The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Its certainly nothing personal...but i am skeptical. I cannot see any marks you mention...the “coa” signed by ruths daughter doesn’t mean anyrhing to me. Opinions of 2 photographers...meh. I hope you are right and it is a “proof” but i dont think anyone can prove it.

where are these "other" similar proofs? seeing those could change my mind?

Pete, I dont think you are getting what each point references to. Ruth daughter's statement was not on the proof, it was that there was to be a card by Goudey with Ruth as a Yankee in 1935. That was all it was meant for, was not a COA on the proof. The other letters serves to support the provenance of the piece. One was from a industry expert, which is extraneous, but the Peltz letter was more important on the credibility on the proof.


I think there is a lot of proof here, not sure what else you need.

[ullmandds]

I did read all the documentation...and I understand the significance or lack thereof of each. If you don't mind me asking what the reserve was when sale was attempted recently?

[joshuanip]

Not really a fair request to put on a message board as to what my reserve price was.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Not really a fair request to put on a message board as to what my reserve price was.

fair enough...my point being if this was a one of a kind, ruth "proof" and the evidence to support this was a "slam dunk"...as hot as ruth items are these days...I'd assume it would sell rather briskly.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

fair enough...my point being if this was a one of a kind, ruth "proof" and the evidence to support this was a "slam dunk"...as hot as ruth items are these days...I'd assume it would sell rather briskly.

exactly. The fact that it didn’t sell at auction tells me all I need to know.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

exactly. The fact that it didn’t sell at auction tells me all I need to know.

Red, it didnt sell because it didnt reach my reserve.

And by the way, its fun to be skeptical (and hueristic) on something you dont own. So you look at shortcuts and make quick judgments. But if you are calling a piece out, provide evidence that refutes the piece, not opinion please. Otherwise, I think this piece has a lot of support on it's provenance.

All this is not related to why I was sharing the piece initially...

[bigtrain]

Let's say that in 1990, at the time of the SCD article, Julia Ruth Stevens,
then a mere 74 years old was asked about this piece. Why would she
remember anything about the circumstances involving a photo from 56 years earlier? Why would this stick in the memory of Babe's 18 year old daughter?
I have no idea whether this piece is legitimate. However, I don't think Ms. Steven's certificate adds much to the proofs.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Red, it didnt sell because it didnt reach my reserve.



All this is not related to why I was sharing the piece initially...

Why were you sharing the piece originally then? I am confused by the Red Sox comment/comparison. Was it to get feedback or to find a buyer?
Whatever the reason, i am glad you did as it is certainly a convo piece regardless of origin.

Were you able to get better scans of the artwork copy? Would be interesting to see.