1932 Program from the Babe's Called Shot

[IronHorse2130]

Scott,

Definitely true that more people would have kept a program or stub from a World Series game. Very interesting what you said about New York & Chicago fans saving ephemera much more than fans in other cities.

The only way one could tell if a program was from Game 3 and not Game 4 would be if the fan kept the scorecard. In your experience are these ever filled in later on to make the program more valuable? I suppose it could be done but even pencil writing (which most seem to be scored in) would have to show some age after 80 years, right? Thanks for your help!

Ben

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by IronHorse2130

Scott,

Definitely true that more people would have kept a program or stub from a World Series game. Very interesting what you said about New York & Chicago fans saving ephemera much more than fans in other cities.

The only way one could tell if a program was from Game 3 and not Game 4 would be if the fan kept the scorecard. In your experience are these ever filled in later on to make the program more valuable? I suppose it could be done but even pencil writing (which most seem to be scored in) would have to show some age after 80 years, right? Thanks for your help!

Ben

Ben,
Yes, if a person had a mind to do it, a blank, unscored scorecard could be filled in after the fact with pencil to make it appear that it was scored.

Hobby resource sites now exist where the entire play by play of Ruth's called shot in WS Game # 3 1932 are absolutely available.

Now the question of whether he actually called his shot is another matter altogether...

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Ben,
Yes, if a person had a mind to do it, a blank, unscored scorecard could be filled in after the fact with pencil to make it appear that it was scored.

Hobby resource sites now exist where the entire play by play of Ruth's called shot in WS Game # 3 1932 are absolutely available.

Now the question of whether he actually called his shot is another matter altogether...

The other question, in regards to filling in the scorecard later, is whether it hurts or helps the value. I have a few scorecards in my collection and it is generally my experience that unscored scorecards tend to be considered more valuable by the hobby. Obviously there are exceptions to this, and the Ruth called shot game would probably qualify.

Personally, I prefer a scorecard that has been folded and stuck in a back pockets, maybe even had a drink spilled on it, while having the score neatly and legibly kept.

Doug

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

The other question, in regards to filling in the scorecard later, is whether it hurts or helps the value. I have a few scorecards in my collection and it is generally my experience that unscored scorecards tend to be considered more valuable by the hobby. Obviously there are exceptions to this, and the Ruth called shot game would probably qualify.

Doug

Personally, I prefer a scorecard that has been folded and stuck in a back pockets, maybe even had a drink spilled on it, while having the score neatly and legibly kept.

Game used, eh Doug??

BTW, one of the favorite no-hitter tickets in my collection is from Juan Marichal's no hitter in 1963. The ticket has a perfect front, but has hotdog mustard on the back. This one definately was "game used". I never have given it the sniff test to check to see if I can smell the complimentary spilled beer.

I personally would prefer that a scorecard be scored, not unscored. That's the great thing about collecting. If we all wanted to collect the exact same thing there would be scarcely any chance of ever winning anything in an auction.

[IronHorse2130]

I agree with you guys...I'd much rather have a ticket or program that shows it was really there. I understand that condition is a factor when it comes to collectibles but in my opinion something that was used should show use. A scorecard that has been scored is much more personal and representative of the game.