1916 Bain photo of Red Sox with Ruth

[Runscott]

I like that they are offering a 100% guarantee, but I'm not convinced this is period. That's a 'Bain News Service' stamp, which is not "ironclad" proof of type I by any means - 'Bain News Service' frequently copied old photos, some from the 1800's. Does this photo really 'look' 1916 vintage to you all?

Just wondering - I'm sure with a guarantee such as the one below, if the winning bidder didn't feel good about it, it would be no issue to return it.

1916 Red Sox team photo with Ruth





"...prestigious “George Grantham Bain” and “Culver Pictures, Inc.” credit stamps for ironclad authenticity relating to its Type I Original Photo status. In fact, had we not received this image right before our consignment deadline, we would have sent it to PSA for Henry Yee’s official Type I cert. However, we 100% guarantee its irrefutable “Type I” status, and if the winning bidder chooses, we will gladly have the image certified by PSA after the auction."

[FrankWakefield]

I would pass on that.

[packs]

Not sure about the authenticity but WHENEVER I read an auction description and the seller says something to the effect of "I don't have time/the money to get this graded" I always pass. To me that makes zero sense. An auction house has a duty to its buyers. They are not doing anyone a favor by rushing an item into their auction.

That guarantee would make me feel better about taking a chance.

[D. Bergin]

They are not doing the consignor any favors by keeping it in the frame and only showing a photocopy of the back side. If it is indeed a "Type 1". A term I use loosely.

[HRBAKER]

If it is indeed a "Type 1". A term I use loosely.

+1

Can't speak to the photo but that sounds like a rock solid guarantee from a good seller if it isn't.