1918 Red Sox Babe Ruth Contract (VERY COOL)

[maniac_73]

Wow very cool! Certainly a museum piece and an important part of history


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[thebigtrain]

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the "boilerplate" printed AL contract. The parts typed in with a typewriter appear to be in a font style that was not available on the typical typewriter in 1918. This is especially evident in the typed word "Massachusetts," which oddly is in lower-case whereas all the other typewritten portions are all caps.

The boldness (or lack thereof) of the typewritten portions is also cause for concern. Most typewriters of this vintage really "whack" the paper, and leave much "bolder" ink behind, also with more "ink bleed" around the edges of each letter, which almost gives them a "fuzzy" appearance. The capital "As" in this document are "dirty," meaning the open spaces of the letter are somewhat ink-clogged/dirty. To my thinking, a typewriter is a forger's best friend, because outside of typeface geeks like me, most people would never think to analyze such a thing (as Dan Rather found out the hard way in 2004 with the fake Bush national guard docs).

The fact that an upper-case letter "I" is used instead of a numeral for the number "I500" is also suspicious. It would also be customary (as is the case today) for the name Harry Frazee to be typewritten out as well, not simply the word "president." In fact, I believe the boilerplate printed line where someone typed "President" was supposed to be the line for Ruth (or whatever player was signing it) to sign. Ruth appears to have "signed" below in a cramped way. Notice that the notary/witness gets his own dotted "boilerplate" signature line as well.

All of this typing appears to have been done on a circa early 50s electric machine, although closer analysis than is possible from these scans would be needed for a definitive answer.

For this price point (about the cost of a nicely equipped Mercedes), I'd have had a typeface expert/forensic document examiner take a look in person before throwing my $$$ at this thing. Just a few seconds looking at the scans gave me a really bad "gut feeling."

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by thebigtrain

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the "boilerplate" printed AL contract. The parts typed in with a typewriter appear to be in a font style that was not available on the typical typewriter in 1918. This is especially evident in the typed word "Massachusetts," which oddly is in lower-case whereas all the other typewritten portions are all caps.

The boldness (or lack thereof) of the typewritten portions is also cause for concern. Most typewriters of this vintage really "whack" the paper, and leave much "bolder" ink behind, also with more "ink bleed" around the edges of each letter, which almost gives them a "fuzzy" appearance. The capital "As" in this document are "dirty," meaning the open spaces of the letter are somewhat ink-clogged/dirty. To my thinking, a typewriter is a forger's best friend, because outside of typeface geeks like me, most people would never think to analyze such a thing (as Dan Rather found out the hard way in 2004 with the fake Bush national guard docs).

The fact that an upper-case letter "I" is used instead of a numeral for the number "I500" is also suspicious. It would also be customary (as is the case today) for the name Harry Frazee to be typewritten out as well, not simply the word "president." In fact, I believe the boilerplate printed line where someone typed "President" was supposed to be the line for Ruth (or whatever player was signing it) to sign. Ruth appears to have "signed" below in a cramped way. Notice that the notary/witness gets his own dotted "boilerplate" signature line as well.

All of this typing appears to have been done on a circa early 50s electric machine, although closer analysis than is possible from these scans would be needed for a definitive answer.

For this price point (about the cost of a nicely equipped Mercedes), I'd have had a typeface expert/forensic document examiner take a look in person before throwing my $$$ at this thing. Just a few seconds looking at the scans gave me a really bad "gut feeling."

Wow. that is fascinating and food for thought on this Piece. and that much coin makes a huge difference

[Runscott]

It is definitely fascinating food for thought.

Please post an example of a boilerplate contract from that period that looks the way you think it should. Perhaps there is another Red Sox, Frazee-signed piece out there to compare to?

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It is definitely fascinating food for thought.

Please post an example of a boilerplate contract from that period that looks the way you think it should. Perhaps there is another Red Sox, Frazee-signed piece out there to compare to?

No need to get nasty I just felt that the man had some good points, since he knows a lot bout Type and machines, etc

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

No need to get nasty I just felt that the man had some good points, since he knows a lot bout Type and machines, etc

Scott, I don't think you understood my post - probably a problem on my end.

I really would like to see 'thebigtrain' post an example. As you say, he knows a lot about this stuff, so I feel fairly certain he has seen examples such as the one I requested. I'm kind of busy and don't feel like doing the research myself. If he doesn't post anything, that's fine too.

I assumed that both pieces were authentic, but his comments bring up some interesting questions.

[thebigtrain]

This youtube video shows a circa 1915 Hammond typewriter in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2htfA9NGCI

Notice what I mean about the way the keys really "ram" the letters into the paper on these old mechanical typewriters, almost to the point where the metal typeface "dents" the paper? Also notice how much more ink the lead typeface leaves on the paper?

The alleged 1918 Ruth/Frazee contract looks nothing like the youtube typewriter's product. Again, I'd bet good money that the Ruth contract is a fraud, and that the typewritten portions were done on a 1950s to 1960s era electric typewriter such as an IBM Selectric. Electric typewriters use a motor/spring system to "push" the key arms upward on to the paper, whereas the old mechanical typewriters rely on the key pressure of the typist- i.e, the harder one presses the key, the bolder and darker the printing becomes.

The dirty "a" on the Ruth contract has the same amount of dirt/smuding in the open space of the letter "A" every time it appears. In a mechanical typewriter, this "clogging" tended to correct itself, as the operator might strike the key harder/softer each time, tending to dislodge the dirt/ink clog.

But in an electric machine, the key strikes the paper with the same "force" every time, since it's being electrically brought up to the paper each time. The "strength" and boldness would be the same if you barely touched the key or if you pounded the key down with a small hammer, as the key itself is merely a switch which is pulsing current to the motor. Make sense?

I am by no means a complete authority/expert on this. I am an attorney, and had a fraud case a couple years ago involving an expert on typewriters/fonts etc. We had lunch/drinks several times during the trial, and I enjoyed hearing about his profession and training. I sent him the link to the Ruth contract, but he has not yet had time to respond.

TBT

Originally Posted by thebigtrain

It would also be customary (as is the case today) for the name Harry Frazee to be typewritten out as well, not simply the word "president."

For what it's worth, I've looked at about a dozen signed player contracts from the 1910s (using Google), and none that I've seen so far have the club president's name typed out - they all just simply have "president" typed, or often just handwritten, under the president's signature.

In fact, a lot of the ones I've checked look pretty sloppy and informal by today's standards, with mixtures of upper and lower case type, handwritten additions that aren't initialed, signatures that aren't notarized, witnessed or dated, dates typed or written above or below the appropriate sections, overlapped writing or type, etc. My impression is that baseball contracts of the 1910s weren't nearly as formal, detailed or precise as baseball or most other contracts are today (that's assuming, of course, that not all of the contracts viewable on line are forgeries).

[thebigtrain]

Look at this 1915 A.L. contract for a "nobody" player named Eugene Layden:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=27011#Photo

Notice how on the last page (above the signature blocks) is a typewritten notation that "the interlineations on line 7 of clause 1.... were inserted before signing."

Kind of less exciting than the handwritten "incentive" clause, eh?

I don't have an opinion on the handwritten item, other than to say I've seen far stranger things.

From what I've read, it was brought to market 5 or 6 years ago by uber-collector and former DiMaggio business manager Bert Padell. This is its provenance according to an old Padell interview in Sports Collectors' Digest:

“I have a letter from the president of the Boston Red Sox in January of 1918, his next-to-the-last last year as a Red Sox (and where Ruth pitched extensively) that said, ‘If you win 24 games, you get a $1,000 bonus (he had won 23 and 24 games in the previous two seasons), and if you win 30 games, you get a $1,500 bonus.’ “And it’s signed George Herman ‘Babe’ Ruth, and by the president of the Red Sox, Harry Frazee. A man in Westchester, N.Y., that I met through one of my clients in the entertainment business had this big box of items from the Red Sox in his attic, and it had been there for 30 years or more. And there was all this memorabilia, and he asked me if I wanted to buy it.” Padell told him that he had never bought anything in his life. So he brought the stuff to Padell’s Midtown Manhattan office to have him look at it, and there are the letter and two contracts signed by Ruth, and he also had a lot of Red Sox contracts. “He offered them all to me for $5,000,” said Padell. “And I told him again that I had never bought anything, and he said he needed the money and he was in debt. So I said, OK. This was 25 years ago or so. And I paid him.” And then Padell got a call from him the next day, and he said that a friend of his had called and offered him $25,000 for two of the Ruth items. “And I asked who his friend was, and he said, ‘Barry Halper.’ And I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding.’ “And he let me photocopy the Ruth contracts and I got the letter and I got the Red Sox players contracts.”

I don't know if that would be considered solid provenance, but Padell acquired the item about 30 years ago, the previous owner supposedly had it for 30+ years, and perhaps more importantly it was offered to Padell with a number of similar vintage contracts and related documents whose authenticity have apparently not (yet) been questioned.

[JimStinson]

Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question) my BIG question would be this , By 1918 it has been well documented that Ruth himself wanted to PLAY MORE and PITCH LESS , not counting the periodicals of the day or information contained in numerous biographies ...a simple wiki search confirms this

"In the years 1915–1917, Ruth had been used in just 44 games in which he had not pitched. After the 1917 season, in which he hit .325, albeit with limited at bats, teammate Harry Hooper suggested that Ruth might be more valuable in the lineup as an everyday player.

In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

So with the above in mind , why would Ruth sign an agreement to the contrary ?? basically stating that he would "pitch more" ?? which would obviously be required to win 30 games. It was not an "on the spot" decision either as the idea was floated throughout 1917 of converting him to a full time player with Babe Ruth himself pushing hardest for the transition ...Just my two cents but like "Casey" used to say "You can look it up"
_____________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs For Sale Daily
stinsonsports.com

Originally Posted by JimStinson

...In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

So with the above in mind , why would Ruth sign an agreement to the contrary ?? basically stating that he would "pitch more" ?? which would obviously be required to win 30 games. It was not an "on the spot" decision either as the idea was floated throughout 1917 of converting him to a full time player with Babe Ruth himself pushing hardest for the transition ...Just my two cents but like "Casey" used to say "You can look it up"

1) Why does it matter what Ruth wanted to do or not do? Didn't the club make those decisions?

2) How does the incentives agreement state that Ruth would "pitch more"? The way I read it is IF he pitches more, he'll get MORE compensation.

Why couldn't Ruth have signed his standard contract, then mentioned that he expected to play mostly in the outfield in the coming season, then be told that the team will use him however they see fit? The team tells Babe it has every intention to get him a lot of at bats, but they can't make any guarantees; however, since they want him to be happy, they say IF, IF, IF, they decide they need to use him mostly as a pitcher, they'll give him extra compensation. Then they write up a hasty side agreement in an effort to pacify him.

If the letter is bogus, then is multimillionaire Pardell part of the scheme, and is his acquisition story a lie? All for $50K (or whatever he got for it 8 years ago), when he was already rich? Or was Pardell duped back in 1982, and the forger at that time mixed this one fake letter in with a number of other authentic contracts and documents for which he got a whopping $5K? And have Guernsey’s, Steve Geppi, Clean Sweep, JSA, two subsequent owners of the letter and a dozen or more high stakes bidders all been fooled?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

Given that the typed piece is a 'boilerplate' template, and there wasn't such a pre-typed template for addendums such as the handwritten one, containing incentive agreements, it isn't extremely far-fetched that both could have been created on the same day; however, parts of the typed one are actually typed, not handwritten, so why couldn't whoever typed that one, have typed up the addendum to it?

And if Ruth and Frazee were going to go to the trouble of agreeing on the verbiage in the handwritten one, why not put something in it related to hitting? Why waste time, as Jim points out, writing something up for pitching?

Not saying it's fake - just saying that it defies logic.

[byrone]

This link will take you to "Young Babe Ruth" by Brother Gilbert, which offers some insight into Ruth moving from starting pitcher to everyday player.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=hJOD...ITCHER&f=false

[Fuddjcal]

Very nice Big Train! Thanks for the insight.

[Mr. Zipper]

So, is there any sort of gauge on just how long skilled Ruth forgeries have existed?

If it could truly be traced back 60 years, and it is so close experts can't agree, did highly deceptive fakes exist at that time?

[Big Dave]

Forgeries have existed for hundreds of years...