Babe Ruth mitt from youth in Goldins Next Auction

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then I genuinely don't understand, what is the significance of the photo, if any?

To show it looks like the one being auctioned?

A very advanced memorabilia collector friend of mine collects this kind of stuff. He always judges things but how big of a leap of faith there is for something to be what it is purported to be. On this glove each collector has to make their own decision. It comes with COA letters from 2 of the biggest hobby authenticators of memorabilia.

[Dave Grob]

I have been asked about this glove. I was not involved the MEARS work, but as I read through the work provided, it appears that only two statements were made in the MEARS effort:

1. That it is a catchers mitt as opposed to a first base mitt.
2. The glove being auctioned is the same one that was on display at the Babe Ruth Museum.

Dave Grob

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

I have been asked about this glove. I was not involved the MEARS work, but as I read through the work provided, it appears that only two statements were made in the MEARS effort:

1. That it is a catchers mitt as opposed to a first base mitt.
2. The glove being auctioned is the same one that was on display at the Babe Ruth Museum.

Dave Grob

So MEARS has not authenticated this glove as THE glove used by Babe Ruth in high school?

[midmo]

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by midmo

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

Thanks for clarifying. So what the authenticators are saying is that the glove's physical characteristics are consistent with the family's claim but they aren't linking it to Ruth specifically. So ultimately this rests on the family's story. IF I am getting this right.

[slidekellyslide]

IN MY OPINION (<---see that lawyers) you have to be pretty damn stupid to buy this glove.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

IN MY OPINION (<---see that lawyers) you have to be pretty damn stupid to buy this glove.

Nah... There'll always be someone dumber--and richer--who will buy it next time around. After all, the "provenance" will only be stronger: 'Ruth's St.Mary's glove sold by Goldin Auctions.'
Of course, it all rests on the absurd assertion that Ruth took the glove--useless to him as he was a left-handed pitcher--when he left St. Mary's. (Highly unlikely, for two reasons: first, he couldn't use it and didn't need it, and second, that St Mary's could spare it.) And then, having done so, gave it to a kid in the drugstore. Family folklore. Useless, as far as provenance goes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by midmo

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

I went back and read the item description in the auction. It could be read to imply that this is THE mitt in the photo, at least as I am reading it.

For one thing, this language -- "THE one" -- implies he only used one during his time there. "Incredibly, this surviving Babe Ruth used glove is the one used by the Babe during his formative years behind the walls of St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys." If he only used one, it must be the one in the photo.

And this connecting the mitt to the one the family says was given to the drug store clerk: "Players like Ruth were expected to purchase their own bats and gloves and it's likely the Babe took along his old catcher's mitt just in case it was needed."

So even if the authenticators are not purporting to photo match the glove, and on further reflection the language you quoted does seem a bit ambiguous in that regard ("MATCHED what Babe Ruth used ... based on team photographs"), it does sound to me like the AH is claiming it is the one in the photo -- unless I am misreading the description.

[slidekellyslide]

Yeah, Babe Ruth signed with Jack Dunn to be a left handed catcher. And I'm sure he took the glove with him because Baltimore couldn't afford to buy Ruth a left handed glove. LOL

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Yeah, Babe Ruth signed with Jack Dunn to be a left handed catcher. And I'm sure he took the glove with him because Baltimore couldn't afford to buy Ruth a left handed glove. LOL

I've been saying just that all along, Dan.

The whole thing reminds me of a scene in "The In-Laws." The tin-pot dictator is showing Peter Falk and Alan Arkin a painting of a tiger on black velvet. "I pay feeefty thousand dollars for thees one." As soon as he's out of earshot, quoth Arkin, "What a schmuck."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

To show it looks like the one being auctioned?

A very advanced memorabilia collector friend of mine collects this kind of stuff. He always judges things but how big of a leap of faith there is for something to be what it is purported to be. On this glove each collector has to make their own decision. It comes with COA letters from 2 of the biggest hobby authenticators of memorabilia.

I get that it's an authentic period catcher's glove according to PSA and MEARS, but is it claimed to be the glove in the photo or not?

[uniship]

is there any history to the glove besides fact it was in the museum? who donated it? How did they acquire it? etc.

[sbfinley]

It's an old glove. A glove that someone will spend a fortune on regardless of the opinions on this message board. Wish someone would have realized before looking like an asshat.

[ullmandds]

WOW! It is my opinion that this mitt/glove is worth somewhere between 30-$60 us dollars.