Babe Ruth 'called shot' jersey to be auctioned in August

[jacksons]

I love a good story and try to be an optimist, always, but I believe Ruth was simply pointing at the Cubs bench, not to center field. Sure, he stuck it to them, but he didn’t point to where the ball was hit. And I also am not a firm believer in photo matching…yet. Have yet to see any example which truly convinces me.

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Article.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ctioned-august

Obviously not my consignment, just was curious if the proof shown was enough to photo match it for anybody on n54 to bid. I am a sceptic but who knows.

[BigfootIsReal]

Let's just go ahead and start a "called shot jersey" was stolen thread.

[packs]

I think being able to photo match an item is great for the item and confidence in it. But I'm not really sure how you can do that when so much time has passed. Photo matching damage or consistencies in the jersey after nearly 100 years seems like it's too open ended. Damage could be consistent or it could be coincidental and the product of looking for clues in the item as opposed to being objective.

Just my opinion of course. When it comes to these kinds of items I'm more interested in provenance than a photo match.

[here2havefun]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

Let's just go ahead and start a "called shot jersey" was stolen thread.

This made me laugh

[MVSNYC]

I can now share that I've consigned my Mickey Mantle Game Used Bat (Triple Crown Era) to Heritage's August Platinum Auction. Will be with some incredible company (Ruth Called Shot Jersey, Jackie Robinson Jersey, Gehrig Jersey, Ruth Bat, Shoeless Joe Bat, DiMaggio Jersey, etc, etc). I'm honored. Will be exciting!

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by jacksons

I love a good story and try to be an optimist, always, but I believe Ruth was simply pointing at the Cubs bench, not to center field. Sure, he stuck it to them, but he didn’t point to where the ball was hit. And I also am not a firm believer in photo matching…yet. Have yet to see any example which truly convinces me.

Yep, if he pointed to centerfield and let Gabby Hartnett and Charlie Root know of his intentions the next pitch would have been under his chin. “If he pointed to centerfield and predicted a home run I would be the first to tell you.” - Gabby Hartnett

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Yep, if he pointed to centerfield and let Gabby Hartnett and Charlie Root know of his intentions the next pitch would have been under his chin.

I doubt that seriously. Zack Taylor, who was on the Cubs bench and saw the whole thing, said it was true. Don't believe the nay sayers. Google him up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have read that Root and Ruth discussed it years later and Ruth acknowledged that he hadn't called his shot but said he had never denied it because it made for a good story.

[Lorewalker]

I stick to cards because provenance is not important and I reject buying into a story to justify a purchase. Just the facts, ma'am. Anyway, I do not feel qualified to reject the research or photo match on this one but I feel the same way about this jersey's story as I did the recently sold, Johnson jersey's story.

What I find interesting is that the Johnson jersey was last sold 18 years ago and now this Ruth was last sold 19 years ago. Pure speculation, hopefully this does not cause a stir with Clementefan, but it sounds like another big boy is getting out of the hobby or at least paring down his collection.

[Carter08]

Photomatching buttons to an old grainy black and white photo seems a little tough. They use some clever wording too - no expert can prove that it’s not the jersey.

[benjulmag]

Photo matching is a negative test. It tells you what something is not, not what something is. I'm not saying this jersey is not real, but if it is not, I think we can rest assured that whoever "made" it examined every known photograph he/she could get his/her hands on to be sure they matched. For my dollar, the whole ball game here reduces to the provenance and how reliable it is. Again, with that, I have no information from which to opine, except that if it cannot be corroborated to a period when there would have been no economic incentive to make a forgery, I would hire a detective agency to try to confirm its veracity. I can't tell you have many times I have heard stories to the effect that the item has been in our family for X number of years, with no proof to back that up. The cost to do some detective work is chump change in relation to the potential 8-figure cost it could take to acquire the jersey.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have read that Root and Ruth discussed it years later and Ruth acknowledged that he hadn't called his shot but said he had never denied it because it made for a good story.

I've seen it quoted both ways.

From Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "Dr. Jones, it's time to ask yourself what you believe."

From Lou Gehrig, "What do you think of the nerve of that big monkey? Imagine the guy calling his shot, and getting away with it."

From catcher Zack Taylor on the Cubs bench, "I was there. I saw it done. Don't let anyone tell you different."

As for Root plunking Ruth, if he knew where Ruth was pointing and what he would do on the next pitch, baloney.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://nypost.com/2014/02/01/chicag...s-called-shot/

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://nypost.com/2014/02/01/chicag...s-called-shot/

Anyone can refute anything from decades afar. So what. I believe, based on the 1st person reality of most of the people who were there and saw what transpired, that Ruth did call his shot. You and I will never know for sure. I choose to believe, based on a preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt, that he did. Irrespective of his back and forth discussions on the subject, and irrespective of amateur, armchair analysis decades removed minus the facts.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have read that Root and Ruth discussed it years later and Ruth acknowledged that he hadn't called his shot but said he had never denied it because it made for a good story.

One of the awesome benefits of working for the Cubs in much of the decade of the 80’s was that I was able to speak to so many people around the ball park who had a front row seats to history and were willing to share what they had seen. Hearing George Brace tell stories of sitting in the dugout with Ruth and Gehrig at old Comiskey Park, listening to Don Zimmer holding court with a group or writers as he told of his experiences with the Brooklyn Dodgers and being at the Hall of Fame election night party for Billy Williams are just a few of the incredible memories I carry with me from my time with the team. But my favorite memories are the several conversations I had with three different individuals who were at the Ruth called shot game and saw exactly what happened.

One such story came from the Cubs electrician who’s father worked on the grounds crew during he 1932 World Series. As we all know, the Cubs were riding Ruth pretty heavily in order to rattle him but the more they rode Ruth, the better Ruth seemed to perform. In the conversation I had with the electrician, he said his father confirmed the Cubs were saying some pretty nasty stuff when Ruth came to bat in the 5th inning and it appeared Ruth wanted to mess with the Cubs a bit. We have all heard the story of Ruth letting pitch number one go past as he held up his finger and announced that was pitch number one, and did the same thing for pitch number 2 all the while saying it "only takes one". The electrician said that his dad was near the field (or in the dugout…this part my memory fails me on) ready to work on the conditioning the field mid-game when he saw Ruth point two fingers to the right-center bleachers and proceeded to plant the next pitch in the general direction in which he pointed. Each and every person I had talked to who was present in the ball park that day said that without a doubt, Ruth did not call his shot but described the scene the electrician’s father retold.

The film that has surfaced of the called shot a number of years ago seemed to back up this version of the game and Ruth called himself a lucky S.O.B. There was no doubt in the eyewitnesses eyes that I spoke to and now in my mind that the called shot is a fable based in some bit of fact.

[jingram058]

The Babe Ruth "called shot" is so similar to the "immaculate reception" in the NFL. If you're the Cubs or the Raiders, you're in denial. But, to the victors go the spoils.

[oldjudge]

How come no one ever features jerseys from when a guy was on an 0-23 streak?

[Jewish-collector]

I hope they're not shipping it to Best Western for display at the National.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksons

I love a good story and try to be an optimist, always, but I believe Ruth was simply pointing at the Cubs bench, not to center field. Sure, he stuck it to them, but he didn’t point to where the ball was hit. And I also am not a firm believer in photo matching…yet. Have yet to see any example which truly convinces me.

It depends on who photo matched it for me. One of the big companies I wouldn't trust a single thing they photo matched. I once seen them have a block letter bat for sale and the bat it the photo match was a signature model.

On the other end I know a guy that photo matches bats and I would 100% trust anything he done.