Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My understanding in reading the article was that additional seating ("circus seating") was set up in anticipation of a greater-than-capacity crowd. The press talked it up about how the stadium was bound to be filled to capacity, but the reality of game day didn't live up to the hype. The article also laments the effect that the added seating, apparently at ground level on the field itself, had on game play (kids running around on the field, doubles becoming inside the park home runs, etc), so even though the stadium was not filled to capacity, the field-level seats clearly were occupied to some extent.

Also note that the term "circus" was only ever applied to the additional seating in the article, not the tickets themselves.

Gotcha!
I'm sure that the Tigers organization, in an attempt to capitalize on all of the hype and hysteria surrounding the pennant race and Ruth's 700th HR game, wanted to sell more expensive $1.60 seats, not cheap bleacher seats. $$ is always a great motivator, LOL.

[Runscott]

Everyone participating in this thread has 'Circus Seats'.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Everyone participating in this thread has 'Circus Seats'.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

That was my point

[thecatspajamas]

Ta da!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Ta da!

Weeee! Haha

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Gotcha!
I'm sure that the Tigers organization, in an attempt to capitalize on all of the hype and hysteria surrounding the pennant race and Ruth's 700th HR game, wanted to sell more expensive $1.60 seats, not cheap bleacher seats. $$ is always a great motivator, LOL.

I guess that was par for the course from the baseball owners. The funny thing was that despite having the games on radio, and the Great Depression, Detroit finished first in attendance in 1934. You wouldn't think that the game would need to be "played" up, but money talks.

[David Atkatz]

So, to get back on track, every bit of physical evidence either points to, or is consistent with this being a genuine 700 HR game ticket.

I wonder where "the Michigan forger" obtained it?

[mr2686]

I guess another question would be, even if he obtained it, it would have cost him an amount unusual for a forger to fork out considering he would only have one shot at creating such a convincing Ruth, so why not dummy up a fake ticket instead?

[David Atkatz]

I hope you realize, Mike, I was being a bit of a smartass.
Of board members that have spoken, a majority of those in the "98%," and even a few in the elite "2%" feel the signature is genuine.

All physical evidence is consistent with the ticket being genuine, as well.

I'm sure the buyer will be happy with his purchase.

[mr2686]

Yes I did David. I was just taking the point a litte further. I still stand by my first post in this thread that the OP had good info. I base that strictly on his previous posts that did not tell us anything that would help us determine why he felt the sig was bad. With this tread, we learned that he did not believe the story and why, and whether we agree with all of it or not, it did start a very interesting ticket investigation on this very thread. The other part was to compare the Ruth with a Gaedel (as well as a real Gaedel), which to many of us proved that this forger not only does a terrible Gaedel, he didn't seem, with that comparison, to have the skill to do a Ruth THAT well.
All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.

[shelly]

Mike, I agree. To me it was the ticket first then the signiture. That is why I wanted to find out if the ticket was correct. I again want to thank everyone that went far and above what usually happens on here. It was nice seeing people working together and not takeing pop shots at each other.
Now its up to each person to decide is the autograph real or not.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by mr2686

All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.

No, Mike, he didn't.

He presented a story outlining why he isn't happy with the provenance. He presented no information at all as to why he thinks the signature is the work of the so-called Michigan forger.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Yes I did David. I was just taking the point a litte further. I still stand by my first post in this thread that the OP had good info. I base that strictly on his previous posts that did not tell us anything that would help us determine why he felt the sig was bad. With this tread, we learned that he did not believe the story and why, and whether we agree with all of it or not, it did start a very interesting ticket investigation on this very thread. The other part was to compare the Ruth with a Gaedel (as well as a real Gaedel), which to many of us proved that this forger not only does a terrible Gaedel, he didn't seem, with that comparison, to have the skill to do a Ruth THAT well.
All I ever ask for when someone gives an opinion is to have them back it up with his/her reasons, and agree or disagree at least he finally did that.

What info did he have? He thought it was rejected by PSA. It wasn't...he had no clue it was certified by JSA. It was. He believed it was rejected by Heritage. It wasn't... He disappears for over a week when questioned about all of this. He comes back and gives us a Red Riding Hood fairy tale that totally deflects from the autograph and focuses on the ticket.

These threads completely illustrate what is wrong in the autograph hobby and what is right in the memorabilia hobby. What did we learn about Babe Ruth autographs? Nothing. What did we learn about ticket stubs? A whole heck of a lot. We also learned something about the game played that day. Lots of collectors chimed in with their FACTS about the game and ticket stub. What did we learn from the 2 percenters? Nothing.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I guess another question would be, even if he obtained it, it would have cost him an amount unusual for a forger to fork out considering he would only have one shot at creating such a convincing Ruth, so why not dummy up a fake ticket instead?

As Shelly said, now that we're through analyzing the ticket (for now, anyway), we can look at the signature.

I haven't heard anyone say that this signature is "convincing".

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As Shelly said, now that we're through analyzing the ticket (for now, anyway), we can look at the signature.

I haven't heard anyone say that this signature is "convincing".

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me.

That's right. In this case, I agree with Jimmy Spence. (I have made a mistake or two in my 50+ years of collecting, and I have made a judgement or two on this very board without looking as closely as I should have, so ya'll gotta factor that in.)

But I believe the signature is good.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I believe that some board members have said they believe that it's real.
I'm pretty certain David A. said it was in the 1st thread, FWIW.
If I'm wrong, please don't crucify me.

Haha. In any statistical analysis, you would throw out the highs and lows. I threw out a low.