NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used > Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-11-2012, 04:27 PM
HOF Auto Rookies's Avatar
HOF Auto Rookies HOF Auto Rookies is offline
Brent
Bre.nt Nieder.m@n
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,336
Default 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
__________________
HOFAutoRookies.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-11-2012, 06:09 PM
clutch clutch is offline
Eri..c Hu.nt
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 81
Default

Really cool. It will be exciting to see what that goes for.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-11-2012, 07:00 PM
prewarsports prewarsports is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,310
Default

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!

Last edited by prewarsports; 12-11-2012 at 07:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-11-2012, 07:03 PM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prewarsports View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-11-2012, 07:06 PM
Mr. Zipper Mr. Zipper is offline
Steve Zarelli
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,486
Default

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.

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.

Last edited by Mr. Zipper; 12-11-2012 at 07:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-11-2012, 07:17 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,415
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my bucket(s). Virtually everything is available for trade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706
http://s1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee404/JollyElm/
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/elmjack44/library/

I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.
Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-12-2012, 08:01 AM
mr2686 mr2686 is offline
Mike Rich@rds0n
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,103
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-12-2012, 08:09 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 4,865
Default

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

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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-12-2012, 08:38 AM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B View Post
He says the father worked for Kodak and took a new test video recorder to the game.........

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.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:00 AM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,312
Default

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.

Last edited by thecatspajamas; 12-12-2012 at 10:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ruth Signed ball, funny HOF Auto Rookies Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 13 07-21-2012 08:25 AM
Ruth-signed Ball question Runscott Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 9 03-22-2012 10:37 PM
Ruth Signed Ball... jboosted92 Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 2 02-19-2012 02:21 PM
Babe Ruth signed ball value sylbry Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 12 07-31-2009 11:13 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.


ebay GSB