![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm not a lawyer, but bigtrain's analysis of the handwritten letter makes sense. I was;however, a very busy typist for a number of years, and typed thesis papers in college for a typing business, using electric typewriters. I also had my own manual typewriters - a '70s portable and a great ancient Smith Corona. The typing in the $700K+ item looks manual to me.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 10-10-2013 at 08:44 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I re-read the beginning of the thread and admit I thought the two documents were sold together as a lot. I was mistaken. Only the "incentive" contract was sold recently by cleansweep auctions.
That said, I stand fully by the legal reasons set forth above (along with basic common sense) that the incentive (handwritten) contract sold by cleansweep is a forgery. Actually, since the "formal" boilerplate contract has been public knowledge for so long, it now makes even more sense that the handwritten one is a forgery, since a date (Jan 11) would have been known to the forger. The Sox were also very busy the day before (Jan. 10)- check this out: http://www.1918redsox.com/season.htm It would've made more sense to date the forgery Jan 10, since that day was obviously one where "deals" were being made. But the forger must have known of the other contract from the old Guernsey auction and used the Jan. 11 date for consistency. Another thing is that spring training was even shortened that year due to WWI, and all the owners feared lower gate receipts due to wartime hardships, male fans in military service, etc. Doesn't make sense that that would be a year Frazee would be offering "cookies" like this to Ruth, who was not yet a superstar at this time- in fact, he was well behind Mays and Bush in the mound's pecking order. That Ruth at this stage of his career had the "juice" to get a deal like this (which is admittedly unheard of in this time period) simply transcends believability. The forger simply didn't do enough research to make his document stand up to A.) the historical facts, B. the state of 1918 contract law, or C. basic common sense. Some poor sap is 70 K poorer though Last edited by thebigtrain; 10-10-2013 at 09:14 PM. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Cool 1935 Babe Ruth Newspaper Weekly reader | GrayGhost | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 07-26-2013 07:15 AM |
FS: Custom 1918 World Series Game 1 Ticket & Newspaper Display! Babe Ruth Shutout Win | Augy44 | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 10-30-2012 11:30 AM |
1918 or 1919 Griffith Stadium / Babe Ruth? | Brian Campf | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 13 | 06-05-2012 03:44 PM |
1915 New York Yankees Player Contract with VITAL Babe Ruth tie in! | btcarfagno | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 0 | 05-27-2011 02:54 PM |
More info on that Babe Ruth contract | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 11-10-2004 12:51 PM |