Could This Photograph be Babe Ruth?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I 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?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

It doesn't look anything like babe ruth to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Not 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]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Not the Babe.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

not 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?!

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

No, 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]

Posted By: barrysloate

I am overdue for a new pair of glasses.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Let 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]

Posted By: leon

It's not Ruth but is that white NOISE I see?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

Looks like a retro pix of Payne Stewart

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Well, 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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Barry,
I to would have to say no. At least I dont see it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Can someone do a scientific analysis of the ears?

[Archive]

Posted By: bmarlowe

Scientific 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]

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]

Posted By: Scott Dango

the 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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I vote no.

Ruth at St Mary's

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Looks like the majority goes with "no." Thanks to all for taking the time to respond.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Dango

it cant hurt to dream!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It's not mine...it's someone else's dream.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Ruth 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]

Posted By: JohnnyH

If 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]

Posted By: Geno

Maybe the Babe took the photo...

Cheers,
Geno

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

There's a RESEMBLANCE. But without more, it should die there. Resemblances alone almost always lead to nowhere.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

At 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]

Posted By: Steve

What Corey said.

IMO it could be a 16 yr old Babe while he was still at St. Marys.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Sorry, 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]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Rob, 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]

Posted By: bmarlowe

This 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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Forget 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]

Posted By: bmarlowe

You'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]

Posted By: Anonymous

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

OK guy....choose your character....we are the Lone Ranger and Tonto against all the others on this thread

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

To 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]

Posted By: Rob L

Unless 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]

Posted By: JimB

I don't see any resemblance at all.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Again, 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]

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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The 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]

Posted By: MVSNYC

IMO, 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.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Michael- 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]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Unless 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]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I 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]

Posted By: David Atkatz

The process was popular from the 1850s onwards. Many daguerreotypes were hand-colored.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan McCarthy

At 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]

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 . The owner should open the frame just to see if an ID notation is mentioned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Not near as young, but another angle...

[Archive]

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]

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.