Could This Photograph be Babe Ruth? [Archive]

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:19 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI first apologize for not putting this on the memorabilia side, but photos often end up here. A good friend sent me this snapshot and asked me to post it. It does have a glare from his camera. However, do others think this is Babe Ruth? I'm looking for reasons to say it isn't, but every time I look at it I see the Babe. He looks incredibly young, perhaps 19 or 20. It is also handcolored. I haven't seen it in person, so I don't know too much more about it. Size is roughly 5" x 3 1/2". Thoughts? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236546982.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236547041.JPG" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:22 PM

Posted By: Joe D.It doesn't look anything like babe ruth to me.

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:24 PM

Posted By: barrysloateNot even a resemblance? I should also add he has a catcher's mitt on his left hand, which would make him a right handed thrower. So unless the image is reversed, not a good sign.

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:26 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryNot the Babe.

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:39 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCnot even a glimpse of Ruth. nose is way too small...if i had to compare him to a ball player with a gun to my head, i would say maybe similar to Hal Chase, but still a ways off...barry, please clean those glasses of yours and just stick to bullying other board members around, will ya?! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="wink.gif">

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:47 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldNo, it isn't, I don't think... Not even in ____________ . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIN3AI4jAOI And I've decided that this group and their songs are better with Norda Mullen on tambourine and flute. She's talented, she's amazing. If she ever makes it to Nashville again, I hope I find out about it and make my way down there.

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:47 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI am overdue for a new pair of glasses. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:54 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisLet me be the 1st here to say it is the Babe. It looks like a young Babe Ruth to me. I have seen this picture of him before. When he was 15 years old he doubled as Pitcher and Catcher for the St Mary's School team. Babe Ruth was ambidexterous....as a Catcher, I believe he threw Right-handed. And note, Ruth signed everything with his right hand. TED Z

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:57 PM

Posted By: leonIt's not Ruth but is that white NOISE I see?

Archive

03-08-2009, 03:59 PM

Posted By: Bobby BinderLooks like a retro pix of Payne Stewart

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:01 PM

Posted By: barrysloateWell, two for Ruth (me and Ted) and about four against. The problem is you can't end up 12-8 or 13-10. It is either 100% Ruth, or 100% not him. And my friends so far have called me a bully, and have asked me to bring on the noise...I guess I made quite an impression today. Will take a while to live this one down. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="sad.gif">

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:04 PM

Posted By: Al SimeoneBarry, I to would have to say no. At least I dont see it.

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:22 PM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenCan someone do a scientific analysis of the ears?

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:29 PM

Posted By: bmarloweScientific ear analysis? -- Well - I'd like too - but it doesn't help that Barry's posting appears to be a photograph of a photograph taken through the picture frame glass. What we want his a good direct scann - then maybe you can. To the extent I can see the ear - it looks pretty close to Ruth's, as does the nose to the extent we can see it, though it is mostly washed out. Also it helps to compare it to a Ruth photo at a similar angle - there's gotta be one (I don't have much Ruth stuff).

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:30 PM

Posted By: Bob C.Hey Barry. Pretty sure that's Prince Harry. Then again it could be that Barkman fellow after missing another cut on the Tour...what kind of name is that, anyway? Nice to see you finally perk up on it. My wife grew up in Manhattan & graduated High School there. I rescued her when she came out to California to go to college. Her volatility also bubbles to the surface now and again what with the NYC upbringing...

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:32 PM

Posted By: Scott Dangothe babe has THE MOST RECOGNIZABLE face on the planet, and i think that is a confirmed fact.....i think that if this thread was on a chinese message board, they would laugh at the OP---not even close....

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:34 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI vote no. Ruth at St Mary's <img src="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/yeung/Baberuth/images/stmarysbabe.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://www.baseballlibrary.com/pics/Ruth_Babe_at_St_Marys.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:37 PM

Posted By: dennis<img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/babe.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-08-2009, 04:48 PM

Posted By: barrysloateLooks like the majority goes with "no." Thanks to all for taking the time to respond.

Archive

03-08-2009, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Scott Dangoit cant hurt to dream!

Archive

03-08-2009, 05:11 PM

Posted By: barrysloateIt's not mine...it's someone else's dream.

Archive

03-08-2009, 05:15 PM

Posted By: David AtkatzRuth wrote with his right hand. (As did Gehrig, and all left-handers in those days. Left-handed children were forced to write right-handed. My father did everything lefty... except write.) But Ruth did everything else--including throwing--lefty. At St. Mary's he wore that left-hand-fitting catchers mitt on his right hand.

Archive

03-08-2009, 05:40 PM

Posted By: JohnnyHIf it is it would have to be when he was around 12-13 years old, and I'm not sure why he would be posing like that or wearing those clothes. There doesn't seem to be a lot of photos of him when he was young so you never know. It could always be sold the714gallery, listed as his pre rookie and listed for 150,000.00

Archive

03-08-2009, 06:16 PM

Posted By: GenoMaybe the Babe took the photo... Cheers, Geno

Archive

03-08-2009, 08:04 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anusThere's a RESEMBLANCE. But without more, it should die there. Resemblances alone almost always lead to nowhere.

Archive

03-09-2009, 04:04 AM

Posted By: Marty OgelvieAt first glance, I thought it was Prince Hal (Chase) but the guy is simply wearing too much blush to be Hal.. I don't see the Ruth resemblence at all, but what the heck do I know.. marty

Archive

03-09-2009, 08:13 AM

Posted By: SteveWhat Corey said. IMO it could be a 16 yr old Babe while he was still at St. Marys. Steve

Archive

03-09-2009, 08:31 AM

Posted By: ramramSorry, but not even close to me. However, I'm still blown away by the appearance that Ruth actually played catcher as a righty (at least he certainly has the catcher's mitt on the left hand in the St. Mary's photo). Rob M.

Archive

03-09-2009, 08:41 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaRob, he played catcher as a lefty, but wore a righthanded catcher's mitt. He probably just put the mitt on the correct hand for the photo.

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:05 AM

Posted By: bmarloweThis all reminds me of the old Aristotle - horse's teeth story. I don't understand why Barry doesn't post a better scan (or at least turn off the flash!) - it may be possible (and I do say may, I don't know how blurry the photo is) to at least eliminate the possibility that it is Ruth in just a few seconds by ear comparison. Getting a "consensus" from a group of experience collectors is all well and good, but why not at least try to look in the horse's mouth.

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:27 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisForget Aristotle....listen to this Greek...... And, forget the "horses mouth"....it's in the ears. The ears in this picture resemble Ruth's very closely. I may be the Lone Ranger here....but, I still maintain that this is Ruth (circa 1910). Most recall Ruth as a heavy 200+ lb. guy. But, as an older teenager his 6:2 frame weighed only 172 lbs. Barry......is there a photo studio identification on the back ? We have similar family pictures from that era and the studios are identified. Also, that ornate frame is (if original) is typical of that era. TED Z

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:35 AM

Posted By: bmarloweYou're not a lone ranger here Ted - I don't know if it's Ruth or not - the ear as far as I can see looks pretty good, though I have doubts about the chin. I do think it's at least worth a closer look.

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:36 AM

Posted By: Anonymous

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:42 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisOK guy....choose your character....we are the Lone Ranger and Tonto against all the others on this thread <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> TED Z

Archive

03-09-2009, 09:58 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTo answer a few questions: BMarlowe (sorry I don't know your first name): I was sent a snapshot by the owner, and that's what I scanned. The snapshot has the glare on it so of course I can't get it out. Ted: Since I don't have the original, which is in the frame, I don't know if there is anything on the back. I don't even know what kind of photo it is. I will speak to the owner shortly and try to get more information. While I too had my doubts about it, I certainly saw a strong resemblance to Ruth. I am shocked by the number of responders who thought it wasn't even cose. That surprises me.

Archive

03-09-2009, 10:03 AM

Posted By: Rob LUnless Babe had a nose job, it doesn't appear to be him. His nose is very distinctive and the one in the photo is not close. Rob L http://www.freewebs.com/loefflerrd/

Archive

03-09-2009, 10:05 AM

Posted By: JimBI don't see any resemblance at all. JimB

Archive

03-09-2009, 10:07 AM

Posted By: barrysloateAgain, I'm very surprised, because I've spoken to others who see a strong resemblance who haven't posted on this thread. I actually find it fascinating how people see the same thing differently.

Archive

03-09-2009, 10:14 AM

Posted By: bmarlowe (Mark)I coudln't disagree with Rob L more - first of all the nose in the photo is almost entirely washed out (perhaps by the flash)- all you can see are nostrils! The size and angle of these do match Ruth. Beyond that, I don't know how anyone can make a strong statement.

Archive

03-09-2009, 10:35 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThe ear characteristics are the best match we have here. I would say this semi-profile angle is throwing off those who are dismissing this pix because of the nose. A person's nose changes as they age; however, ears form shortly after birth and never change (given no injuries). The presence of the catcher's mitt is a positive indicator in favor of this being Ruth. Brother Mathias had Ruth playing on the St Mary's varsity team when Ruth was only 10 years old. Ruth played all positions and was also their catcher. Perhaps, Ruth in this picture is closer to age 10, than 15 (as I have noted). TED Z

Archive

03-09-2009, 11:00 AM

Posted By: MVSNYCIMO, and with all due respect to whomever thinks this dude looks like a young Ruth, it looks absolutely nothing like him. many people share similar ears...this guy looks like he is of Irish decent. light colored hair, fair complextion, rosie cheeks, thin nose...Ruth is the total opposite. Dark hair, darker complextion, very wide nose. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236617884.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236617921.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236617942.JPG" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-09-2009, 11:08 AM

Posted By: barrysloateMichael- I would discount the rosy cheeks because I believe the coloring on the photo was done by hand. The shape of the nose or ears would be a more accurate gauge.

Archive

03-09-2009, 11:19 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzUnless it's an Autochrome (which is a transparency, and the photo in question is not) it was definitely hand-colored. PS: It's not Ruth. The postcard drawing was not Keeler. And that other photo was not Bender.

Archive

03-09-2009, 11:37 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI have the original B/W photos my Mother and Father, my Aunt and Uncle, and older Cousins and the enlarged color-enhancement of them. They were hand colored and mounted in large oval frames such as this picture. All these color-enhanced pictures are circa 1915-1920. This process was very popular in the early 20th Century. Incidently, this color-enhancement always resulted in "rosy-cheeks" and color-shading around prominent facial features in order to minimize them. TED Z

Archive

03-09-2009, 11:46 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzThe process was popular from the 1850s onwards. Many daguerreotypes were hand-colored.

Archive

03-09-2009, 01:46 PM

Posted By: Dan McCarthyAt first glance I thought "no way," but the more I look at it the more I think that it actually might be. I'll post some things once I get out of class that might make the Ruth argument stronger.

Archive

03-09-2009, 04:19 PM

Posted By: Richard L.I have gone back and forth and am stuck in the middle. If you compare to the photo Dan Bretta posted as a young catcher at St. Mary's (which was also used by Topps in 1962) my eyes tell me the nose is close, flat and wide. The rugged chin looks to be a near perfect match. The lips however don't seem to match, Ruth had huge lips in that catcher's mitt/mask photo but doesn't look that way in the original post. Barry I think you are a little off on the age, by 20 he was already pitching for the Sox, but then again he is wearing "red sox" in the picture <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">. The owner should open the frame just to see if an ID notation is mentioned.

Archive

03-09-2009, 04:26 PM

Posted By: ShawnNot near as young, but another angle... <img src="http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc139/smokelessjoe/Baseball/ruthpitch.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc139/smokelessjoe/Baseball/ruethrow.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-09-2009, 04:33 PM

Posted By: Rob D.Keep looking at something long enough and you'll begin to convince yourself that almost anything might be. Ask yourself this: If Marshall and not Barry had posted this photo and asked the question, how many "It's possible" answers would have been posted?

Archive

03-09-2009, 04:56 PM

Posted By: bmarlowe (Mark)It took a while to find the photo I needed, but this shows Barry's photo can't possibly be Ruth. Note that in Barry's photo, the top of the guy's ear more or less lines up with his eyebrows, but for Ruth, the top of his ear is well above his brow line. Also - the ear shape is similar, but not the same. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236639217.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1236639284.JPG" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:00 PM

Posted By: peter ullmannice work, Mark...so aside from the fact this chap looks nothing like George Herman...now we have scientific proof!(blinking...bouncing smiley face!)

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:01 PM

Posted By: dennisthe babe would never wear that sissy cap!

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:04 PM

Posted By: peter ullmannor that shade of rouge!

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:06 PM

Posted By: ShawnMark, I am not so sure about your analysis... That could also be the angle the photo was taken. If you look below, it appears that his ear lines up with his brow?? I am not saying one way or another, I am just not sure about the angle of the two photos you are comparing. <img src="http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc139/smokelessjoe/Baseball/ruthpitch289weee.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:31 PM

Posted By: barrysloateMark- thanks for putting those pictures side by side. It does appear pretty conclusively that these are two different people. However, I did find the photo compelling enough to have others look at it.

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:35 PM

Posted By: Frank Wakefieldnot in your wildest dreams.... (refrain)!!

Archive

03-09-2009, 05:55 PM

Posted By: MarkShawn... It's a fair point you make - that's why I tried to find photos taken at close to the same angle. You can tilt your head anyway you want and make the top of your ear above or below your brow line. The point is how does it look when both heads are at about the same orientation. Also - Ruth's ear is visibly longer and thinner. I know a few posters think the whole excersise was silly, since to them he obviously did not look like Ruth - but I have seen enough cases were 2 images were thought not to be the same person, but did turn out to be the person. So a simple comparison to settle the issue is not a waste of time.

Archive

03-09-2009, 06:02 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaWell personally I didn't think it was him just from a cursory glance, but there is enough resemblance to warrant a little effort.

Archive

03-09-2009, 06:16 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThat was pretty much my feeling all along. There was enough of a resemblance to at least examine it for a minute or two. I appreciate those who put so much time into it. I wasn't expecting this strong of a response.

Archive

03-09-2009, 06:26 PM

Posted By: marshall barkmanRob D.....the answer to your question is simple.... oh no i better hide..........werrrrreeeerrraaaaa.....werrrrraaa.. .siren going off....ohhhh noooo....it looks like wait a second is that......hmmmmmm....ohhhhjeeezzzz....that is a giant jawbreaker with a whistle on top and Network54 signs on his door.......shhhhhh....shhhhh....every media outlet in the country is here for this one....cnn,nbc,espn,rolling stone..........crowd is buzzing and camera flashes are going off.......one reporter like a idiot asks "hey Wonka what happened to the chocolate eclair flying saucer?".......the reporter is instantly and i mean instantly beaten to death by the other Network54 moderators because how dare anyone speak until spoken to.....Wonka steps out of the jawbreaker and raises his hands.........the crowd goes instantly silent because your sweetness is about to speak while the dead reporter is carried off in a bodybag. Wonka speaks........ If Marshall would have posted this picture there would have been 0 responses because no one would dare want to associate themselves with being a part of...........-Gasp-.......wait a second i see a guy coming thru the wave of reporters.......i cannot be clear on who it is..........is that.....-Gasp-......why yes that is.......it is Jeff Lichtman...........Lichtman has a bullhorn to make his point......uhhhh ohhh....who is that running thru the crowd.....oh sh&^%t look out jeff...look out bro......it is akatz with a briefcase full of negative reports from certain students...........whoooossssshhhhhhh.......he swings and misses.........Lichtman jumps and and ....jeezzzzz it looks like Ty Cobb kinda sliding into third kicks Akatz in the .....yowziieeeeee.... Stay tuned for the next episode of Network54 prime time action baby 24/7 BRING THE NOISE

Archive

03-09-2009, 06:27 PM

Posted By: barrysloateUhhh ohhh is right.

Archive

03-09-2009, 06:29 PM

Posted By: E, DanielFor me the biggest differences are the bottom half of the faces. Ruth's nose, especially around the nostrils, is broad and fleshy. The other fellow's nose is much finer in appearance. Also, the space between Ruth's lower lip and chin area is relatively small, and the chin itself disappears quickly in a small triangle. The other guy has much more even proportions from eyes to nose to chin, and the chin seems far more prominent and jutting in comparison. I certainly understand why someone could convince themselves they see a strong resemblence, but I think at best he's Ruth's better looking older cousin <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">.