Ruth signed ball, video proof

[clutch]

Really cool. It will be exciting to see what that goes for.

[prewarsports]

It is absolutely definative, except that its not. The Home Movie is awesome, the ball looks like its been traced over at some point (maybe its good, but it looks like crap) and not to anything about the guy who got the ball or his family but there is nothing definative that links this ball to the movie except a story and there is one of those for every Babe Ruth signed ball in the hobby.

At the end of the day you are looking at a highly toned ball with a somehow perfect Ruth on it and a home movie that you are supposed to believe through a story makes the ball more real.

Just my opinion but I would pay more money for the original movie with Ruth in it than I would that ball.

Also, to the glove thing (comment at the bottom of the movie) dont you know J.P's hands are clean, just look at his reputation!

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

It is absolutely definative, except that its not. The Home Movie is awesome, the ball looks like its been traced over at some point (maybe its good, but it looks like crap) and not to anything about the guy who got the ball or his family but there is nothing definative that links this ball to the movie except a story and there is one of those for every Babe Ruth signed ball in the hobby.

At the end of the day you are looking at a highly toned ball with a somehow perfect Ruth on it and a home movie that you are supposed to believe through a story makes the ball more real.

Just my opinion but I would pay more money for the original movie with Ruth in it than I would that ball.

Also, to the glove thing (comment at the bottom of the movie) dont you know J.P's hands are clean, just look at his reputation!

Rhys,
That's EXACTLY what I thought when I looked at the ball and the video, FWIW...

[Mr. Zipper]

The home movie shows Ruth signing "a ball," but unless there is footage we are not seeing, it doesn't tie the ball for sale to the moment in the video.

I'm not implying there is anything wrong with the ball, but the video is hardly the proof it claims to be. I was expecting the kid to come back and hold the ball up in front of the camera.

[JollyElm]

This video tells us nothing except for the fact that the nuns at St. Mary's apparently forced George to write with his right hand (my left handed sister went through the same torment in Queens in the 60's). There is nothing that ties this video to the ball in question.

[mr2686]

Add me to the list. I was thinking the same thing when I saw it. I don't see any difference between this and a photo of any player signing in a crowd and then expecting that to be proof that an auto is real. Not saying that this didn't happen and the auto isn't real, just that the proof is not the end all be all.

[steve B]

He says the father worked for Kodak and took a new test video recorder to the game.........

It would have been a film camera. Probably a cine-Kodak model b with a spring drive, which came out in 1925. The earlier ones were hand cranked and would have required a tripod to get a steady picture. Maybe a model BB which was new in 29 and took larger reels.

Video recorders were essentially nonexistent in 1929. Baird in England was recording some early television on records, but the equipment was far from portable. And the first commercially available video recorder wasn't sold until 1956. And it was huge.

Not the most credible story.

Steve B

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by steve B

He says the father worked for Kodak and took a new test video recorder to the game.........

It would have been a film camera. Probably a cine-Kodak model b with a spring drive, which came out in 1925. The earlier ones were hand cranked and would have required a tripod to get a steady picture. Maybe a model BB which was new in 29 and took larger reels.

Video recorders were essentially nonexistent in 1929. Baird in England was recording some early television on records, but the equipment was far from portable. And the first commercially available video recorder wasn't sold until 1956. And it was huge.

Not the most credible story.

Steve B

I would think that they are just assigning modern vernacular to vintage technology. Sort of the opposite of calling a movie a 'film' when it may be digital. Not technically accurate, but you get the relevant info.