dated on the ticket and sold for $2500 plus. There is no other ticket out there except the one that is not a real ticket but one that is stamped. Hof,Yankees, Tigers, all of the place that you would think have a ticket don't. It is like Jimmey Spence authenticating an autograph that has no exemplars.

Shelly, I know of only one printed date ticket in the hobby. That certainly does not mean that another does not exist. There were 20,000+ fans in attendance. This is pretty strong attendance for 1934.

One important point is that a ticket actually exists with a date on it, period. MANY tickets never had dates or years printed on the tickets themselves, only game numbers. This was the rule, not the exception at many ball parks. Detroit was one of the stadiums, that for history sake, fortunately produced plenty of dated tickets in this era. ;)

[shelly]

Scott, I hand you my sword.:)

[Runscott]

edited - removed post in order to help this thread die a natural death.

[travrosty]

in the end of the story little red riding hood emerges unscathed and wins!

[Scott Garner]

edited - removed post in order to help this thread die a natural death.

:D

[jgmp123]

Some additional info on a "tell" and the ticket.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

[Scott Garner]

Some additional info on a "tell" and the ticket.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

Thanks for providing this link, James!

[Frozen in Time]

Some additional info on a "tell" and the ticket.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

Wow!!!! As much as I would like to own a Babe Ruth autograph how would I ever know it was real? And what about the collectors that have dished out six figures for those pristine, sweet spot Ruth autographed balls?

[JT]

If eBay would quit using these clowns as they did GAI, I am sure they would die a slow death. The amount of forgeries these clowns pump out is ridiculous and being that they certify this garbage as real, they are just as guilty and responsible as the people who make these forgeries.

As for the auction houses, they have invested to much money, time, and reputation to quit using them.

[whitehse]

The Hauls of Shame article is certainly compelling and it does make one think. I can honestly say that I, short of winning the lottery will never be in a position to actually purchase a Babe Ruth auto but if I was I would need to put some serious thought into it and determine if I really want to roll the dice and take a chance on one being real.

As for REA and Rob Lifson, I have never dealt with him but I give him the benefit of the doubt as it seems to me that he has been nothing but upstanding when items are pointed out to him as being questionable. Again, I am not in a position where I can spend large sums of money with REA but they have always struck me as more than reputable in their dealings. I just think the Hauls of Shame article that was linked which throws Mr. Lifson under the bus is more vintictive than anything else at this point.

[Runscott]

I just think the Hauls of Shame [insert any HOS article here] that was linked which throws [insert member of hobby here] under the bus is more vintictive than anything else at this point.

Yes, nothing about his site has changed.

[slidekellyslide]

Some additional info on a "tell" and the ticket.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

OH NO!!! Nash gave away the Michigan Forger's tells!!!! Now he'll be unstoppable! :rolleyes:

[David Atkatz]

OH NO!!! Nash gave away the Michigan Forger's tells!!!! Now he'll be unstoppable! :rolleyes:Nothing to do with the "Michigan Forger," Dan. Not one of the three characteristics Peter mentions is exhibited by the other alleged "MF" Ruth Chris showed.

[slidekellyslide]

Nothing to do with the "Michigan Forger," Dan. Not one of the three characteristics Peter mentions is exhibited by the other alleged "MF" Ruth Chris showed.

Yeah...I was being sarcastic. The notion that only a select few should know the tells of a forger is ridiculous.

[Mr.Jerry]

Reviving an old thread. My father-in-law attended the Ruth 700th homer game with his family, and my wife has 4 ticket stubs. They are date stamped and similar to the ticket stub signed by Babe Ruth(?).

Thought I would post two of them to aid in the discussion of whether the signed ticket itself is authentic.

I came across this forum last night when trying to determine what if any value the ticket stubs have. Gary

[Scott Garner]

Reviving an old thread. My father-in-law attended the Ruth 700th homer game with his family, and my wife has 4 ticket stubs. They are date stamped and similar to the ticket stub signed by Babe Ruth(?).

Thought I would post two of them to aid in the discussion of whether the signed ticket itself is authentic.

I came across this forum last night when trying to determine what if any value the ticket stubs have. Gary

Hi Jerry,
Welcome to net54!
The stamped ink is extremely bold on your ticket for being 80 years old.
Just sayin'... :confused:

[Mr.Jerry]

Thanks Scott.

Frankly, I thought the same as you when I pulled them from a box of letters, mementos, and assorted other things this summer. They had been stored in an attic in Shreveport, LA for at least 60 years.

Many of the associated letters and envelopes had really deteriorated - falling apart when unbundled. The stubs looked like they were issued the previous week.

The provenance is pretty good, as my father-in-law spoke of witnessing "the Babe's famous home run". He said he had a program from the game, but I do not believe it has turned up.

I was surprised that the stubs were so rare when I read this thread last night. My posts of the images were just to add some more info to what was a spirited discussion. Gary