Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket

[slidekellyslide]

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

[7nohitter]

Oh boy...and I thought I was in a for a non-eventful day...

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

I agree on all counts. Most of the OP is pretty meaningless. The part about the actual sig might end up being relevant...

[Big Dave]

If this is your "proof", it is not convincing in the least.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

this is exactly right, i will translate chris' post.

fluff,

here is a gaedel i believe to be signed by the same hand.

fluff.

i agree with slidekellyslide, is it illegal to ask how the ruth and gaedel are signed by the same person? that's all that matters. you dragged an auction house and two authentication companies into a mud pit because of ?

so you don't believe the backstory, so what? the backstory doesn't make the ticket real nor does it make it fake. you are short on facts and hard evidence so you belittle the backstory. the backstory means nothing to me, but evidence does. do you have any? When someone spends that much time making fun of the backstory, means they got what? for proof? If you had some, you wouldn't even bother mentioning the backstory, as PROOF trumps all.

[David Atkatz]

Every single occurrence, when looked at individually, is highly unlikely.

Consider the chain of events that had to occur in order to bring your parents together. One improbability after another.

And yet, we're all here.

(One of us, though, as my father used to say, is ''not all there.")

[HRBAKER]

We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

why doesnt chris prove that the ruth signed ticket and the gaedel and the other ruth he showed are by the same hand. can you elaborate, mr. chris?

[D. Bergin]

Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

Shelly,
The "Babe Ruth signed 700 HR ticket" most likely had the year 1934 printed (not stamped) in the disclaimer text at the bottom of the stub, which was the way Tigers tickets were printed in the mid-late 1930's. The auction of similar 1934 tickets that Lance Fittro posted in the original thread clearly showed this.

As I stated before, it was unusual for Detroit to stamp the date of games on Emergency tickets in the earlier years, FWIW.

[shelly]

Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.Ruthstub-1024x637.jpg

[earlywynnfan]

Regarding the radio show, many shows had a live audience (often behind glass, so you couldn't hear them over the air.) Tickets to these would be given out beforehand, usually for free.

So a family is going to the big city to see a radio show, because they have tickets. While there, why not take in a baseball game? While at the station, who do we see, but Babe Ruth! And he's signing autographs for the crowd afterwards!! "Daddy, can I get his autograph? Sure, honey, but I don't have anything -- wait, have him sign my ticket stub."

Chris, I make no assertions about the whole of your post, but I think the scenario I just posted is extremely plausible. Once again, you have made a post with lots of sizzle and no steak. I look forward to you coming on again two weeks from now to clear this up a little.

Ken

[ss]

Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by ss

Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

I agree with those that have posted regarding the relative weight of the story. Details of what a "70" year old person recounts as well as the consignor's recollection of what she said should not be taken as foolproof and by themselves, do little one way or the other in determining authenticity of either the ticket or the auto.

In addition, I see little, if any, similarities in letter formation or pressure points between the "a" in Babe and the "g" in Gaedel. The same goes for the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. Certainly nothing strong enough to lead me to think they were both done by the same hand.

So, I go back to what I said in the original "Ruth" thread and that is what exactly is the purpose of these "cryptic" posts? Where is the new information/evidence?

[slidekellyslide]

Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

[cardinalcollector]

Mr. Williams,

This is what you said:


I am disappointed that Spence certed that.

If I recall correctly, PSA rejected that Babe Ruth awhile back.

It's not authentic.


And this is your proof?

This is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Babe Ruth 700th Homerun Day (July 13, 1934) autographed ticket.

Little Red Riding Hood is the name of the 5-12 year old (she was in her 70's according to the consignor in 1992) girl who went to the Tiger-Yankees game at Navin Field on July 13, 1934.

Why Little Red Riding Hood? Why not?

The consignor couldn’t remember her name (but did remember the story of the ticket in detail), so I’m giving her the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father went to the Detroit Tigers baseball game on July 13. 1934. They were seated in the upper deck of Navin Field holding a rain check ticket stamped July 13, 1934.

By the way, where are all of the other tickets from that day (July 13, 1934)? I have read there might be one other ticket from that day that has surfaced (but you would think such an historic baseball occasion would have had other tickets surface).

They watch the game (careful not to crease her ticket...geez, she probably kept it in a rigid toploader) and the ballgame finishes about two hours twelve minutes later.

Little Red Riding Hood and her father departs Navin Field and navigate approximately four miles to The Fisher Building.

But wait. What made Little Red Riding Hood and her father traverse to The Fisher Building immediately after the game? Was the radio interview with The Babe advertised somewhere? Where? Did the radio station invite the public into the interview?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father have been holding on to their tickets for a few hours now. Was it their plan to have The Bambino autograph her ticket that day?

They arrive at the Fisher Building and find their way up to the radio station. And, of course, the radio station lets any member of the public right into the show, as I am sure they always did.

Little Red Riding Hood instantly recognizes Mrs. Ruth and sits down right next her?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father walk into the radio station unabated?

No one else in that room recognized Mrs. Ruth? No one else in that room requested an autograph from Babe Ruth?

Wow, it was certainly a strange day for Little Red Riding Hood.


The Babe Ruth signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket sold for $12,000.00 over at Huggins & Scott.

Only $12,000 for a true 1/1 Babe Ruth item?

The Babe autographed thousands of baseballs, but that ticket is a true 1/1, is it not?

Where are all of the other tickets from that ballgame? Look at the ticket that Huggins & Scott sold. Not only did it survive in great condition, but it is signed by Babe Ruth?

The winner of that Babe Ruth signed ticket thinks they got a real bargain paying only $12,000.00 for a true 1/1.

It will surface again in the near future.



I am not an autograph collector but I have followed this thread with interest. I was really hoping you would come back with something credible. The above story is ....a story. Smoke, mirrors and deflection. Anyone can see that. I mean, you called out an Auction House, and an Authenticator, and now the consignor with a story about little red riding hood. Again, that's all you got?

Not that it matters, but why should I, and others, believe anything you say from now on?

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know H&S or anyone else in this thread. Just one guys opinion.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

[David Atkatz]

Attention.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I'll tell you. Once again.

Attention.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I'm clearly not part of the long debate between Chris and other members of this forum. Nor am I by any means an authority on any autograph. But having followed the original Ruth thread and this one, I believe a much more relevant question would be " What did we gain by your posting of the original Babe Ruth thread and this one?" To date, in my humble opinion, not much.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I don't know why Chris, but your intent is not enough. I think you do have a great eye, but everyone is wrong sometimes, no? You haven't givn us any reason to think that now isn't one of those times for you.

I have never had any reason to have anything but respect for you and your posts on these boards, and that really hasn't changed. I'm not calling you names, and will read what you post with the same interest that i always have. But I can tell you this: if you are hit by a car and killed tomorrow (and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen and that you live as long as you hope to), than this Ruth will be accepted by 100 percent of us, as we don't have your eye. And then it will be real. See what I mean?

So if you have something else to share, please do, but otherwise this ticket is likely to sell for even more than it did this time when it comes up for auction again.

I can't say it much nicer than this.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

You want all of us to bow down to your "autograph eye" I guess...I don't know. You've still not shared one single bit of proof. NOT ONE. You don't even answer direct questions. You ran and hid for nearly two weeks when the heat was on....I think it's pretty obvious that you've damaged your reputation.

[travrosty]

I know boxing autographs quite well, but I would never put a % on the people I felt I knew boxing autographs better than. that's arrogance.

And when I do notice an auction item that isn't right, and wish to call it out. I show all the proof I have, every bit, totally transparent. I don't just say that I am Travis R. so that should be good enough for you 98% that don't know jack about it. (that's not my attitude about it but some here have that attitude.)

I asked for his hobby resume on vintage baseball before on a thread and never got a response. If he is top 2% on Ruth, it should be fantasic hobby resume on vintage baseball. I will be happy to provide my resume on boxing to anyone that asks so I can't be called a hypocrite.