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

[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

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by 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.Attachment 96765

Shelly,
Thanks for the close up scan.
The stub's tear is conveniently just above where the year 1934 would have appeared on the stub. To see an example of what I am talking about please refer to the Tigers 1934 eBay auction lot in the 1st Babe Ruth ticket thread.

[shelly]

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Ticket stub again.


stub.jpg

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Ticket stub again.


Attachment 96772

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by shelly

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

Shelly,
What I am trying to say is the ticket (that is deemed to be Ruth's 700th HR game) WOULD HAVE a year printed on it had the tear conveniently not been applied on the stub where it was.

Ironic? Yes.
Does this absolutely prove anything? Nope.

[travrosty]

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

OMG. How humble.

[thenavarro]

Usually when I read threads that are "battling" over disputed autographs, I usually fall on Chris's side of the ledger. I have no opinion on this particular ticket, as I have zero experience in dealing with ticket stubs from that era, nor do I profess to know that particular style of Ruth's (or a forgers) signature. However, I do get quite disgusted with people continuing to rub David's face into the mistake he made over his forged '27 Yankees baseball. I find it to be contemptable, unprofessional, disconcerting, malicious, heartless, demeaning, and otherwise uncalled for. When trying to justify or prove themselves, one should tout their own resume, rather than belittling someone elses. It doesn't really matter who has the biggest penis amongst competitors, what matters is if it's big enough or swung well enough to get the job done.