1918 Red Sox Babe Ruth Contract (VERY COOL)

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by thebigtrain

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the "boilerplate" printed AL contract. The parts typed in with a typewriter appear to be in a font style that was not available on the typical typewriter in 1918. This is especially evident in the typed word "Massachusetts," which oddly is in lower-case whereas all the other typewritten portions are all caps.

The boldness (or lack thereof) of the typewritten portions is also cause for concern. Most typewriters of this vintage really "whack" the paper, and leave much "bolder" ink behind, also with more "ink bleed" around the edges of each letter, which almost gives them a "fuzzy" appearance. The capital "As" in this document are "dirty," meaning the open spaces of the letter are somewhat ink-clogged/dirty. To my thinking, a typewriter is a forger's best friend, because outside of typeface geeks like me, most people would never think to analyze such a thing (as Dan Rather found out the hard way in 2004 with the fake Bush national guard docs).

The fact that an upper-case letter "I" is used instead of a numeral for the number "I500" is also suspicious. It would also be customary (as is the case today) for the name Harry Frazee to be typewritten out as well, not simply the word "president." In fact, I believe the boilerplate printed line where someone typed "President" was supposed to be the line for Ruth (or whatever player was signing it) to sign. Ruth appears to have "signed" below in a cramped way. Notice that the notary/witness gets his own dotted "boilerplate" signature line as well.

All of this typing appears to have been done on a circa early 50s electric machine, although closer analysis than is possible from these scans would be needed for a definitive answer.

For this price point (about the cost of a nicely equipped Mercedes), I'd have had a typeface expert/forensic document examiner take a look in person before throwing my $$$ at this thing. Just a few seconds looking at the scans gave me a really bad "gut feeling."

Wow. that is fascinating and food for thought on this Piece. and that much coin makes a huge difference

[Runscott]

It is definitely fascinating food for thought.

Please post an example of a boilerplate contract from that period that looks the way you think it should. Perhaps there is another Red Sox, Frazee-signed piece out there to compare to?

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It is definitely fascinating food for thought.

Please post an example of a boilerplate contract from that period that looks the way you think it should. Perhaps there is another Red Sox, Frazee-signed piece out there to compare to?

No need to get nasty I just felt that the man had some good points, since he knows a lot bout Type and machines, etc

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

No need to get nasty I just felt that the man had some good points, since he knows a lot bout Type and machines, etc

Scott, I don't think you understood my post - probably a problem on my end.

I really would like to see 'thebigtrain' post an example. As you say, he knows a lot about this stuff, so I feel fairly certain he has seen examples such as the one I requested. I'm kind of busy and don't feel like doing the research myself. If he doesn't post anything, that's fine too.

I assumed that both pieces were authentic, but his comments bring up some interesting questions.

[thebigtrain]

This youtube video shows a circa 1915 Hammond typewriter in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2htfA9NGCI

Notice what I mean about the way the keys really "ram" the letters into the paper on these old mechanical typewriters, almost to the point where the metal typeface "dents" the paper? Also notice how much more ink the lead typeface leaves on the paper?

The alleged 1918 Ruth/Frazee contract looks nothing like the youtube typewriter's product. Again, I'd bet good money that the Ruth contract is a fraud, and that the typewritten portions were done on a 1950s to 1960s era electric typewriter such as an IBM Selectric. Electric typewriters use a motor/spring system to "push" the key arms upward on to the paper, whereas the old mechanical typewriters rely on the key pressure of the typist- i.e, the harder one presses the key, the bolder and darker the printing becomes.

The dirty "a" on the Ruth contract has the same amount of dirt/smuding in the open space of the letter "A" every time it appears. In a mechanical typewriter, this "clogging" tended to correct itself, as the operator might strike the key harder/softer each time, tending to dislodge the dirt/ink clog.

But in an electric machine, the key strikes the paper with the same "force" every time, since it's being electrically brought up to the paper each time. The "strength" and boldness would be the same if you barely touched the key or if you pounded the key down with a small hammer, as the key itself is merely a switch which is pulsing current to the motor. Make sense?

I am by no means a complete authority/expert on this. I am an attorney, and had a fraud case a couple years ago involving an expert on typewriters/fonts etc. We had lunch/drinks several times during the trial, and I enjoyed hearing about his profession and training. I sent him the link to the Ruth contract, but he has not yet had time to respond.

TBT

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by thebigtrain

This youtube video shows a circa 1915 Hammond typewriter in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2htfA9NGCI

Notice what I mean about the way the keys really "ram" the letters into the paper on these old mechanical typewriters, almost to the point where the metal typeface "dents" the paper? Also notice how much more ink the lead typeface leaves on the paper?

The alleged 1918 Ruth/Frazee contract looks nothing like the youtube typewriter's product. Again, I'd bet good money that the Ruth contract is a fraud, and that the typewritten portions were done on a 1950s to 1960s era electric typewriter such as an IBM Selectric. Electric typewriters use a motor/spring system to "push" the key arms upward on to the paper, whereas the old mechanical typewriters rely on the key pressure of the typist- i.e, the harder one presses the key, the bolder and darker the printing becomes.

The dirty "a" on the Ruth contract has the same amount of dirt/smuding in the open space of the letter "A" every time it appears. In a mechanical typewriter, this "clogging" tended to correct itself, as the operator might strike the key harder/softer each time, tending to dislodge the dirt/ink clog.

But in an electric machine, the key strikes the paper with the same "force" every time, since it's being electrically brought up to the paper each time. The "strength" and boldness would be the same if you barely touched the key or if you pounded the key down with a small hammer, as the key itself is merely a switch which is pulsing current to the motor. Make sense?

I am by no means a complete authority/expert on this. I am an attorney, and had a fraud case a couple years ago involving an expert on typewriters/fonts etc. We had lunch/drinks several times during the trial, and I enjoyed hearing about his profession and training. I sent him the link to the Ruth contract, but he has not yet had time to respond.

TBT

Fascinating and it certainly does bring one to at least think that there is a major forgery that just sold for mucho dinero. I look forward to the experts opinion, hopefully soon.

[thebigtrain]

The way I see it with sports memorabilia is purely risk vs. reward. As long as people are willing to pay insane amounts of money for this stuff, there will also be forgers trying desperately to get their hands on said money. There's also a disturbing tendency among collectors to trust these major auction houses and authenticators, which plays into the foger's hands.

What amazes me is that many attorneys are themselves high-end collectors fail to "cross examine" the provenance and history of items they purchase. Take the poster earlier in this thread (who actually bid on this) who said "it was offered 13 yrs ago at Guernsey's" as a way to apparently vouch for its authenticity. Who cares about 13 years ago- my question is where was it for the 82 years before that? Did Grandpa find it in his sock drawer, did Barry Halper have it next to Cy Young's ipod or what? If it is real, could it have been stolen from the Red Sox? Why do so few collectors ever ask questions beyond "PSA says its good" or "it was at Guernsey's 12 years ago" etc.

In my office I have a single-signed Ruth, single signed Gerigh, single signed Tris Speaker, single signed Hornsby, and some lesser-known 20s and 30s players. All of them belonged to the great-uncle of the firm's founding partner, who was a sportswriter for the defunct Newark Evening News out of Newark, NJ. He obtained all the sigs in person in the locker rooms, and there are photos of him with several of these players. Guess what else? Most of these balls have been in the same display case in the firm for 50+ years, and they mostly looks brown, old, and crappy, as you'd expect an 80 year item to look. Probably many of the balls were already used when he had them signed (hell, watch the youtube clips of the '52 W.S. and see how long they use the same ball even then- it was prolly 100 X worse in the 20s and 30s).

That's why I call total BS on 99% of these impeccable white balls offered by the major houses with some college dropout "expert" putting a gold seal on a piece of paper saying its real. I demand more, much more. Forgery is not a terribly difficult crime to pull off, and the materials (iron gall ink and nib pens) are cheap and readily available. EVen if the forger shells out a grand on a nice old period A.L. or N.L baseball, the profit when same is inscribed by "Babe Ruth" or "Lou Gerigh" or better yet both of them is astronomical. As far as I'm concerned, without ironclad provenance, I'm not biting. Anything less and you're just a pure sucker.