Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   1916 Boston Team Photo w/Babe Ruth??? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=131660)

bcbgcbrcb 01-05-2011 05:08 PM

1916 Boston Team Photo w/Babe Ruth???
 
Just spotted the below item on e-bay, does anybody think that Babe Ruth is pictured (seller claims top row, third from right)??? REALLY???


http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-1916-Re...item1e60bfa031

carrigansghost 01-05-2011 05:11 PM

1916
 
no

ChiefBenderForever 01-05-2011 05:13 PM

No way, but I think I see Joe Jackson and Connie Mack in the grandstands.

quinnsryche 01-05-2011 05:16 PM

full of cr*p, not a chance. If you can't make it real, make it up!

sox1903wschamp 01-05-2011 05:23 PM

No way Phil. But at least he has a reasonable price on it :rolleyes:

Ladder7 01-05-2011 05:27 PM

1 Attachment(s)
naaaa aaa aaa aa a

carrigansghost 01-05-2011 05:32 PM

1916
 
So let's have fun and identify the players!!

Carrigan fourth from the left middle row.

Rawn

sox1903wschamp 01-05-2011 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carrigansghost (Post 860554)
So let's have fun and identify the players!!

Carrigan fourth from the left middle row.

Rawn

That Ebay scan is really fuzzy and I am dizzy from looking at it. Getting a headache.

Can pick out these:

Standing/Back row: Hooper 2nd from left, Carl Mays 4th from left, Dutch Leonard 2nd from right and Duffy Lewis far right.

I am done looking at that scan :).

rhettyeakley 01-05-2011 05:53 PM

Obviously, as stated, there is no Ruth in the photo. That being said though that is an amazingly clear and nice 1916 Red Sox team photo. A question one might ask is why WASN'T Ruth in the image? Neat piece, just probably not worth the asking price w/o Ruth there.
-Rhett

Kawika 01-05-2011 05:57 PM

Maybe Ruth is in the stands buying a hot dog. This is the same bloody seller who sold me the creased McGraw postcard in my recent thread. Same guy who claimed Jeff Tesreau was in the 1910 Shreveport team picture I posted about a couple of weeks ago. A few of his other auctions I have perused have suspect ID's as well. Otherwise he has lots of neat items although too spendy from where I'm sitting. He may be a saint among mortals for all I know but his eBay auctions are kinda sloppy.

Hal Janvrin, middle row, second from left

bcbgcbrcb 01-05-2011 05:59 PM

I agree with you, David.

novakjr 01-05-2011 06:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Definitely no Ruth...You're probably thinking that a younger Ruth would've been slimmer in the face...That is NOT the case. I'm attaching another team photo from 1916 with Ruth 4th from the left bottom row....It's perhaps the most recognizable melon in the history of sports, and was always that way..

rhettyeakley 01-05-2011 06:19 PM

I don't disagree David, his descriptions & due diligence on those items were lazy.
-Rhett

bmarlowe1 01-05-2011 10:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
It's the 1915 team. ID's given in another photo from the same session:

prewarsports 01-06-2011 09:18 AM

I think this seller just needs to be more careful with his descriptions.

His Jeff Tessreau cabinet was a mix up because he DOES have a 1909 Shevereport cabinet with Tessreau and he does not hype that one up so I think he just got the ID's wrong.

The 1916 (1915) photo is an original and valuable Red Sox cabinet photo, just an incorrect ID on the Ruth/year

The McGraw was a scanner mistake and I bet he makes good on it.

I know the seller a little (sold stuff to him but never met him) and I know he has employees list stuff for him. I think he just needs to oversee the operation a bit more, but in all fairness its not like he is selling repros and forgeries or anything, there are WAY bigger issues on ebay. Just my thoughts.

Rhys

bcbgcbrcb 01-06-2011 09:49 AM

To the seller's credit, he has now adjusted his auction description to remove Babe Ruth's name and has also significantly reduced his BIN price accordingly.

sox1903wschamp 01-06-2011 09:47 PM

Seller did reduce it. It is still pricey but it is a bin and as mentioned, a nice non Ruthian piece. BTW, I take back my comment on the fuzziness of the photo. It is not so bad and I think I see "cheaters" in my near future.

lhoyle 01-07-2011 08:50 AM

Here is another auction, advertised for Bill Carrigan, that DOES have Babe Ruth, as seen on the left. No mention of the Babe at all in the auction.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1915-BILL-CARRIG...item2eb010393f

birdman42 01-07-2011 08:58 AM

We bust on kids for wearing their hats sideways or backward. Some of the old-time ballplayers didn't seem too concerned about "hat decorum" either Check Barry in this photo. Even as late as the Goudeys you see images of guys with their hats cocked off to one side or twisted around.

Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by lhoyle (Post 860991)
Here is another auction, advertised for Bill Carrigan, that DOES have Babe Ruth, as seen on the left. No mention of the Babe at all in the auction.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1915-BILL-CARRIG...item2eb010393f


bcbgcbrcb 01-07-2011 09:25 AM

Good eye, Lee. Of course that one is a reprint and not really worth anything anyway.

vintagecpa 01-07-2011 12:30 PM

As a non-expert on these type of items, I'm curious about what the 1915 Red Sox photograph (without Ruth) price range should be if it were to be auctioned off. Thanks.

Peleseller 01-07-2011 12:40 PM

No Ruth, but here is picture of 1916 Red Sox with Ruth
 
2 Attachment(s)
No Ruth in that picture. Here is a picture of the 1916 Red Sox with Babe Ruth.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20 AM.