Babe Ruth mitt from youth in Goldins Next Auction

[midmo]

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by midmo

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

Thanks for clarifying. So what the authenticators are saying is that the glove's physical characteristics are consistent with the family's claim but they aren't linking it to Ruth specifically. So ultimately this rests on the family's story. IF I am getting this right.

[slidekellyslide]

IN MY OPINION (<---see that lawyers) you have to be pretty damn stupid to buy this glove.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

IN MY OPINION (<---see that lawyers) you have to be pretty damn stupid to buy this glove.

Nah... There'll always be someone dumber--and richer--who will buy it next time around. After all, the "provenance" will only be stronger: 'Ruth's St.Mary's glove sold by Goldin Auctions.'
Of course, it all rests on the absurd assertion that Ruth took the glove--useless to him as he was a left-handed pitcher--when he left St. Mary's. (Highly unlikely, for two reasons: first, he couldn't use it and didn't need it, and second, that St Mary's could spare it.) And then, having done so, gave it to a kid in the drugstore. Family folklore. Useless, as far as provenance goes.

[David Atkatz]

So... How much money was parted from the fool who bought this thing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It appears to me it closed at 280K. I assume that is pre-premium.

[David Atkatz]

What a maroon.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It appears to me it closed at 280K. I assume that is pre-premium.

OUCH!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by midmo

One of the documents says, "It was determined that the glove was produced circa 1910 and matched what Babe Ruth used while at St. Mary's based on team photographs showing Ruth wearing catcher's gear."

I guess they're not claiming it to be the same glove in the photos. They're just saying the photos prove he wore catcher's gear during that time.

I went back and read the item description in the auction. It could be read to imply that this is THE mitt in the photo, at least as I am reading it.

For one thing, this language -- "THE one" -- implies he only used one during his time there. "Incredibly, this surviving Babe Ruth used glove is the one used by the Babe during his formative years behind the walls of St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys." If he only used one, it must be the one in the photo.

And this connecting the mitt to the one the family says was given to the drug store clerk: "Players like Ruth were expected to purchase their own bats and gloves and it's likely the Babe took along his old catcher's mitt just in case it was needed."

So even if the authenticators are not purporting to photo match the glove, and on further reflection the language you quoted does seem a bit ambiguous in that regard ("MATCHED what Babe Ruth used ... based on team photographs"), it does sound to me like the AH is claiming it is the one in the photo -- unless I am misreading the description.

[slidekellyslide]

Yeah, Babe Ruth signed with Jack Dunn to be a left handed catcher. And I'm sure he took the glove with him because Baltimore couldn't afford to buy Ruth a left handed glove. LOL

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Yeah, Babe Ruth signed with Jack Dunn to be a left handed catcher. And I'm sure he took the glove with him because Baltimore couldn't afford to buy Ruth a left handed glove. LOL

I've been saying just that all along, Dan.

The whole thing reminds me of a scene in "The In-Laws." The tin-pot dictator is showing Peter Falk and Alan Arkin a painting of a tiger on black velvet. "I pay feeefty thousand dollars for thees one." As soon as he's out of earshot, quoth Arkin, "What a schmuck."

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The whole thing reminds me of a scene in "The In-Laws." The tin-pot dictator is showing Peter Falk and Alan Arkin a painting of a tiger on black velvet. "I pay feeefty thousand dollars for thees one." As soon as he's out of earshot, quoth Arkin, "What a schmuck."

One of my faves of ALL time!! a "Z"????????

[David Atkatz]

"Don't say anything about the scar."