The Babe? Really????

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld 

(NOTE: This post isn't about the seller. We know his history, please, for the sake of peace, let's keep him out.)

Look at ebay auction #1973024957.

That is Babe Ruth? Really? Does anyone have access to a photo showing Ruth pitching like that?

I have a couple of pictures of Red Sox players from that era and they both have one thick stripe on their socks not the 2 stripes that you see in the drawing. As you see in Ruth's E135 card. I couldn't say it's meant to be a Red Sox player let alone Babe Ruth.

Just my opinion, but I don't see how anyone can claim this is a legitimate Babe Ruth item. I'm sorry to see SGC put Ruth's name on the label.

[Archive]

Posted By: Albie O'Hanian

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=1973024957

It does say image of Babe Ruth so that is certainly believable.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

It is generally assumed that it is a 'generic-ized' image of Babe Ruth. It doesn't memtion Ruth anywhere on the stamp, but it was issued in Boston when Ruth played there. It's likely that the magazine didn't have the rights to actualy picture/name Ruth, so they made the generic player look as much as possible as Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I will testify that the stamp is very rare.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I thought it was a big stretch to get to Ruth from that pic too...I was trying to figure it out before this thread started, earier today. Whomever he is he just made the seller pretty happy....doubled to over $750 in the last 10 seconds or so.....wow..I feel the buyer bought a holder on this one...except it's obviously a rare stamp....regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

They could have made it look a whole lot more like Ruth without infringing on anyone's rights!

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

It is a HUGE stretch to say this is Babe Ruth. Even if the argument could be made that the player is a Boston Red Sox, it could just as easily be Dutch Leonard, who was coming off a much better season than Ruth in 1914 and having a fine 1915 season.

Sounds like a little creative marketing made up by somebody who owned a few of them and wanted to come up with a neat story to sell them for good money.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I guess this is a case of: if you're selling it's Babe Ruth, if you're buying it's Dutch Leonard.

Other than the famous image used on his Sporting News, I can't recall seeing an original photo of Ruth in a pitching motion. I have seen quite of few of Ruth when he was a pitcher, but almost none of him actually pitching in a game.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mathewson

...for a grading company was not to "guesstimate" on the labeling or the authenticity of an item, unless they knew it for sure?

Hmmmm.....

[Archive]

Posted By: leonl

I will bet that they (SGC) went to a printed resource that said it was Ruth. They then put "Ruth" on the holder. I disagree with this card nameplate and think SGC made a mistake on this one. They get held, in my book, to a higher standard but are still who I prefer.....regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

I'm pretty sure the SCD guide lists the Youth Companion stamp as Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

According to Marc Okkonen's book on 20th Century uniforms, no MLB team wore socks with two red stripes on white, at least during the period 1912-1917. In glancing at that same source, it does not appear that the Red Sox have ever worn socks as depicted on that stamp.
Regards............Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mathewson

...lits it as a 1917 Youth Companion Stamp, but says the date is speculative. Apparently, SGC has better information making it a 1915 issue.

They say it is also speculated that the image is Babe Ruth (and SCD lists his name parenthetically). It is speculated thus because the ball player on the stamp is left-handed and is "...depicted in very Red Sox-like uniform..."

That also may not be true, if their unforms were not of that color (according to earlier posts in this thread). The rest of the stamps, according to SCD, are just general images "part of a set which featured other sporting activities, hobbys and topics suitable for young readers."

It could be deduced, equally so, that all the stamps were simply of hobbys and topics suitable for young readers and just because this player (not necessarily a pitcher) was throwing with his left hand, does not mean he was being illustrated as a Red Sox pitcher named Babe Ruth (especially if it isn't their proper uniform representation). It could be just a general baseball stamp, as apparently all of the stamps of that issue were general in nature.