Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.Attachment 96765

Shelly,
Thanks for the close up scan.
The stub's tear is conveniently just above where the year 1934 would have appeared on the stub. To see an example of what I am talking about please refer to the Tigers 1934 eBay auction lot in the 1st Babe Ruth ticket thread.

[shelly]

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Ticket stub again.


stub.jpg

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Ticket stub again.


Attachment 96772

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.

[shelly]

That is why I asked if this type of ticket was used just for the 34 season or could it have been used in other years.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.

but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


I did ask chris once for his opinion on a joe dimaggio autographed baseball that an antique shop had for sale in my area once, and for the record, he said no good. i didnt buy it because i dont know dimaggio. chris knows dimaggio, and ruth and cy young, and all the rest.

my favorite story on a thread about cy young.

baseball expert comes on and says that cy young couldnt have possibly signed the ball, because the ball was manufactured after young had died.

soon after, mr. chris comes on and says 'look at that horrible piece of junk'. This thread is getting to be a parody of itself. Why start it if no evidence is shown and just to stir up a hornets you know what nest?

[Scott Garner]

[QUOTE=travrosty;1121067]but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


Travis,
That is correct.

[slidekellyslide]

And here we still are with no evidence of fraud....NONE. All we have is an autograph eye that claims to be better than 98% of us. So I guess we should all just shut up unless we're in the 2%.

[D. Bergin]

A confirmed 700 HR Ruth ticket I imagine would bring a couple grand on it's own, so I think that's a bit relevant in this situation in what is being offered here. Authenticity of signature aside, It's more then just a Babe Ruth signature on the back of any random ticket.

Same issue with the Un-Autographed Ted Williams 500HR ticket offered right next to it in the same auction. Even if the ticket style matches up with the right year it's still a quite a stretch to assume they are from the correct game.

Who date-stamped these tickets and when?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

Shelly,
What I am trying to say is the ticket (that is deemed to be Ruth's 700th HR game) WOULD HAVE a year printed on it had the tear conveniently not been applied on the stub where it was.

Ironic? Yes.
Does this absolutely prove anything? Nope.

[travrosty]

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

OMG. How humble.

[thenavarro]

Usually when I read threads that are "battling" over disputed autographs, I usually fall on Chris's side of the ledger. I have no opinion on this particular ticket, as I have zero experience in dealing with ticket stubs from that era, nor do I profess to know that particular style of Ruth's (or a forgers) signature. However, I do get quite disgusted with people continuing to rub David's face into the mistake he made over his forged '27 Yankees baseball. I find it to be contemptable, unprofessional, disconcerting, malicious, heartless, demeaning, and otherwise uncalled for. When trying to justify or prove themselves, one should tout their own resume, rather than belittling someone elses. It doesn't really matter who has the biggest penis amongst competitors, what matters is if it's big enough or swung well enough to get the job done.