Babe Ruth mitt from youth in Goldins Next Auction

[perezfan]

...

[sporteq]

How about Lot #28: Spectacular 1920's Autographed 11"x14" Babe Ruth Photo.. This is clearly a 1940's photo. In fact, I think it's a 1942.

These are major screw-ups.. Great stuff guys!

[Leon]

Everyone in this thread needs to have their first and last name in your post or have your name be easily ascertained from your sig line, website etc..or you can edit your comments out.....thanks

[keithsky]

There are so many more knowledgeable guys on Net54 than the so called experts that these auction companies use. Maybe it's time they get more than one opinion from there so called experts. Good job guys

[murphusa]

~

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by keithsky

There are so many more knowledgeable guys on Net54 than the so called experts that these auction companies use. Maybe it's time they get more than one opinion from there so called experts. Good job guys

I agree

[sbfinley]

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but to me the glove offered looks more like that pictured in the Ruth photos (particularly the 62 topps) than the example provided as a true era catchers mitt. Just because it isn't a catchers mitt doesn't mean it wasn't used by an orphan at an industrial school near the turn of the century. He wasn't exactly playing at the IMG academy. Also, the "dimple" someone alluded to as not being evident can actually be seen (IMO) in the auction photos. As an aside, someone mentioned the lengths that an auction house will go to prove a story or item for their own good. In my experience, the sentiment is just as strong on the other side of the fence as there are some who will move heaven and earth to discredit an auction house or authenticator just because of their distrust for the particular system. I don't collect this particular memorabilia and I'm definitely not an expert, but it's plausible as authentic. Just my two cents.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I'm definitely not an expert, but it's plausible as authentic. Just my two cents.

I entirely disagree. It is very, very, improbable that the glove Ruth used as a boy still exists. It is an extraordinary claim that it does, and that this is it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see none here.

[WindyCityGameUsed]

,