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

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

What's the distinction?



Other than the couple of guys on here who are long time dealers I don't profess to know the credentials of the rest.

Who are you referring to?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner
James and all,
Interesting...

FWIW, I would not trust this to be a real Ruth 700th HR ticket.

I personally have not seen vintage Tigers tickets that have been stamped with a date. In fact, as a baseball ticket collector of over 40 years, I will tell you that I do not recall EVER seeing a Tigers stamped date ticket prior to 1969. I have, however, seen lots of emergency tickets like the one featured in this auction with designations like Game X, Game K, etc.

I do recall seeing a genuine printed date ticket to Ruth's 700th HR. At least one exists in the hobby. As I recall it has an uneven tear at the perforation, almost appearing to have a "fang" shaped tear....

(chris williams response)
+1 and more......


shelly, i post that photo (that huggins and scott posted in the last thread) because someone said they doubt these stamped tickets exist, and chris +1 them, agreed with them.

well here are two stamped emergency tickets from the day before, july 12, 1934. now unless people think those are fake, then there is precedent for stamped emergency tickets from july, 1934 out there. why did chris do a +1?

because the year is cut off, it isnt possible to confirm it is from 1934, but not possible to confirm it isn't either. but it can put to rest the theory that the 700 hr ticket must be a fake because no one has seen stamping like that before. it could be real. but game used balls same way, no one can prove that they were used in the game for sure, but if they fit the pattern and form of game used balls from that game, you have to have a leap of faith somewhat. The stamped huggins and scott ticket does follow form for what it shows people. you have to then go on to the autograph.

for the auction house to say it is from 1934 is them saying it's from 1934. it probably is, the consignor says it is, not 100% definitely yet as far as i can tell. but we have seen auction houses say this is babe ruth's first home run bat, and another one says they have the first homerun bat. the ticket cant disprove the autograph or backstory, but the autograph can disprove everything.

it comes down to the autograph.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Who are you referring to?

To whom are you referring?

[travrosty]

the distinction between expert and very knowledgable about autographs is that if someone has someone else right where they want them and want to go in for the kill, they are an expert, if they screwed up and have some backtracking to do, they are very knowledgable about autographs.

can i get a +1 ?

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Who are you referring to?

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

I've asked you two questions (one in this thread and one on the other) which you haven't answered yet. Give me the courtesy of answers and ill be happy to do the same.

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

1. I don't like the word expert.

2. What has changed from last year is that I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I am more knowledgeable about autographs than I was a week ago.

I can't speak for anyone else who has gotten bogged down in two threads, but with all the time I've spent reading this, I feel I'm dumber than I was three weeks ago.

Ken

[Deertick]

My main question centers around the ticket authenticity. It has struck me that the the ticket was cut. It certainly did not enhance the presentation of the autograph. What it did do was cut off very critical pieces of evidence toward dating it.
Notice the precision of the stamping of the other examples. I wonder if anyone could duplicate that freehand on two consecutive tickets while doing presumably hundreds? But look closely at Seat 26. Does it not appear that it was stamped after tearing? Could that be why the ticket was trimmed?

I want to add that I believe that Chris made a premature call on this because he felt his hand was forced due to the time-sensitive nature of the situation. I don't believe he has all of the pieces of the puzzle that many are demanding, and very likely now, never will. But my guess is he will keep trying.

Without any financial gain, I doubt many of us would do the same.

[David Atkatz]

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It seems to me, from the enlargement, that it was torn after it was stamped.

+1

[mschwade]

I am sure this has been pointed out between the two threads at some point, but notice that the only other Emergency ticket (not to mention stamped) was for the same Tigers-Yankees series opener when Mr. Ruth entered the series sitting on 699 for his career.

Difference is Set Z in H&S, Set A in the sold lot. Perhaps a darker ticket in H&S as well?

[shelly]

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, if it was torn after it was stamped what is the real date. Not one person has answered if this was a ticket that could have been from 1933,34.35. The stamp is something that I remembe as a kid. You can place what ever date you wanted. Is that stub from 1934. If it is the only question left is the autograph authentic.

Shelly,

I don't know how many different ways I can answer this. The ticket does not say that it is from 1934. It is definitely from this era as we have seen other exemplars that show this.

There is nothing that 100% refutes that this ticket couldn't POSSIBLY be from the game played on July 13, 1934.

As a ticket collector, I can tell you that there are examples of other baseball ticket stock that a printed (not stamped) year is nowhere to be seen on the ticket. The Cleveland Indians did this for many years. However, there was one huge difference between these tickets and the Ruth signed "700th HR" ticket. The Indians tickets included the day of the week (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) At least these provided you with an additional clue to help you match it up with the corresponding year. The Detroit ticket does not allow you this luxury. It becomes much more of a leap of faith.

Without the autograph being legit, the ticket would have minimal value because of the absence of the year and the possibility of it being, from say, 1933 or 1935. Some collectors may have some possible interest, but many would not, FWIW...

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

+1

Man, I have it on my screen and it appears pretty clear that the 4 is complete and the tear (flaking?) extends beneath the stamp. I can't seem to save my enlargement to post it here. Maybe someone else can?

[David Atkatz]

It is very clear that the stamp does not extend over the tear.

[mschwade]

FYI, not sure if anyone can do anything with this or not, but here's another 1934 example. Both 1.27 + .13 tax for a total of $1.40. Perhaps this may be a different price in other seasons?