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

[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.

[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.

[Swadewade51]

You'd have give me atleast 8 photos giving a 360° view of the jersey on him, dated and stamped. Showing atleast 5 points of reference and they must be measured out to the closest tenth of an inch and showing the process on how the digital measured the photos. And even then I'd be skeptical. Unlike the WaJo this one lacks pinstriping. Given the blunder of the Jordan GU jersey last year, I wouldn't trust any gamer l without the word of the player themselves. (https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...os-questioned/)

Anyone spending close to $30 million on that story is sucker imho. But cool story.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[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

[NiceDocter]

Not saying this isnt as advertised...... but funny how every old jersey that turns up always a) belonged to a great HOFer b) was worn during the most incredible moment of his career c) or his rookie year if b) does not wash. Kind of like every old team picture has Joe Jackson, Honus Wagner or someone else as a youth ..... yeah Im cynical but with good reason based on what Ive seen.... anyhow, will follow this along with my popcorn....

[packs]

I hear a lot of people say they would have thrown at Ruth if he did point, but is that really likely?

By 1932, Ruth had become the King of baseball and throughout the entire year, he was only hit by two pitches. Would they have really thrown at him? Wouldn't that be like throwing at Ohtani?

Nobody ever hit Gretzky regardless of what he was doing, for example.

[NiceDocter]

This apparently was an interview with Gehrig just a few days after the "Called Shot" game..... I never knew Gehrig hit Roots next pitch for a HR also! Gehrig tells it in his own words......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhamMdkktFQ

[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.

[jacksons]

Guy Bush, the Cubs starting pitcher in the very next game (Game 4), drilled Ruth in the wrist. So yeah, they threw at him.

On his jog down to first base Ruth yelled to Bush if that was his fastball because it felt like a gnat bit him.

Originally Posted by packs

I hear a lot of people say they would have thrown at Ruth if he did point, but is that really likely?

By 1932, Ruth had become the King of baseball and throughout the entire year, he was only hit by two pitches. Would they have really thrown at him? Wouldn't that be like throwing at Ohtani?

Nobody ever hit Gretzky regardless of what he was doing, for example.

[packs]

Is there a story behind that? Wouldn't that maybe add credence to the lore as some kind of payback? Or did Ruth do something else?

[jacksons]

This game, and Series, are full of stories. A lot of the drama between the two teams had to do with the Cubs not giving full shares to Mark Koenig, a beloved former Yankee teammate.

Some background on Guy Bush:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/guy...om-pittsburgh/

Originally Posted by packs

Is there a story behind that? Wouldn't that maybe add credence to the lore as some kind of payback? Or did Ruth do something else?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Guy Bush, the Cubs starting pitcher in the very next game (Game 4), drilled Ruth in the wrist. So yeah, they threw at him.

On his jog down to first base Ruth yelled to Bush if that was his fastball because it felt like a gnat bit him.

I don't think Ruth gets enough credit for what he accomplished over the course of his career. Of course he got hit with pitched balls plenty of times. In fact, he seldom even got anything to even swing at, as pitchers were always doing their best to avoid throwing anything in the zone to him. So many of his home runs came on pitches that weren't even strikes! On top of that, they wouldn't just toss a baseball aside every time it touched the ground like they do today. Often, between the spitball tobacco juice, which was allowable back then, and the pummeling from being batted around, the baseball would be quite blackened and softened by the time the Babe came up for the third time. And he still managed to get home runs . . . over the 450' centerfield fences that were common place back then. What a player!

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOL. Odd burden of proof.

The 1995 Grey Flannel Auctions listing reads: "Every expert is in agreement that this jersey is authentic and 100% original in every respect [...] not one of these experts can definitively say that it is not Babe Ruth's 1932 World Series jersey."

[packs]

Per baseball reference, Ruth was only hit 43 times in over 10,500 plate appearances. In 1927, when hit 60 homes runs, he wasn't hit once the entire season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

Not saying this isnt as advertised...... but funny how every old jersey that turns up always a) belonged to a great HOFer b) was worn during the most incredible moment of his career c) or his rookie year if b) does not wash. Kind of like every old team picture has Joe Jackson, Honus Wagner or someone else as a youth ..... yeah Im cynical but with good reason based on what Ive seen.... anyhow, will follow this along with my popcorn....

Yeah, like it was not enough to have a DiMaggio game used bat, it of course was a "streak" bat.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

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.

Did you even read it before debunking it? It's based on lots of contemporaneous evidence.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Did you even read it before debunking it? It's based on lots of contemporaneous evidence.

Yes, I did. I just don't believe certain parts of it. Too much of it is hearsay. Quite a bit of what I believe would be deemed hearsay as well, I will grant you. As John Thorn stated, it really doesn't matter whether he did or not, the myth and the debate will go on long after you and I are gone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Yes, I did. I just don't believe certain parts of it. Too much of it is hearsay. Quite a bit of what I believe would be deemed hearsay as well, I will grant you. As John Thorn stated, it really doesn't matter whether he did or not, the myth and the debate will go on long after you and I are gone.

Agree on that. It's a huge thing. You cannot write the history of baseball and leave it out.

[Schlesinj]

$3 million over under.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

$3 million over under.

Hmmm.... Chris Ivy says $30 million.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hmmm.... Chris Ivy says $30 million.

Well ok! Forgot a 0.

[brooklynbotter]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

$3 million over under.

The floor will be 7.5 million per the article. Insanity

[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.

[MVSNYC]

Last week I consigned a big item to the same auction (Heritage's Platinum Sale); this was before they could announce the Ruth Jersey (I didn’t know about it then)…I’m thrilled to hear this news, will have even more eyes on the auction now. I’ll share my item here after I drop it off at Heritage’s NYC office.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

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

Aaww..
Too soon man, too soon!