Ruth signed ball, video proof
 

I thought this was very cool, only definitive way to know for sure if it's real or not:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=873...goryid=2378529

Really cool. It will be exciting to see what that goes for.

It is absolutely definative, except that its not. The Home Movie is awesome, the ball looks like its been traced over at some point (maybe its good, but it looks like crap) and not to anything about the guy who got the ball or his family but there is nothing definative that links this ball to the movie except a story and there is one of those for every Babe Ruth signed ball in the hobby.

At the end of the day you are looking at a highly toned ball with a somehow perfect Ruth on it and a home movie that you are supposed to believe through a story makes the ball more real.

Just my opinion but I would pay more money for the original movie with Ruth in it than I would that ball.

Also, to the glove thing (comment at the bottom of the movie) dont you know J.P's hands are clean, just look at his reputation!

Rhys,
That's EXACTLY what I thought when I looked at the ball and the video, FWIW...

The home movie shows Ruth signing "a ball," but unless there is footage we are not seeing, it doesn't tie the ball for sale to the moment in the video. :confused:

I'm not implying there is anything wrong with the ball, but the video is hardly the proof it claims to be. I was expecting the kid to come back and hold the ball up in front of the camera.

This video tells us nothing except for the fact that the nuns at St. Mary's apparently forced George to write with his right hand (my left handed sister went through the same torment in Queens in the 60's). There is nothing that ties this video to the ball in question.

Add me to the list. I was thinking the same thing when I saw it. I don't see any difference between this and a photo of any player signing in a crowd and then expecting that to be proof that an auto is real. Not saying that this didn't happen and the auto isn't real, just that the proof is not the end all be all.

He says the father worked for Kodak and took a new test video recorder to the game.........:confused:

It would have been a film camera. Probably a cine-Kodak model b with a spring drive, which came out in 1925. The earlier ones were hand cranked and would have required a tripod to get a steady picture. Maybe a model BB which was new in 29 and took larger reels.

Video recorders were essentially nonexistent in 1929. Baird in England was recording some early television on records, but the equipment was far from portable. And the first commercially available video recorder wasn't sold until 1956. And it was huge.

Not the most credible story.

Steve B

I would think that they are just assigning modern vernacular to vintage technology. Sort of the opposite of calling a movie a 'film' when it may be digital. Not technically accurate, but you get the relevant info.

Also consider that the guy using the term "video recorder" is not the Kodak employee who probably would have used the proper term.

Either way though, I would agree with the general sentiment that this video clip (sorry, film clip) is not definitive proof of the ball's authenticity, and could be applied in the same fashion to ANY Ruth-signed ball that passes through this gentleman's hands. It's like having a photo of a player sitting at a table with a pen in their hand as proof that your item was signed by them. It's nice to have, but it's not proof.

I just think it was pretty cool that you could just walk up there and get an autograph..from such a big name player..compared to today.

Ha, that was my thought too. It's like "Hey, run down there and get Babe to sign something." No big whoop. So jealous!

I know... really...

Today there are a dozen flunkies with headsets positioned to stop anyone that doesn't have tickets for those seats from going down to the edge of the field. :rolleyes:

the home movie doesnt show the signature on the ball, so nice as it is, its not proof it is the ball in the auction. it might be, but it might be that the signed ball was lost or signature faded to oblivion and this is another ball. there is no way to know. its a leap of faith.

the home movie doesnt show the signature on the ball, so nice as it is, its not proof it is the ball in the auction. it might be, but it might be that the signed ball was lost or signature faded to oblivion and this is another ball. there is no way to know. its a leap of faith.

After reading this thread, I dug around and re-located the thread on David A's 1927 forged Ruth ball. It took me all evening to read it (23 pages), but it was well worth it. The discussions on provenance were fantastic.

Also, belated congrats to David for his 'new' 1927 ball.

And if you somehow managed to get down to the field, the players would just ignore you, anyway.
Don't want to just give away "the product."
It's bad business.

Thanks. Scott.
But the guy to congratulate on his 1927 ball is cottnot. :)