1920's Babe Ruth studio photo

[JoeyFarino]

I just recently picked this up but was hoping to get more info on it. Its not the thin ones I see in auctions but this one is sepia toned on double weight paper. Not glossy at all. Definitely looks period. Anyone seen one before?

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170406_155240_zpshkrqjz64.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170406_155240_zpshkrqjz64.jpg.html)

[JoeyFarino]

here's the back

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170401_163315_zpsucklecsr.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170401_163315_zpsucklecsr.png.html)

[batsballsbases]

I believe its the same picture photo used on the Babe Ruth Club Green Duck pin. From the 30s

[JoeyFarino]

I found this one but definitely different. Also notice the placement of the auto

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170401_165643_zpsvuwgjg9c.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170401_165643_zpsvuwgjg9c.png.html)

[batsballsbases]

Also note that the autographs are different note the "E" in Babe on both photos among other differences.

[JoeyFarino]

I cant find any other sepia toned examples anywhere. Wondering if the one i have is a studio example and then changed to the other version I posted

[David Atkatz]

Also note that the autographs are different note the "E" in Babe on both photos among other differences.The reason for that is quite simple. The second photo was signed by Ruth. The first was not.

[JoeyFarino]

The reason for that is quite simple. The second photo was signed by Ruth. The first was not.

Ya the first is definitely secretarial but I think this mightve been a rough copy to see how they wanted it to look in the end.

[David Atkatz]

Here's my signed sepia version:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/quotTo%20Virginiaquot%20Ruth_zpswmokhxlm.jpg (http://s82.photobucket.com/user/datkatz/media/quotTo%20Virginiaquot%20Ruth_zpswmokhxlm.jpg.html)

[JoeyFarino]

Here's my signed sepia version:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/quotTo%20Virginiaquot%20Ruth_zpswmokhxlm.jpg (http://s82.photobucket.com/user/datkatz/media/quotTo%20Virginiaquot%20Ruth_zpswmokhxlm.jpg.html)

Very nice...the style I have was included in the underwear box but only in a limited amount

[JoeyFarino]

Here's a comparison on both. The one on the left is the one that came in some of the underwear boxes. The one on the right is mine

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/IMG_2017-04-09_20-24-54_zpsm7agngif.jpg (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/IMG_2017-04-09_20-24-54_zpsm7agngif.jpg.html)

[Exhibitman]

And there's your explanation. Apeda was a commercial photographer whose work was commissioned and also licensed and sold. Very desirable photo studio, but the years of mfg would need to be researched, because Apeda used images for years after they were taken. This Jack Dempsey was taken in the early 1920s but made to be handed out to coast guard sailors who completed his self-defense course in WW2 (and yes, the signature is good):

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/boxingphotographsandephemera/large/1940s%20Dempsey%20autographed%20premium.jpg

I would assume that the Apeda Ruth you show is a studio photo (great one BTW) that was licensed for use with the undies.

[JoeyFarino]

So I found another example taken by Sussman studios. Same exact pose. Also found this article about Apeda studios

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170417_130748_zps7zn4pwvu.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170417_130748_zps7zn4pwvu.png.html)

Apeda's primary advantage among the New York metropolitan studios was its possession of industrial photograph developers and postcard printers. Whenever a New York photographer took a shot that they could not reproduce and market themselves or took a photograph that could not be copyrighted because there was no contract between photographer and sitter (the situation of flashlight stills of Broadway plays for instance), Apeda would secure a print, eradicate whatever name or trademark appeared on the print and affixed their own Apeda signature.

[D. Bergin]

So I found another example taken by Sussman studios. Same exact pose. Also found this article about Apeda studios

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq224/Blackitalian/20170417_130748_zps7zn4pwvu.png (http://s450.photobucket.com/user/Blackitalian/media/20170417_130748_zps7zn4pwvu.png.html)

Apeda's primary advantage among the New York metropolitan studios was its possession of industrial photograph developers and postcard printers. Whenever a New York photographer took a shot that they could not reproduce and market themselves or took a photograph that could not be copyrighted because there was no contract between photographer and sitter (the situation of flashlight stills of Broadway plays for instance), Apeda would secure a print, eradicate whatever name or trademark appeared on the print and affixed their own Apeda signature.


I'd wager "Sussman", which was based in Minnesota, was guilty of ripping off from Apeda in this instance.

Your version looks like the cleanest version of them all. Too bad it has that secretarial/forged signature on it, mussing it up.

What size is it?

[JoeyFarino]

I'd wager "Sussman", which was based in Minnesota, was guilty of ripping off from Apeda in this instance.

Your version looks like the cleanest version of them all. Too bad it has that secretarial/forged signature on it, mussing it up.

What size is it?

Its 8x10. I just can't find any like it anywhere