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

[shelly]

Travis, two of the rain checks have a printed date the other two have stamped dates. My question was. Are the generic tickets from that year only or could they have been from other years as well. I dont care what the stamp says.

[travrosty]

i posted it for discussion purposes, i am not a ticket guy.

but they seem to match form, so i would think someone would have a hard time CONCLUSIVELY debunking the ticket from the way it looks based on these others that have surfaced. unless they are fake too? not likely.

whether or not the ticket can be definitely ruled in is up to debate, but conversely, it would be hard to DEFINITELY rule it out either. they do look the same.

did chris have any ticket bombshell he wanted to show?

[shelly]

If he did I am sure it would have been done by now. I am just curious how they can say it was that date.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

No, Phil, nothing has changed. I have never claimed to be an expert. I have claimed to be very knowledeable about autographs.

What's the distinction?

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Who on this board would you consider an expert?

Other than the couple of guys on here who are long time dealers I don't profess to know the credentials of the rest.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

What's the distinction?



Other than the couple of guys on here who are long time dealers I don't profess to know the credentials of the rest.

Who are you referring to?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner
James and all,
Interesting...

FWIW, I would not trust this to be a real Ruth 700th HR ticket.

I personally have not seen vintage Tigers tickets that have been stamped with a date. In fact, as a baseball ticket collector of over 40 years, I will tell you that I do not recall EVER seeing a Tigers stamped date ticket prior to 1969. I have, however, seen lots of emergency tickets like the one featured in this auction with designations like Game X, Game K, etc.

I do recall seeing a genuine printed date ticket to Ruth's 700th HR. At least one exists in the hobby. As I recall it has an uneven tear at the perforation, almost appearing to have a "fang" shaped tear....

(chris williams response)
+1 and more......


shelly, i post that photo (that huggins and scott posted in the last thread) because someone said they doubt these stamped tickets exist, and chris +1 them, agreed with them.

well here are two stamped emergency tickets from the day before, july 12, 1934. now unless people think those are fake, then there is precedent for stamped emergency tickets from july, 1934 out there. why did chris do a +1?

because the year is cut off, it isnt possible to confirm it is from 1934, but not possible to confirm it isn't either. but it can put to rest the theory that the 700 hr ticket must be a fake because no one has seen stamping like that before. it could be real. but game used balls same way, no one can prove that they were used in the game for sure, but if they fit the pattern and form of game used balls from that game, you have to have a leap of faith somewhat. The stamped huggins and scott ticket does follow form for what it shows people. you have to then go on to the autograph.

for the auction house to say it is from 1934 is them saying it's from 1934. it probably is, the consignor says it is, not 100% definitely yet as far as i can tell. but we have seen auction houses say this is babe ruth's first home run bat, and another one says they have the first homerun bat. the ticket cant disprove the autograph or backstory, but the autograph can disprove everything.

it comes down to the autograph.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Who are you referring to?

To whom are you referring?

[travrosty]

the distinction between expert and very knowledgable about autographs is that if someone has someone else right where they want them and want to go in for the kill, they are an expert, if they screwed up and have some backtracking to do, they are very knowledgable about autographs.

can i get a +1 ?

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Who are you referring to?

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

I can't speak for anyone else who has gotten bogged down in two threads, but with all the time I've spent reading this, I feel I'm dumber than I was three weeks ago.

Ken

[Deertick]

My main question centers around the ticket authenticity. It has struck me that the the ticket was cut. It certainly did not enhance the presentation of the autograph. What it did do was cut off very critical pieces of evidence toward dating it.
Notice the precision of the stamping of the other examples. I wonder if anyone could duplicate that freehand on two consecutive tickets while doing presumably hundreds? But look closely at Seat 26. Does it not appear that it was stamped after tearing? Could that be why the ticket was trimmed?

I want to add that I believe that Chris made a premature call on this because he felt his hand was forced due to the time-sensitive nature of the situation. I don't believe he has all of the pieces of the puzzle that many are demanding, and very likely now, never will. But my guess is he will keep trying.

Without any financial gain, I doubt many of us would do the same.

[David Atkatz]

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

+1

[mschwade]

I am sure this has been pointed out between the two threads at some point, but notice that the only other Emergency ticket (not to mention stamped) was for the same Tigers-Yankees series opener when Mr. Ruth entered the series sitting on 699 for his career.

Difference is Set Z in H&S, Set A in the sold lot. Perhaps a darker ticket in H&S as well?

[shelly]

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

+1

Man, I have it on my screen and it appears pretty clear that the 4 is complete and the tear (flaking?) extends beneath the stamp. I can't seem to save my enlargement to post it here. Maybe someone else can?

[David Atkatz]

It is very clear that the stamp does not extend over the tear.

[mschwade]

FYI, not sure if anyone can do anything with this or not, but here's another 1934 example. Both 1.27 + .13 tax for a total of $1.40. Perhaps this may be a different price in other seasons?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I don't know why Chris, but your intent is not enough. I think you do have a great eye, but everyone is wrong sometimes, no? You haven't givn us any reason to think that now isn't one of those times for you.

I have never had any reason to have anything but respect for you and your posts on these boards, and that really hasn't changed. I'm not calling you names, and will read what you post with the same interest that i always have. But I can tell you this: if you are hit by a car and killed tomorrow (and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen and that you live as long as you hope to), than this Ruth will be accepted by 100 percent of us, as we don't have your eye. And then it will be real. See what I mean?

So if you have something else to share, please do, but otherwise this ticket is likely to sell for even more than it did this time when it comes up for auction again.

I can't say it much nicer than this.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So if you have something else to share, please do, but otherwise this ticket is likely to sell for even more than it did this time when it comes up for auction again.

No reason why it shouldn't, Wayne.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No reason why it shouldn't, Wayne.

Indeed. I wish I owned it.

[shelly]

Let me ask any one on this board a simple question. If the stamp was not on the ticket. How would you know its from 1934? This a generic ticket. Did the Tigers use this ticket in any year but 1934? If was made just for the 34 season then it is all about the autograph. If not, it does open a can of worms.
I am not trying to do anyting but find out the true facts about this ticket not the autograph.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

Shelly,

I don't know how many different ways I can answer this. The ticket does not say that it is from 1934. It is definitely from this era as we have seen other exemplars that show this.

There is nothing that 100% refutes that this ticket couldn't POSSIBLY be from the game played on July 13, 1934.

As a ticket collector, I can tell you that there are examples of other baseball ticket stock that a printed (not stamped) year is nowhere to be seen on the ticket. The Cleveland Indians did this for many years. However, there was one huge difference between these tickets and the Ruth signed "700th HR" ticket. The Indians tickets included the day of the week (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) At least these provided you with an additional clue to help you match it up with the corresponding year. The Detroit ticket does not allow you this luxury. It becomes much more of a leap of faith.

Without the autograph being legit, the ticket would have minimal value because of the absence of the year and the possibility of it being, from say, 1933 or 1935. Some collectors may have some possible interest, but many would not, FWIW...

[thecatspajamas]

Anyone have another Tigers ticket from 1933 or 1935 to compare? Matt showed another from 1934 which had the same base price and tax. I can't quite make out the details on the 1930's ticket lot that has been posted, which included years other than 1934, but even with all the squinting I've done looking at the low-res image that Worthpoint retains, it looks to me like only 1934 tickets were pictured in that one shot.

[shelly]

Promise this is the last question. Could that ticket without a stamp on it be from another year other than 1934, Scott yes or no. Any one else yes or no. If no that is it. No or yes nothing more.
I am now beeing mean and nasty. I am also very tired. At my age the only thing you have to remember is the seat up or down. You guys have no idea how many times I called for help

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Anyone have another Tigers ticket from 1933 or 1935 to compare? Matt showed another from 1934 which had the same base price and tax. I can't quite make out the details on the 1930's ticket lot that has been posted, which included years other than 1934, but even with all the squinting I've done looking at the low-res image that Worthpoint retains, it looks to me like only 1934 tickets were pictured in that one shot.

Well, if the date stamp is authentic, they were on the road in 1932, 1933, 1935 and 1936 on that date.

[thecatspajamas]

Found a few others. These are (in order) from 1932, 1933 (lower right ticket in the group), 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943. To based on the price, 1937 is out. 1932 looks to be a different style of ticket (horizontal orientation rather than vertical), though the one I show is not an "emergency ticket," so would it be possible for those to have a different layout? I'm not sure, but even so, that leaves a possibility of 1933-36, 1938-41, and 1943 based just on the price. (I couldn't find an example for 1942). And to my eye, the "style" of ticket is very similar from 1933-43, so I could easily see them using the same "emergency tickets" for multiple years (ruling out 1937 and 1942 due to price differences). Did they actually do this? I have no idea. I'm just trying to help cover all the bases in what way I can.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by travrosty

here is a couple of emergency stamped tickets from 1934 july12, that went with this lot.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...b#.UXRqAkbfjU4

Thanks Travis. Looks like the ones shown that are stamp dated were the day right before Ruth's 700th HR.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Thanks Travis. Looks like the ones shown that are stamp dated were the day right before Ruth's 700th HR.

My theory is that the Tigers had to print up extra tickets for that series in expectation of higher crowds due to the possibility that Ruth would get #700.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by shelly

Promise this is the last question. Could that ticket without a stamp on it be from another year other than 1934, Scott yes or no. Any one else yes or no. If no that is it. No or yes nothing more.
I am now beeing mean and nasty. I am also very tired. At my age the only thing you have to remember is the seat up or down. You guys have no idea how many times I called for help

shelly, the buyer accepted it as 1934, if it wasn't, there doesnt seem to be a way to know 10000%. either way it doesnt prove or disprove the autograph.

#1 rule for authenticators is make sure the item being signed was available during the lifetime of the signer, it was.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Found a few others. These are (in order) from 1932, 1933 (lower right ticket in the group), 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943. To based on the price, 1937 is out. 1932 looks to be a different style of ticket (horizontal orientation rather than vertical), though the one I show is not an "emergency ticket," so would it be possible for those to have a different layout? I'm not sure, but even so, that leaves a possibility of 1933-36, 1938-41, and 1943 based just on the price. (I couldn't find an example for 1942). And to my eye, the "style" of ticket is very similar from 1933-43, so I could easily see them using the same "emergency tickets" for multiple years (ruling out 1937 and 1942 due to price differences). Did they actually do this? I have no idea. I'm just trying to help cover all the bases in what way I can.

Excellent detective work, Lance and Dave!

Please also note the following facts and observations:

1) The 1932 Tigers ticket is from the LEFT side of the ticket, not the right side. Tigers tickets from every one of these years was horizontal on the left and vertical on the right. The vertical stub is the correct portion of the stub that was to be given to the patron, thus they are called "patron's stubs"

2) The left side of the ticket is what is referred to in the ticket collecting hobby as an "usher's stub". This is the portion of the ticket that the ticket taker was to deposit in the ticket box as the patron entered the stadium. Occasionally (rarely) a ticket taker would hand the patron the wrong side of the stub. I've always taken this to be the work of an inexperienced or new ticket taker. Usher ticket stubs like these show up in the hobby, but only about 5% of the time. One notable exception to this would be St. Louis Cardinals tickets from the 1970's and 1980's. The Cards had a habit of reselling usher's stub tickets to historic games such as Bob Forsch's 2nd no-hitter and Steve Carlton's 300th win. There are LOTS of usher's stub tickets to these games out there as a result, FWIW.

3) The difference in ticket price noted by Lance, $1.40 vs. $1.60 does NOT eliminate Tigers tickets from the year 1937. This is merely a difference in ticket price because of seat location. Lower deck 1st tier box seats sold for a premium, $1.60, during this era as opposed to the standard $1.40 for upper reserved seats or lower deck reserved seats. This is common at all stadiums.

4) The Tigers kept their seat prices and ticket stock appearance steady for MANY years (perhaps 10+ years), which makes solving this puzzle challenging.

5) Please note that by 1945 Tigers tickets were $1.50 for upper reserved seats and $1.80 for lower reserved seats.

6) The "military green" ticket color exhibited by the "Ruth 700" ticket was common for many years at Briggs Stadium (Tiger Stadium). I recall seeing tickets of this color as late as 1952 or so.

7) The ticket could possibly be from 1939 or 1941, because the Tigers did play at Briggs Stadium on July 13th and the ticket prices were most likely the same.
When I re-checked Dave's work about the Tigers playing out of town for several of these years he is correct.

8) I am beginning to believe that the ticket is most likely from 1934 and Ruth's 700 game. Finding a date stamp that is, to my eye, identical to the other Emergency tickets in the Tigers 1934 lot that sold on eBay, would be extremely challenging. Date stamps are a bit like typewriters; they each have their own unique font and size since different companies manufactured them. The stamp was applied at the same angle on the "Ruth 700" ticket as it was to the other Emergency tickets from the Yankees series surrounding 700 in 1934. Briggs Stadium issued all of their tickets from one very small ticket booth at the corner of the stadium. It's very likely that one ticket office employee was in charge of all stamping of tickets during this period of time. Same angle of stamping, same date stamp used in application of the stamp. The ink applied to the 700 ticket appears to be old, not recent, FWIW.

If the Babe Ruth signature holds up under scrutiny of the Babe Ruth sig experts, I would now not exclude this ticket as possibly being from the Ruth 700 game.
Just my 2 cents...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by travrosty

shelly, the buyer accepted it as 1934, if it wasn't, there doesnt seem to be a way to know 10000%. either way it doesnt prove or disprove the autograph.

#1 rule for authenticators is make sure the item being signed was available during the lifetime of the signer, it was.

Correct Travis!

[canjond]

Also interesting to note that every one of those tickets posted appears to be in nice "sharp" condition, at least as they appear on my iPad screen. That, too me, debunks the "ticket looks too nice to be authentic" argument.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by canjond

Also interesting to note that every one of those tickets posted appears to be in nice "sharp" condition, at least as they appear on my iPad screen. That, too me, debunks the "ticket looks too nice to be authentic" argument.

That was never the case. Lots of older baseball tickets have survived in terrific shape with sharp corners through the years. It all has to do with the randomness of the patron that attended the game.

Most patrons threw ticket stubs away, and did not save them. It stands to reason that the patron that did "save" the ticket stub would be more likely to take care of them since they cared enough to even hang on to them in the first place.

Damage to older tickets usually is exhibited on the back of the ticket. Many times, the older stubs that survived were glued into scrapbooks or scorebooks. If they are not removed carefully, this is when back damage or paper loss occurs to the ticket. Very common, BTW...

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Damage to older tickets usually is exhibited on the back of the ticket. Many times, the older stubs that survived were glued into scrapbooks or scorebooks.

And she certainly wouldn't be gluing a ticket stub in a scrapbook that had a Babe Ruth signature on the back, if that was her original intentions when she left the game.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by mschwade

And she certainly wouldn't be gluing a ticket stub in a scrapbook that had a Babe Ruth signature on the back, if that was her original intentions when she left the game.

Very true

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

My theory is that the Tigers had to print up extra tickets for that series in expectation of higher crowds due to the possibility that Ruth would get #700.

Possibly so, Dan. Additionally, Ruth and Co. always drew better attendance than other AL teams, FWIW. You definitely know that the Yankees drew much better crowds than a team like the lowly St. Louis Browns (apologies to all Brownies fans out there )

[thecatspajamas]

From the July 19 issue of The Sporting News. I believe the presence of "circus seats" validates the use of emergency tickets, and the article also elaborates on how the seats were not needed based on actual attendance, but were there anyway just in case. Seems the press had been talking up a sell-out crowd, which had the reverse effect of scaring attendees away.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Excellent detective work, Lance and Dave!

Please also note the following facts and observations:

1) The 1932 Tigers ticket is from the LEFT side of the ticket, not the right side. Tigers tickets from every one of these years was horizontal on the left and vertical on the right. The vertical stub is the correct portion of the stub that was to be given to the patron, thus they are called "patron's stubs"

2) The left side of the ticket is what is referred to in the ticket collecting hobby as an "usher's stub". This is the portion of the ticket that the ticket taker was to deposit in the ticket box as the patron entered the stadium. Occasionally (rarely) a ticket taker would hand the patron the wrong side of the stub. I've always taken this to be the work of an inexperienced or new ticket taker. Usher ticket stubs like these show up in the hobby, but only about 5% of the time. One notable exception to this would be St. Louis Cardinals tickets from the 1970's and 1980's. The Cards had a habit of reselling usher's stub tickets to historic games such as Bob Forsch's 2nd no-hitter and Steve Carlton's 300th win. There are LOTS of usher's stub tickets to these games out there as a result, FWIW.

3) The difference in ticket price noted by Lance, $1.40 vs. $1.60 does NOT eliminate Tigers tickets from the year 1937. This is merely a difference in ticket price because of seat location. Lower deck 1st tier box seats sold for a premium, $1.60, during this era as opposed to the standard $1.40 for upper reserved seats or lower deck reserved seats. This is common at all stadiums.

4) The Tigers kept their seat prices and ticket stock appearance steady for MANY years (perhaps 10+ years), which makes solving this puzzle challenging.

5) Please note that by 1945 Tigers tickets were $1.50 for upper reserved seats and $1.80 for lower reserved seats.

6) The "military green" ticket color exhibited by the "Ruth 700" ticket was common for many years at Briggs Stadium (Tiger Stadium). I recall seeing tickets of this color as late as 1952 or so.

7) The ticket could possibly be from 1939 or 1941, because the Tigers did play at Briggs Stadium on July 13th and the ticket prices were most likely the same.
When I re-checked Dave's work about the Tigers playing out of town for several of these years he is correct.

8) I am beginning to believe that the ticket is most likely from 1934 and Ruth's 700 game. Finding a date stamp that is, to my eye, identical to the other Emergency tickets in the Tigers 1934 lot that sold on eBay, would be extremely challenging. Date stamps are a bit like typewriters; they each have their own unique font and size since different companies manufactured them. The stamp was applied at the same angle on the "Ruth 700" ticket as it was to the other Emergency tickets from the Yankees series surrounding 700 in 1934. Briggs Stadium issued all of their tickets from one very small ticket booth at the corner of the stadium. It's very likely that one ticket office employee was in charge of all stamping of tickets during this period of time. Same angle of stamping, same date stamp used in application of the stamp. The ink applied to the 700 ticket appears to be old, not recent, FWIW.

If the Babe Ruth signature holds up under scrutiny of the Babe Ruth sig experts, I would now not exclude this ticket as possibly being from the Ruth 700 game.
Just my 2 cents...

All good information, and Scott's attention to and evaluation of the details is much appreciated. I've definitely learned a thing or two (or three) about tickets as a result of this thread, (which is more of an education than I expected going into it ). I always appreciate your breakdowns of the information at hand, Scott, as opposed to my "lookee here what I found!"

[slidekellyslide]

Theory confirmed...thanks for doing the research Lance!

[shelly]

Thanks for all the help. I at least found out what was the most important part of the puzzle. Was a generic ticket from that game stamp or no stamp.
It now comes down to if the autograph is authentic or not. That will be up to you to decide.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Theory confirmed...thanks for doing the research Lance!

I agree. Nice job, Lance!

[RichardSimon]

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

From the July 19 issue of The Sporting News. I believe the presence of "circus seats" validates the use of emergency tickets, and the article also elaborates on how the seats were not needed based on actual attendance, but were there anyway just in case. Seems the press had been talking up a sell-out crowd, which had the reverse effect of scaring attendees away.

Chris didn't show us anything like this - makes me wonder if he's presenting theories and throwing away facts

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

A theory here would be yes for regular printed tickets and no for "circus tickets" which would make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps someone can confirm.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I collect, among other things, old NY Giants memorabilia.
I just checked my 1930's and 40's ticket stubs and they all have lots of printing on the back.
Was it common for Detroit tickets to be blank backed?

Richard,
That's an interesting question.

For the most part, Tigers tickets would have had printing on the back. No advertising, just information mostly regarding the teams right to revoke admission to patrons under certain circumstances. There also would be the brand of the ticket company that manufactured the ticket. During the 1930's and 1940's the Tigers used Ansell-Simplex Ticket Co. of Chicago, IL. This would typically be on the back of all ticket stock.

However, Emergency tickets may not have had the same treatment. Without having the opportunity to examine the back of other Emergency tickets from this era, I wouldn't know if they did or didn't have this printing. In looking through other Tigers tickets that I own, I do see at least one example from the 1950's where I DO NOT see printing on the back. These tickets are season tickets though, not regular box office tickets, thus possibly explaining the difference in printing process.

I hope this helps.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Chris didn't show us anything like this - makes me wonder if he's presenting theories and throwing away facts

Obviously he's in the 98% that know nothing about ticket stubs.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

A theory here would be yes for regular printed tickets and no for "circus tickets" which would make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps someone can confirm.

Hi Ben and all,

I have never heard of Emergency tickets being called "circus tickets" FWIW. When I think of circus tickets I think of "raffle" style smaller tickets. The bleacher tickets that Lance showed are somewhat like generic circus tickets. These also had the disclaimer printing on the back. I have quite a few of these from this era.

One additional point to note. Briggs Stadium had PLENTY of capacity to handle large crowds in excess of 26,000 fans in attendance (capacity of the stadium was listed at 36,000). They should not have had to add extra seats, just sell them generic bleacher seats....

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Hi Ben and all,

I have never heard of Emergency tickets being called "circus tickets" FWIW. When I think of circus tickets I think of "raffle" style smaller tickets. The bleacher tickets that Lance showed are somewhat like generic circus tickets. These also had the disclaimer printing on the back. I have quite a few of these from this era.

One additional point to note. Briggs Stadium had PLENTY of capacity to handle large crowds in excess of 26,000 fans in attendance (capacity of the stadium was listed at 36,000). They should not have had to add extra seats....

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 writer also stated that the additional seats likely weren't needed for the game on Sunday (the 15th), but remained in place anyway. 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. I don't know if this was an official term for that style of seating, or was something unique to this article. The author certainly seems to have thought that the proceedings more closely resembled a circus than a baseball game, which could have led to him coining the term...?