On the easel...

[GKreindler]

Tim,

You're right - that shot's a beauty. I absolutely love the light hitting him from behind like that. And the look on his face! You can just see that determination and fire. There were few who could emote in their expressions as much as Jackie, and considering what he went through during his first few years in the league, it's even that much more profound.

Thanks for posting it!

Graig

[nolemmings]

Greg, I did a little digging, and it seems that the newspaper caption affixed to the back was referring to a game played May 12, 1921. Why they would use a Red Sox photo of Ruth when he was in his second season with the Yankees I have no idea. On May 12, 1921 Ruth hit a two-run homer off George Dauss of the Tigers in a 11-10 Yankee win, his 10th of the season, with one man on base. Tellingly, NY Giant George Highpockets Kelly hit his 8th the same day to lead the NL at the time--the caption refers to Ruth being "more or less pressed by Kelly across the page there" (a reference to sharing headlines in New York?) for the home run crown. Seems to me this must be the date of the news clipping.

Of course this does not help you pin down the date of the photo. It does seem from Okkonen's database that the Red Sox roadies were lighter then gray in 1919 and lighter than they had been in the prior few seasons. Since the pinstripes in the photo are thinner, spread further and thus less noticeable from far away, perhaps photographic evidence used in Okkonnen's research did not pick them up. Finally, I see that the handwriting on the back of the photo states "Babe Ruth in L.A. (Los Angeles?, Louisiana?) Nov. 1, 1919". Maybe this was taken post-season at some barnstorming or other exhibition game.

[GKreindler]

Todd,

Thanks so much for chiming in, as well as looking into the matter.

I definitely find it odd that the papers would have used the image of Ruth in '21 for such an occasion, but I suppose it happened back then. Either way, I think you're definitely right about that May game, especially with it's relationship to Kelly's performance. I suppose that was the smoking gun that I was looking for.

The uniform stuff still bothers me, though. I did some research on the Conlon Collection website (https://www.theconloncollection.com/), and the few photos of Red Sox players from 1919 have similar unis to the Babe's, but their pinstripes are still pretty thin and close together. And, since Conlon never really took his photos in Boston (except for some World Series shots in 1912), I'm pretty sure that the depicted images are on the road.

So, is it possible that the image is still from 1919 on the road, and maybe Ruth just got a jersey from a different fabric or something? Or maybe it is a home uniform? I wish there was something that had ironclad provenance to go by, being that they're plenty of inconsistencies in Okkonen's work, the Conlon site, game-worn stuff in private collections, or now, even newspapers.

My head hurts.

Graig

[nolemmings]

Greg,

Some cursory research shows that Babe went on a West-Coast exhibition tour in November, 1919 which again is a date referenced on the back of the photo. He played with or against Buck Weaver in Sacramento that month, and may have appeared in San Francisco and Oxnard too. It would not be a stretch to find that he was in LA the first of that month. Possibly the photo comes from that tour, although I am not familiar with whether the players were allowed to wear their team's uniforms post-season and in the 20's they typically did not.

If the photo came from that tour it would have been an interesting time nonetheless. Playing with Weaver just weeks after the Black Sox series, having demanded a healthy pay bump and less than two months away from being traded to the Yankees by a failing Frazee, that would have made for a lot of hot stove talk at the time.