Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s
Good catch Murph, and I think the Ruth pennant is not even close to the Cincy pennant in finished quality, however crude that the Cincy is.
|
Regarding the Ruth and the 1919 Reds Pennants...
Look closer...
The overall style of the pennants, the shape of both (stubby- not elongated), the thin felt, the stenciled font style (every letter matches up), the stars, and even the red felt strip on the left side are all
the same. When have you ever seen other pennants like this with identical font and stenciled stars, combined with a poorly applied central image (that is neither stenciled or screened on like the remainder of the pennant).
If you propped up the Ruth Pennant (at a more direct angle to the camera), the shape would be identical to the 1919 Reds. It is laying flatter in the photo, thus skewing the shape a bit. Other known pennants of the era are more elongated than these matching examples. Look at the stenciled lettering. The "H" is crossed 3/4 towards the top on both examples. The "R"s are identical. So are the "N"s and the "A"s and the "E"s... all identical in style.
Now that Murphusa has exposed the 1928 Ruth as being a fake/fantasy piece (based on the "3" on his back)... I do not envy the guy who spent over $3K on the 1919 Reds Pennant. I would be extremely nervous, as these two pennants are far too similar
not to be related.
And what are the odds that both would pop up on ebay around the same time? In the past 20 years, why have no others (of this distinct style) ever been featured in ANY of the major Catalogue Auctions? Way too coincidental for my taste...
If the winning bidder of the Reds Pennant is reading this, you might want to file a dispute before it's too late. Ebay has an excellent new Buyer Protection Program that can effectively protect you.
Hope this is helpful.