VanOeyen's Ruth eyes photo, your opinions please

[billyb]

Hi All,

I have been curious about how a certain Babe Ruth photo would be received, and now that the photo was sold in a recent auction, I hope to now get everyones opinion on, what I think, is a very rare photo. The reason I am asking, is that the photo was not described in the auction, with all its provenance, so the true value or interest, or non interest, was never obtained. I do not fault the auction house, as unforeseen circumstances caused the documentation to be misplaced, thus the entire provenance surrounding this photo was never described. So not knowing what interest this photo may have generated, leaves a big empty feeling for the owner, and myself, the researcher. So I am reaching out to the very best at judging original press photos, who I know can give me a fair and honest opinion.

Here is the photo/photos in question.

Photo is titled on back as Babe Ruth's eyes. As you can see, the back stamp is dated Oct 6, 1933. No other information on the back. The photo came with a tissue attached to protect the image. The Ruth's eyes photo was accompanied by two other photos, one where Babe is giving himself an eyewash, and the other is Babe showing off his legs (from the knee down). The latter two photos I found exact images in the Western Reserve Historical Society, Louis VanOeyen collection. A third image (also in the same VanOeyen Collection), was a portrait of Babe, where the photographer must have created the photo of the Ruth's eyes from this portrait. I obtained a list of Babe Ruth photos done by VanOeyen, and found 6 photos were taken that day, but the three I described were the ones chosen, and found on the front page of the Cleveland Press, dated Oct 5, 1933.

The article relating to the photos was a question asked by the reporter, regarding Ruth's decline in his hitting. The rumors suggested that maybe it was his legs, or his eyesight. In response, Babe showed that reporter how he cares for his eyes and even posed for a close photo (the protrait pose), seemingly daring someone to find something wrong with his eyes, then lifted his robe to show his legs proving there is nothing wrong.

After looking at this photo for over a year, I can see the determination in Ruth's eyes, trying to beat back the rumors, trying to hold onto his career. At the time, there was over 635 home runs behind those eyes.

Checking with the WRHS, I discovered that Getty owns the negatives to the portrait and the eye wash photos, but the WRHS still owns the right to the Ruth's legs. The actual negative to the Ruth's eyes photo, I have not found, and believe it does not exist any longer. Also, these photos, although, on the front page of the Cleveland Press, it seems that copies of these photos were never distributed to other newspapers or any other media. As this appears to be just an in-house article, no distributions were sent out. So the Ruth's eyes photo, done by VanOeyen, it appears, to be the only media copy in existence. Once it is gone, that is it.

The first person I contacted was Henry Yee who stated, "we may have something special there". Since then, I have contacted a few board members to get their opinions, and received mixed reviews. So I thought, this would be a great photo to have a discussion about.

I am not trying to compare this photo to Conlon's "eyes photo", as it is not at all comparable to Conlon's iconic beauty. But VanOeyen must have thought a lot about this photo to attach a tissue to protect the image. I believe this photo has its own provenance, its own story.

I truely hope the winner of these photos was a board member, and if so, hope to pass the evidence on to him. So I ask you to please give us an honest opinion of these photos, polka dot pajamas and all.

Ruth's eyes, by Van Oeyen.jpg

Babe Ruth eyes back 003.jpg

Ruth article pg 1 .jpg

Ruth Article Pg 2369.jpg


Portrait from WRHS
Hist Soc Ruth eyes neg photo428.jpg

Other 2 photos on front page, copies from WRHS I did not attach
Babe Ruth eyewash.jpg
Babe Ruth's feet 2.jpg

[thecatspajamas]

I never noticed before, but in the photo of his legs, is he standing on a marble-top table in his socks? I knew The Babe was a risk-taker, but yeesh!

[GKreindler]

Bill,

I think that if nothing else, aesthetically it's an absolute beautiful. The contrast, condition and clarity are all there. Like one can in Conlon's famous eye studies, you can see the man's pores, wrinkles, irises and all of that good stuff.

But I'm willing to wager that it was the content in which the photo might have lost out. And that's not to say that that content is poor. All of the stuff you mentioned, especially the stuff about Ruth being towards the end of the his career definitely rings true. There's a lot of pathos in those eyes for sure, but like you had alluded to before, not having the context and provenance readily available didn't really let that aspect of the photo shine through.

Because you were privy to that stuff, it probably makes you feel a lot more attached to it. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's just that knowing what goes into a piece like this (in this case, Van Oeyen's preference or the newspaper article), it's easier to see that there's a lot of profundity there, and that said-profundity should have been reflected in the final bid.

Unfortunately, I feel like the to average collector, they might only see that it's a photo of an older Babe Ruth, not in uniform. And in their head, the fact that he's not in uniform could be a detriment. The fact that he's older could be a detriment. The fact that it was during a season the Yankees came in second could be a detriment. I know that it's mentioned in Henry's book to an extent, but I truly feel that for a photo to be an absolute knockout price-wise, it really helps to have those four Cs be at the highest echelons. And I guess to most collectors, this particular photo may have been pretty high in three of them. I think that even if it were slightly different, like if he was in uniform, it would have made a tremendous change to not only the final price, but also to who would have been interested in bidding in the first place.

With that in mind, it takes a certain kind of collector to see a piece like this and fall in love with it for the same reasons you did (and again, not saying that this kind of collector is better than another). And in the end, it's possible that whoever won it felt the same way that you did, but didn't have to battle very hard because he/she didn't come up against anyone who felt similarly. And it's definitely possible that had all of that context been included in the auction description, there would have been more of a bloodbath. I guess it just goes to show that when it comes to auctions, you really never can tell.

And of course, take all of this with a grain of salt, as I'm not even a photo collector. But I hope it provides some kind of insight.

Graig

[billyb]

Graig,

You are right on as far as my attachment to the photo. I guess others on this board know how hard it is to let some things go. I tried to buy the photos, but my cousin was not selling to any family members. Plus the wife put her foot down, others on the board knows that feeling too.
I do understand that the 4 Cs (content) may not be present, but just the same, I personally think it would be high on ones Ruth collectors list. Just owning a photo that VanOeyen must have thought so highly of, just adds to the photo for me.

[ethicsprof]

I think Graig is correct in his understanding of the various factors that play important parts in the minds of most folks who choose particular photos of
Ruth. I appreciate very much the diplomacy with which Graig articulates his
position.
I have to say that I find myself drawn to photos which illuminate a depth of meaning to the person or scene photographed.
Obviously, attention to the personal history of the player and the historical context of the scene becomes most critical.
I am drawn to your photo for these very reasons. I recently bought and had framed a scene
of Ruth in a !935 Boston Braves game, in large part, because his last gasps
of attempted immortality in the sport are painfully battling the onslaught of
human finitude seen too vividly in his prematurely aged countenance.
The photo which you are displaying does the same and more for me. The
desperation of Ruth is still heroic as he stares and stands with a strength that
only he could muster. I congratulate you on seeing an example of where the depth of meaning grounds an aesthetic rather than being one of the great number of photos bearing an aesthetic derived from ordinary discernments of the extraordinary.
all the best,
Barry

[billyb]

Barry,
Thanks a lot for your response. Not being able to have the photo described at the auction, in the manner it was meant to be, really left us empty. So your response means a lot.
Barry, I am glad you also read into the depth of the photo, and not just what's displayed. I believe that is what makes photo collecting is so interesting. If several people view the same photo, and if they had to write a description of what they see, you would not get two alike. That is why all responses of this photo is important to us. Good or Bad.