REA Upcoming Ruth Bat - Interesting Story!

[ruth-gehrig]

Very interesting read about Ruth's bat used to hit the 1st home run in Yankee stadium.....wow!!

The possibility does exist. I would love to hear what Dr. Richard Angrist who paid $1.26 million for Ruth's "1st" home run in Yankee stadium bat thinks.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/blog/index.php

[MGHPro]

Its certainly not the same bat he is holding in the picture.. Grain doesnt match.
Also-just cause REA only knows of 2 other 40k's, It doesn't mean they don't exist. Mears has auctioned three different examples, and I know of 2 examples that have never been to the auction block. And that's just off the top of my head.
Wish I was the consignor cause with that write up, its going to go for great money. And if I paid 1.2 million for a bat that now people will question somewhat, I'd be angry.
Matt

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

Very interesting read about Ruth's bat used to hit the 1st home run in Yankee stadium.....wow!!

The possibility does exist. I would love to hear what Dr. Richard Angrist who paid $1.26 million for Ruth's "1st" home run in Yankee stadium bat thinks.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/blog/index.php

I have not seen him for years but I did know Dr. Richard Angrist.
He is a world renowned opthamologist.
An interesting but volatile collector, I can only imagine what his reaction is now.

[jboosted92]

Originally Posted by MGHPro

Its certainly not the same bat he is holding in the picture.. Grain doesnt match.
Also-just cause REA only knows of 2 other 40k's, It doesn't mean they don't exist. Mears has auctioned three different examples, and I know of 2 examples that have never been to the auction block. And that's just off the top of my head.
Wish I was the consignor cause with that write up, its going to go for great money. And if I paid 1.2 million for a bat that now people will question somewhat, I'd be angry.
Matt

Im taking some cred here..i found that Ruth Photo with the cork grip a couple years ago, and wrote an article on it (Pat myself on back)

[BigJJ]

some have mentioned that there may be other 40ks out there - but I have not seen a single other Ruth 40k - in 35 years - that PSA has stated is: (i) to Ruth's specs (35-36 inches, about 40 ounces) AND (ii) that dates to that one order from 1923, AND (iii) that has been HAND TURNED like the one at REA. That is a special and ultra rare bat.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

some have mentioned that there may be other 40ks out there - but I have not seen a single other Ruth 40k - in 35 years - that PSA has stated is: (i) to Ruth's specs (35-36 inches, about 40 ounces) AND (ii) that dates to that one order from 1923, AND (iii) that has been HAND TURNED like the one at REA. That is a special and ultra rare bat.

And you are going to need to put your full name in your post, per the rules. Everyone is this thread is going to need their name in their post. thanks

edited to add that after a friendly chat we can just let this thread slide down the page.....the bat is great and will do fine.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I have not seen him for years but I did know Dr. Richard Angrist.

An interesting but volatile collector, I can only imagine what his reaction is now.

He may be changing his name to Angr(y)ist.

[murphusa]

Ruth just like every other player had more than one bat in their bat rack at any one time. So it is very possible for their to be more than one bat used that day.

[travrosty]

This looks like a dueling bat episode like the leyritz dueling home run balls.

Only one or the other can be the true first home run bat, or none of them, but not both.

But since there is not a firm chain of custody like we have today when someone hits a historic home run, these old time relics mostly rely on stories, like the bevens ball. Whether this bat actually hit the first home run, or any home run at all, is speculation.


rea doesnt claim it is the first home run bat, but only possibly the first home run bat, but it's funny that they cast doubt on the angrist bat, because if they didn't, and agreed that was the bat, then this one couldn't be a 'possible' bat.

if it was the other way around and an auction house had angrist's bat up for auction, would the title say "first home run bat", and the description firmly bolster that claim, instead of questioning it?

You bet it would, since they would want whatever ruth bat they happen to have at the time to go for the most amount of money they can get. so it always comes down to "ours is better than theirs",

Its inherent bias based on what they have compared to what others have. so you just have to bid with a grain of salt. They are not going to denigrate their own bat.

You can hire a lawyer to defend you in a case, but if the other side gets to that lawyer first, then he will argue for the other side, with the same fervor he would have used defending you. So the truth as to your guilt or innocence is of not as much consequence as to the benefit they can get out of promoting or denegrating what they need to promote or denigrate to get the most juice out of their auction. This is a general auction house observation, not just REA. Of course REA is going to go to 'bat' for their own piece, (pun intended).

Take a look at the Matty signed ball that was supposedly signed at the Mathewson benefit. It was signed that day in person by Matty, oops, he wasn't there, but it must have been signed by him earlier. If not for the newspaper article telling us he wasn't there, the description that says he WAS there and signed this ball would have been believed by the masses without being questioned.

Not all you read in an auction description is what happened when it comes to these old relics. Halper documentation is another good example. Halper was so good at schmoozing the HOF'ers that he convinced Reggie Jackson to sign a testament that backed up Halper's Kansas City jersey as being Jackson's rookie jersey, when Jackson wore an entirely different number for his rookie campaign. Same with the Mickey Mantle rookie jersey that was debunked. He had Mickey swearing up and down it was his own jersey, and the Mick was all too happy to declare it in writing that it was his rookie jersey when it wasn't. Of course Mickey only thought it was his jersey because Halper told him it was and had a story behind it that Mickey lapped up.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by travrosty

This looks like a dueling bat episode like the leyritz dueling home run balls.

Only one or the other can be the true first home run bat, or none of them, but not both.

But since there is not a firm chain of custody like we have today when someone hits a historic home run, these old time relics mostly rely on stories, like the bevens ball. Whether this bat actually hit the first home run, or any home run at all, is speculation.


rea doesnt claim it is the first home run bat, but only possibly the first home run bat, but it's funny that they cast doubt on the angrist bat, because if they didn't, and agreed that was the bat, then this one couldn't be a 'possible' bat.

if it was the other way around and an auction house had angrist's bat up for auction, would the title say "first home run bat", and the description firmly bolster that claim, instead of questioning it?

You bet it would, since they would want whatever ruth bat they happen to have at the time to go for the most amount of money they can get. so it always comes down to "ours is better than theirs",

Its inherent bias based on what they have compared to what others have. so you just have to bid with a grain of salt. They are not going to denigrate their own bat.

You can hire a lawyer to defend you in a case, but if the other side gets to that lawyer first, then he will argue for the other side, with the same fervor he would have used defending you. So the truth as to your guilt or innocence is of not as much consequence as to the benefit they can get out of promoting or denegrating what they need to promote or denigrate to get the most juice out of their auction. This is a general auction house observation, not just REA. Of course REA is going to go to 'bat' for their own piece, (pun intended).

Take a look at the Matty signed ball that was supposedly signed at the Mathewson benefit. It was signed that day in person by Matty, oops, he wasn't there, but it must have been signed by him earlier. If not for the newspaper article telling us he wasn't there, the description that says he WAS there and signed this ball would have been believed by the masses without being questioned.

Not all you read in an auction description is what happened when it comes to these old relics. Halper documentation is another good example. Halper was so good at schmoozing the HOF'ers that he convinced Reggie Jackson to sign a testament that backed up Halper's Kansas City jersey as being Jackson's rookie jersey, when Jackson wore an entirely different number for his rookie campaign. Same with the Mickey Mantle rookie jersey that was debunked. He had Mickey swearing up and down it was his own jersey, and the Mick was all too happy to declare it in writing that it was his rookie jersey when it wasn't. Of course Mickey only thought it was his jersey because Halper told him it was and had a story behind it that Mickey lapped up.

like

[Scott Garner]

I agree with Jimmy. Nice post Travis!