1918 Red Sox Babe Ruth Contract (VERY COOL)
 

If there has already been a discussion on this, and I missed it, then my apologies. This seems to be such a huge item, that it's worthy of talking about. (Official Runscott Disclaimer: I'm not questioning its authenticity)

This just sold in Clean Sweep for $71,348 plus the juice. I was amazed to see such an item in handwritten form - they generally typed such documents; for example, here's another 1918 contract also signed by Ruth and Frazee: http://dkarpeles.com/sports/babe-ruth-contracts/1918/

I realize that amendments, addendums do end up as handwritten notes, so again, I'm not questioning authenticity. In fact, they are both dated January 11, 1918, so it makes sense that the handwritten one could have been a result of additional negotiations, that was quickly drawn up during signing of the typewritten one. Here's the link to the Clean Sweep handwritten one:

1918 Ruth Contract - Clean Sweep

Below are both the typewritten version, and the handwritten Clean Sweep one.

http://dkarpeles.com/s/cc_images/cac...g?t=1267548599
http://dkarpeles.com/s/cc_images/cac...g?t=1267550821
http://dkarpeles.com/s/cc_images/cac...g?t=1267548749

This looks like a case for "super sleuth" and the Hall of Shame?

I'm sure if there is any "monkey business" going on....Mr. Nash will expose it.

...and find some way to blame Mr. Lifson. :rolleyes:

It's a discussion, so anything goes, but the last thing I would want to see in this thread was mention of Nash. I figured you guys would be interested in discussing the actual items.

I was the under bidder on this document. Had it not been for the 25% BP for bids 130am or later, I may have bid again and won it.
I have no doubts as to its authenticity. It was offered about 13 years ago at Guernseys, and in 2005 on Steve Geppi's roadshow fwiw.
If the winning bidder is a member of this forum, I would appreciate you contacting me
thanks
Ken Goldin
ken@goldinauctions.com

I agree, what an amazing piece of history. Was the typed contract mailed to Ruth to be signed? It appears as if the hand-written letter was mailed. I assume these contracts were not signed during an in-person meeting between Ruth & Frazee? Were both of these documents mailed to Ruth at the same time? Again, I don't doubt the legitimacy of the letters/contracts, I'm just curios to hear how these side-deals went down.

My guess was that Ruth signed the original (typewritten) contract, with Frazee, etc., present. Ruth probably negotiated for additional incentives, so one of the Red Sox brass quickly created the handwritten piece, Ruth signed on the spot and all was good. If it was mailed, I would expect that they would have typed it up first.

It sounds like Ken has given it a lot of thought - perhaps he'll give his thoughts?

I agree that Ruth negotiated for more money, but why does the letter to Ruth address him like a mailed letter?

Wow very cool! Certainly a museum piece and an important part of history


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It doesn't make sense to me. I have about three scenarios, but my guess is that someone more familiar with such things will give us a simple explanation, so I won't throw my ideas out. Or I will throw them out. I love double entendras.

I still think both contracts were mailed simultaneously to Ruth to be signed & returned. On a side note, the handwritten contract reminds me of that scene from "Eight Men Out" when Comiskey says, "twenty-nine is not thirty, Eddie."

Then you must think that the handwritten one is a forgery, as it makes no sense to type one and then sloppily pen a second to be mailed at the same time.

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the "boilerplate" printed AL contract. The parts typed in with a typewriter appear to be in a font style that was not available on the typical typewriter in 1918. This is especially evident in the typed word "Massachusetts," which oddly is in lower-case whereas all the other typewritten portions are all caps.

The boldness (or lack thereof) of the typewritten portions is also cause for concern. Most typewriters of this vintage really "whack" the paper, and leave much "bolder" ink behind, also with more "ink bleed" around the edges of each letter, which almost gives them a "fuzzy" appearance. The capital "As" in this document are "dirty," meaning the open spaces of the letter are somewhat ink-clogged/dirty. To my thinking, a typewriter is a forger's best friend, because outside of typeface geeks like me, most people would never think to analyze such a thing (as Dan Rather found out the hard way in 2004 with the fake Bush national guard docs).

The fact that an upper-case letter "I" is used instead of a numeral for the number "I500" is also suspicious. It would also be customary (as is the case today) for the name Harry Frazee to be typewritten out as well, not simply the word "president." In fact, I believe the boilerplate printed line where someone typed "President" was supposed to be the line for Ruth (or whatever player was signing it) to sign. Ruth appears to have "signed" below in a cramped way. Notice that the notary/witness gets his own dotted "boilerplate" signature line as well.

All of this typing appears to have been done on a circa early 50s electric machine, although closer analysis than is possible from these scans would be needed for a definitive answer.

For this price point (about the cost of a nicely equipped Mercedes), I'd have had a typeface expert/forensic document examiner take a look in person before throwing my $$$ at this thing. Just a few seconds looking at the scans gave me a really bad "gut feeling."

Wow. that is fascinating and food for thought on this Piece. and that much coin makes a huge difference

It is definitely fascinating food for thought.

Please post an example of a boilerplate contract from that period that looks the way you think it should. Perhaps there is another Red Sox, Frazee-signed piece out there to compare to?

No need to get nasty;) I just felt that the man had some good points, since he knows a lot bout Type and machines, etc

Scott, I don't think you understood my post - probably a problem on my end.

I really would like to see 'thebigtrain' post an example. As you say, he knows a lot about this stuff, so I feel fairly certain he has seen examples such as the one I requested. I'm kind of busy and don't feel like doing the research myself. If he doesn't post anything, that's fine too.

I assumed that both pieces were authentic, but his comments bring up some interesting questions.

This youtube video shows a circa 1915 Hammond typewriter in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2htfA9NGCI

Notice what I mean about the way the keys really "ram" the letters into the paper on these old mechanical typewriters, almost to the point where the metal typeface "dents" the paper? Also notice how much more ink the lead typeface leaves on the paper?

The alleged 1918 Ruth/Frazee contract looks nothing like the youtube typewriter's product. Again, I'd bet good money that the Ruth contract is a fraud, and that the typewritten portions were done on a 1950s to 1960s era electric typewriter such as an IBM Selectric. Electric typewriters use a motor/spring system to "push" the key arms upward on to the paper, whereas the old mechanical typewriters rely on the key pressure of the typist- i.e, the harder one presses the key, the bolder and darker the printing becomes.

The dirty "a" on the Ruth contract has the same amount of dirt/smuding in the open space of the letter "A" every time it appears. In a mechanical typewriter, this "clogging" tended to correct itself, as the operator might strike the key harder/softer each time, tending to dislodge the dirt/ink clog.

But in an electric machine, the key strikes the paper with the same "force" every time, since it's being electrically brought up to the paper each time. The "strength" and boldness would be the same if you barely touched the key or if you pounded the key down with a small hammer, as the key itself is merely a switch which is pulsing current to the motor. Make sense?

I am by no means a complete authority/expert on this. I am an attorney, and had a fraud case a couple years ago involving an expert on typewriters/fonts etc. We had lunch/drinks several times during the trial, and I enjoyed hearing about his profession and training. I sent him the link to the Ruth contract, but he has not yet had time to respond.

TBT

Fascinating and it certainly does bring one to at least think that there is a major forgery that just sold for mucho dinero. I look forward to the experts opinion, hopefully soon.

The way I see it with sports memorabilia is purely risk vs. reward. As long as people are willing to pay insane amounts of money for this stuff, there will also be forgers trying desperately to get their hands on said money. There's also a disturbing tendency among collectors to trust these major auction houses and authenticators, which plays into the foger's hands.

What amazes me is that many attorneys are themselves high-end collectors fail to "cross examine" the provenance and history of items they purchase. Take the poster earlier in this thread (who actually bid on this) who said "it was offered 13 yrs ago at Guernsey's" as a way to apparently vouch for its authenticity. Who cares about 13 years ago- my question is where was it for the 82 years before that? Did Grandpa find it in his sock drawer, did Barry Halper have it next to Cy Young's ipod or what? If it is real, could it have been stolen from the Red Sox? Why do so few collectors ever ask questions beyond "PSA says its good" or "it was at Guernsey's 12 years ago" etc.

In my office I have a single-signed Ruth, single signed Gerigh, single signed Tris Speaker, single signed Hornsby, and some lesser-known 20s and 30s players. All of them belonged to the great-uncle of the firm's founding partner, who was a sportswriter for the defunct Newark Evening News out of Newark, NJ. He obtained all the sigs in person in the locker rooms, and there are photos of him with several of these players. Guess what else? Most of these balls have been in the same display case in the firm for 50+ years, and they mostly looks brown, old, and crappy, as you'd expect an 80 year item to look. Probably many of the balls were already used when he had them signed (hell, watch the youtube clips of the '52 W.S. and see how long they use the same ball even then- it was prolly 100 X worse in the 20s and 30s).

That's why I call total BS on 99% of these impeccable white balls offered by the major houses with some college dropout "expert" putting a gold seal on a piece of paper saying its real. I demand more, much more. Forgery is not a terribly difficult crime to pull off, and the materials (iron gall ink and nib pens) are cheap and readily available. EVen if the forger shells out a grand on a nice old period A.L. or N.L baseball, the profit when same is inscribed by "Babe Ruth" or "Lou Gerigh" or better yet both of them is astronomical. As far as I'm concerned, without ironclad provenance, I'm not biting. Anything less and you're just a pure sucker.

+1000

Sorry but it's Gehrig. Unless there was actually a lou gerigh

I was just looking again at the handwritten "incentive clause" and am prepared to call 100% B.S. on this entire lot.

First off, the description from cleansweep:

(1) An extremely rare verifiable 1918 Babe Ruth signature on a document as a Red Sox player; (2) Harry Frazee, the infamous Red Sox owner who sold Ruth to the Yankees to finance No No Nanette, on the same document as Ruth (possibly the only one) and (3) An incentive agreement from before 1920 with the game's most important and famous player ever - we believe this may well be the only known incentive document from this early in circulation, certainly the only one with Babe Ruth. As a matter of historical reference, Ruth only won 13 games as a pitcher in 1918, starting only 19 games, making the winning totals in this agreement impossible to accomplish (he did however lead the league with 11 home runs, his first home run title (of 12 total). Babe Ruth, 100 years after he first took the mound with the Red Sox in 1914, remains the transcendent figure in the history of baseball and is a household name to this date. Offered is one of the very best and earliest Babe Ruth signed documents in existence. JSA LOA.

Now lets turn to paragraph 11 of the printed contract:

"All of the terms and conditons herein have been fully considered by each of the parties hereto, and this agreement embraces the entire agreement between the parties, and any agreement not contained herein shall be void."

This is commonly known in contract law as a "merger clause," meaning that the written document (in this case, the formal printed contract) represents the entire agreement between the parties. No outside evidence may be introduced to show prior or "side" agreements not contained in the final, formal, contract.

This is an interesting case, as the handwritten "incentive contract" is also dated Jan 11, 1918, and clearly states terms and conditions not contained in the formal contract. If the handwritten Frazee "incentive document" was executed prior to the printed contract, it would be considered "parol evidence" under contract law, in that it is a separate document that expressly differs/disagrees with the "formal" contract. If it was executed after the printed contract, the merger clause might render it moot. Either way, the entire situation makes little to no sense.

For those of you who say "ok smarty pants lawyer, that's fine today but this was the good ole' days of 1918 etc," well, you've never been to law school. Law libraries are full of contract cases going back to the 1500s, and the parol evidence rule has origins in old English common law. Furthermore, courts in the 1918 era tended to be much more "sticklers" for things like this than courts today- by that I mean they were much less forgiving of errors, and tended to be quite rigid in applying the law to the facts. People were every bit as ruthless and litigious in the old days as today, and in some respects more so.

Thus, could Frazee have known about the parol evidence rule, and offered Ruth this deal knowing if it went to court he wouldn't have to pay up? Or could Frazee as a non-lawyer have simply done this "on the fly" without knowing it was not binding upon him?

The other huge question is why Frazee didn't simply have this "incentive" portion of the handwritten letter typed into the printed version? There is plenty of blank space between the printed "boilerplate" to fit the "incentive" language in the printed contract (or simply to write it in by hand in the empty space of the printed contract). But clearly, they had a typewriter!

Well, January 11, 1918 was a Friday. Presumably Frazee had access to lawyers, either in person or by telephone. Presumably Frazee had consulted with lawyers as a team owner, and was not a naive, uneducated person- at the time this was signed he (Frazee) was 37 years old. Clearly he was not an ignorant or reckless man, he didn't end up owning the Red Sox by chance.

Also interesting how the auction house description states "this may be the earliest known incentive contract." Um, yeah, suuuure. The oldest professional sports incentive contract ever found in existence on Earth just so happens to involve Babe Ruth, Harry Frazee and the 1918 Red Sox :) It also happens to have "incentivized" a minimum number of wins that Ruth did not achieve that year, thus making the document itself curiously moot. Almost as if the person who wrote it KNEW ALREADY that Ruth would not win 24 games that year :)


The B.S. meter is starting to sound full alarm here. I think this entire lot is pure garbage, and some extremely naive and foolish sucker just flushed a ton of $$$ down the toilet for items that just a small amount of basic research & common sense show are highly unlikely to be authentic. But hey, JSA green lighted it, and they're the "experts" LOL.

I know I said I wish Peter Nash' name had not come up in this thread;however, I now expect a HOS 'article' with bigtrain's analysis appearing as Peter Nash insights.

thebigtrain, unless I'm misunderstanding this entire thread, the Clean Sweep auction did not include the typewritten contract. The auctioned item was the handwritten contract, and the typewritten one was shown for comparison purposes.

The typewritten contract was sold several years ago in a different auction, and it apparently still resides in the collection of the country's preeminent documents & manuscripts collector David Karpeles. I don't think JSA was involved (and maybe wasn't even yet in business) the last time this contract sold. Hopefully, Karpeles (who has 10 manuscript museums and owns an original draft of the Bill of Rights) did his due diligence and wasn't fooled by a forger using a 1950s typewriter, but I'll be interested to see if you can prove otherwise.

I'm not a lawyer, but bigtrain's analysis of the handwritten letter makes sense. I was;however, a very busy typist for a number of years, and typed thesis papers in college for a typing business, using electric typewriters. I also had my own manual typewriters - a '70s portable and a great ancient Smith Corona. The typing in the $700K+ item looks manual to me.

I re-read the beginning of the thread and admit I thought the two documents were sold together as a lot. I was mistaken. Only the "incentive" contract was sold recently by cleansweep auctions.

That said, I stand fully by the legal reasons set forth above (along with basic common sense) that the incentive (handwritten) contract sold by cleansweep is a forgery. Actually, since the "formal" boilerplate contract has been public knowledge for so long, it now makes even more sense that the handwritten one is a forgery, since a date (Jan 11) would have been known to the forger.

The Sox were also very busy the day before (Jan. 10)- check this out:

http://www.1918redsox.com/season.htm

It would've made more sense to date the forgery Jan 10, since that day was obviously one where "deals" were being made. But the forger must have known of the other contract from the old Guernsey auction and used the Jan. 11 date for consistency.

Another thing is that spring training was even shortened that year due to WWI, and all the owners feared lower gate receipts due to wartime hardships, male fans in military service, etc. Doesn't make sense that that would be a year Frazee would be offering "cookies" like this to Ruth, who was not yet a superstar at this time- in fact, he was well behind Mays and Bush in the mound's pecking order. That Ruth at this stage of his career had the "juice" to get a deal like this (which is admittedly unheard of in this time period) simply transcends believability. The forger simply didn't do enough research to make his document stand up to A.) the historical facts, B. the state of 1918 contract law, or C. basic common sense.

Some poor sap is 70 K poorer though

For what it's worth, I've looked at about a dozen signed player contracts from the 1910s (using Google), and none that I've seen so far have the club president's name typed out - they all just simply have "president" typed, or often just handwritten, under the president's signature.

In fact, a lot of the ones I've checked look pretty sloppy and informal by today's standards, with mixtures of upper and lower case type, handwritten additions that aren't initialed, signatures that aren't notarized, witnessed or dated, dates typed or written above or below the appropriate sections, overlapped writing or type, etc. My impression is that baseball contracts of the 1910s weren't nearly as formal, detailed or precise as baseball or most other contracts are today (that's assuming, of course, that not all of the contracts viewable on line are forgeries).

Look at this 1915 A.L. contract for a "nobody" player named Eugene Layden:

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=27011#Photo

Notice how on the last page (above the signature blocks) is a typewritten notation that "the interlineations on line 7 of clause 1.... were inserted before signing."

Kind of less exciting than the handwritten "incentive" clause, eh?

I don't have an opinion on the handwritten item, other than to say I've seen far stranger things.

From what I've read, it was brought to market 5 or 6 years ago by uber-collector and former DiMaggio business manager Bert Padell. This is its provenance according to an old Padell interview in Sports Collectors' Digest:

“I have a letter from the president of the Boston Red Sox in January of 1918, his next-to-the-last last year as a Red Sox (and where Ruth pitched extensively) that said, ‘If you win 24 games, you get a $1,000 bonus (he had won 23 and 24 games in the previous two seasons), and if you win 30 games, you get a $1,500 bonus.’ “And it’s signed George Herman ‘Babe’ Ruth, and by the president of the Red Sox, Harry Frazee. A man in Westchester, N.Y., that I met through one of my clients in the entertainment business had this big box of items from the Red Sox in his attic, and it had been there for 30 years or more. And there was all this memorabilia, and he asked me if I wanted to buy it.” Padell told him that he had never bought anything in his life. So he brought the stuff to Padell’s Midtown Manhattan office to have him look at it, and there are the letter and two contracts signed by Ruth, and he also had a lot of Red Sox contracts. “He offered them all to me for $5,000,” said Padell. “And I told him again that I had never bought anything, and he said he needed the money and he was in debt. So I said, OK. This was 25 years ago or so. And I paid him.” And then Padell got a call from him the next day, and he said that a friend of his had called and offered him $25,000 for two of the Ruth items. “And I asked who his friend was, and he said, ‘Barry Halper.’ And I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding.’ “And he let me photocopy the Ruth contracts and I got the letter and I got the Red Sox players contracts.”

I don't know if that would be considered solid provenance, but Padell acquired the item about 30 years ago, the previous owner supposedly had it for 30+ years, and perhaps more importantly it was offered to Padell with a number of similar vintage contracts and related documents whose authenticity have apparently not (yet) been questioned.

JimStinson
 

Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question) my BIG question would be this , By 1918 it has been well documented that Ruth himself wanted to PLAY MORE and PITCH LESS , not counting the periodicals of the day or information contained in numerous biographies ...a simple wiki search confirms this

"In the years 1915–1917, Ruth had been used in just 44 games in which he had not pitched. After the 1917 season, in which he hit .325, albeit with limited at bats, teammate Harry Hooper suggested that Ruth might be more valuable in the lineup as an everyday player.

In 1918, he began playing in the outfield more and pitching less, making 75 hitting-only appearances. Ruth himself wanted to hit more and pitch less"

So with the above in mind , why would Ruth sign an agreement to the contrary ?? basically stating that he would "pitch more" ?? which would obviously be required to win 30 games. It was not an "on the spot" decision either as the idea was floated throughout 1917 of converting him to a full time player with Babe Ruth himself pushing hardest for the transition ...Just my two cents but like "Casey" used to say "You can look it up"
_____________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Vintage autographs For Sale Daily
stinsonsports.com

This link will take you to "Young Babe Ruth" by Brother Gilbert, which offers some insight into Ruth moving from starting pitcher to everyday player.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=hJOD...ITCHER&f=false

Very nice Big Train! Thanks for the insight.

1) Why does it matter what Ruth wanted to do or not do? Didn't the club make those decisions?

2) How does the incentives agreement state that Ruth would "pitch more"? The way I read it is IF he pitches more, he'll get MORE compensation.

Why couldn't Ruth have signed his standard contract, then mentioned that he expected to play mostly in the outfield in the coming season, then be told that the team will use him however they see fit? The team tells Babe it has every intention to get him a lot of at bats, but they can't make any guarantees; however, since they want him to be happy, they say IF, IF, IF, they decide they need to use him mostly as a pitcher, they'll give him extra compensation. Then they write up a hasty side agreement in an effort to pacify him.

If the letter is bogus, then is multimillionaire Pardell part of the scheme, and is his acquisition story a lie? All for $50K (or whatever he got for it 8 years ago), when he was already rich? Or was Pardell duped back in 1982, and the forger at that time mixed this one fake letter in with a number of other authentic contracts and documents for which he got a whopping $5K? And have Guernsey’s, Steve Geppi, Clean Sweep, JSA, two subsequent owners of the letter and a dozen or more high stakes bidders all been fooled?

So, is there any sort of gauge on just how long skilled Ruth forgeries have existed?

If it could truly be traced back 60 years, and it is so close experts can't agree, did highly deceptive fakes exist at that time?

Forgeries have existed for hundreds of years...

Thank you for the history lesson. But that doesn't answer my question.

I asked how long skilled Ruth forgeries have existed. It's highly doubtful master forgers were knocking off Ruths when he was alive, signing freely or his autograph was otherwise of low value.

The question is, if it is possible to verify if a Ruth goes back to a certain date, is there a date that would preclude the likelihood of a deceptive fake?

When did the market price jump for Ruth sigs? They prob rose at the time of his death, but what did they cost in the '80's for example?

Given that the typed piece is a 'boilerplate' template, and there wasn't such a pre-typed template for addendums such as the handwritten one, containing incentive agreements, it isn't extremely far-fetched that both could have been created on the same day; however, parts of the typed one are actually typed, not handwritten, so why couldn't whoever typed that one, have typed up the addendum to it?

And if Ruth and Frazee were going to go to the trouble of agreeing on the verbiage in the handwritten one, why not put something in it related to hitting? Why waste time, as Jim points out, writing something up for pitching?

Not saying it's fake - just saying that it defies logic.

I'm sure they could have typed up the addendum. We'll never know why they didn't.

Why couldn't they have written up the addendum later in the day at the bar or restaurant when the subject of pitching came up? Or why couldn't Frazee have done the addendum in writing because it gave him the opportunity to say it wasn't legitimate and not honor it later? Why couldn't the handwritten agreement have been done the next day, Saturday, when the office was closed, or the weekend after that, or at any time or any informal place after Jan 11 and been pre-dated to match the agreement it amended?

I've worked for corporations and with contracts for 30+ years. I've seen hundreds of agreements covering tens of millions of dollars of business that don't amount to much more than signed cocktail napkins. The company I currently work for rarely even uses lawyers to draft or approve its agreements. For all kinds of reasons things don't always get done in the most formal, appropriate or "lawyerly" way.

And I'm not following why you think drafting an addendum for pitching and not hitting defies logic? Why couldn't the original agreement presume the hitting part, and after signing it Ruth makes it clear he doesn't want to pitch, the club says "Babe, if Jones or Pennock go down with injury you'll HAVE to pitch full-time, but we'll throw you another thousand or two if that happens." What's illogical about that? It makes more sense to me that the incentives covered the thing he DIDN'T want to do.

JimStinson
 

All valid points but you missed the first part of my post that said ..............
"Some excellent points made here ! Has evolved into a very interesting thread. Making no judgment one way or another (on the documents in question)".....
No where did I ever say anyone was "duped" or a "forger" , I just asked a question, which is (I think) what public forums are all about , That being said ...it IS true that Frazee fought tooth and nail to have Babe Ruth remain a pitcher (Frazee did not know much about baseball and THATS a fact) and DID start Ruth as his pitcher on opening day 1918. It was RUTH that wanted to play every day (as did most of his team mates) and Frazee that wanted him to pitch.
_________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Buying and Selling Vintage autographs see my web site
stinsonsports.com

Karl, those are very good points.

As Jim points out, the fact that Frazee wanted Ruth to remain a pitcher is also a good reason for Frazee to have offered that incentive to Ruth - perhaps to warm Ruth up to the idea of remaining a pitcher.

I honestly wasn't thinking anything was a forgery when I began this thread. Looking at the signatures on both documents, I felt they were reasonable enough to move on to other issues surrounding the documents. If the handwritten item has impeccable provenance for at least 60 years, as the story goes, if the document(s) were bad I would expect at least one of the signatures to be obviously forged, but neither are. Also, for the price that was originally paid (again, 'as the story goes'), if they were forged documents, I would think that the quality would indicate a more lucrative plan. But the story could be off on some of the details.

I won't bother re-hashing the "legalese" points I already raised in this thread about the parol evidence rule and the merger clause in the boilerplate "formal" printed contract.

I will say that, per the auction house description, this is the earliest known "incentive" contract in baseball, and possibly in all of professional sports. It also just so happens to involve Babe Ruth, Harry Frazee, and the 1918 Red Sox. If this doesn't strike you as not "smelling straight," then so be it.

I'll again note that the specter of WWI had seriously cut into team revenues, which came almost exclusively from gate receipts and concessions (this was of course even pre-radio). Spring training was shortened that year to save money. Many able-bodied men were either already in the military or about to be drafted (they took a lot of "older" people for WWI, my great grandfather was in his early 30s). It was certainly not expected to be a banner year.

I'd also like to know if Ruth ever negotiated a similar "incentive" contract when he went to the Yankees. Seems like hitting incentives would make more sense, since its an individual achievement over which the player himself has much more control vs. pitching "wins," which are a team effort and have a large element of luck involved re: run support, errors, which opposing pitchers you lock horns with, etc.

Thus, given the above, I'm sticking with my guns and calling this a forgery. Just way too many things about it don't make logical sense, and the "attic" provenance story we've all heard before. Remember Barry Halper and the Ollie O'Mara uniform tales? Per Mr. Halper the guy basically had more clothes/uniforms in his attic than a Modell's store! Of course it was all total BS, the old codger was penniless and Halper forged all the unis and basically just lied thru his teeth, even ripping off the HOF for a few million bucks on that 1919 Joe Jackson jersey that scientific testing proved was manufactured in the 1960s.