Babe Ruth Rookie

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform.

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

Right, he's in a Red Sox uniform in the 1914 postcard.

[LincolnVT]

The "1914" Love Of The Game postcard is cool...especially if it is Ruth...I've spent some time looking over all of the research and am still left wondering. To me it looks like he has a glove is on his left hand. Why is the PC in a Beckett holder rather than a PSA or SGC? Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.

As for the M101, it's his rookie card.

The 1915 PC (which I have a copy of in an SGC 20 holder) is also a rookie image, pre-dates the M101 and is much, much more rare. What I like about the 1915 Red Sox team PC is that it is the first card that you can see Babe Ruth on in a professional uniform. The 1915 postcard IMO is on the move.

[Bicem]

Not sure how anyone can read the research and question if it's Ruth or not.

Don't worry, the 1914 postcard doesn't diminish the importance and value of your 1915 postcard.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Not sure how anyone can read the research and question if it's Ruth or not.

Don't worry, the 1914 postcard doesn't diminish the importance and value of your 1915 postcard.

Jeff,

I don’t think Ethan is questioning the research as much as he’s simply stating you cannot identify Ruth on the 1914 postcard. The pitcher on the mound presents as an unifentifiable blurry image. I agree with Ethan. If it’s going to take a “war in peace” level of literature to prove it’s Ruth because the Ruth image tells us NOTHING, I prefer to pass as well. That’s just me and my taste, and it certainly doesn’t diminish the potential significance of this find and the great research that was put into it. On that subject, one question for you Jeff. As Ethan stated, the research is awesome and points to it being ruth. However, that appears to be a glove on the left hand of the pitcher. It just seems too large of a haze to be Ruth’s left hand? Your thoughts?

[Bicem]

Yes, obviously the image is too blurry to clearly identify Ruth, no one is arguing that. But if you have any doubts that it is actually Ruth that means you have doubts about the research which I can't really understand with all the supporting evidence.

Glove is on the right hand, his left hand is visible. May look a little large due to motion or holding a ball or whatever but again the image is too blurry to really make any kind of credible identification call like that which is why the research is so vital.

I completely understand that this type of item is not for everyone. All I'm saying is that it is 100% definitely Ruth pitching for the Red Sox in 1914.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.

very valid point!!!!!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

I'll take the under on that 50K.