Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just an observation here. So many posts on hobby chat rooms like this site boil down, at their honest core, to bashing items, cards, etc..
In many of these bashing posts, there is a common denominator. The thing being bashed is expensive. This makes me wonder how many posts are motivated deep down by jealousy, and wanting things one cannot afford. Only a person knows the truth inside them, unless of course they are in denial. It is easy, psychologically, to see how wishing deep down that someone had something can lead to that someone bashing it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But stuff that's going to be 10,000? Or well over 100,000? I'd want to really do my own checking on the item to spend that much. On second thought.....Nevermind. I just realized I have the backup glove in my attic. Also for a right hander, also a kid size catchers mitt. I'll take a big hit and let it go for $75,000. Or maybe $75 if you ask nice. Steve B |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
As I suspected, Ron deleted his posts here and on the Piazza thread, because he was threatened by Goldin's lawyer. If you are going to question an item in Goldin's auction or question his ethics, you had better be prepared to lawyer up.
|
I guess the words "Cease and Desist" suggest he wasn't sending Ron a copy of the Mears report.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Overkill much?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Not all that glitters is goldin
|
Quote:
|
Thats pretty sad to send it to his employer. What are trying to do, cost the guy his job because of some posts on the internet. What a messed up hobby this is.
|
Wow....just wow.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I used to be a consignor with Goldin Auctions. I am not a big consignor, by any means, but this was the last straw. I started having negative feelings about Ken after reading the shill list from Mastro and when this thread and the Goldin intimidation started that reinforced my feelings. I considered Ken to be an ally in the fight against forgers. Someone who actually still had influence with the bay. However, this has gone too far. Bye Ken. I am sure you will not be heartbroken over this but maybe this will make others here think about it too. I have already seen posts with similar misgivings. |
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Anyway, here are just two of the many comments he made providing us assurance that all questionable business is in his past. In the second comment though he states he started out in the hobby when he was 11. This article however says he was 12. |
My position hasn't changed since 2012
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Ki...=w1518-h695-no Everybody has to decide for themselves where to draw the line but I know where mine is. Take a stand. jeff |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Comparison images...
|
The thumb on the glove that Ruth is holding looks totally different than the other one where's the stitching around the thumb piece
|
Cease and desist now!!!!!1
|
The image posted by Justin reconfirms what I said in my first post in this thread. The glove that Ruth is wearing is the photo is open across the three middle fingers. The glove shown for the auction is only open for the middle finger and the ring finger. I still stand by that opinion.
|
I insist that you cease and desist now!!!!!11!
|
Did MEARS allegedly match the glove to the photo?
|
Looking at those gloves next to each other....
|
Quote:
|
whats the provenance?
that might help clear matters up.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Ruth Mitt in Goldin's Auction
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 |
Quote:
|
provenance?
is there any history to the glove besides fact it was in the museum? who donated it? How did they acquire it? etc.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
IN MY OPINION (<---see that lawyers) you have to be pretty damn stupid to buy this glove.
|
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.
|
WOW! It is my opinion that this mitt/glove is worth somewhere between 30-$60 us dollars.
|
Quote:
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. |
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
|
Quote:
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." |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:11 PM. |