Opinions on this Ruth FDC??

[canjond]

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

[David Atkatz]

It is absolutely absurd to look at each individual letter (in any holograph material) and decide whether or not it is "correct," or "typical." Just look at the (unquestionably genuine) example of Ruth's address on Dan's letter. Look at the two capital "Y"s, in "York," and "N.Y." They are completely different, yet written a fraction of a second apart.

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It is absolutely absurd to look at each individual letter (in any holograph material) and decide whether or not it is "correct," or "typical." Just look at the (unquestionably genuine) example of Ruth's address on Dan's letter. Look at the two capital "Y"s, in "York," and "N.Y." They are completely different, yet written a fraction of a second apart.

David, I know you're one of the big boys around here and have/do own some very high end Ruth pieces...so I definitely value your opinion on this. But I do disagree with it being "absurd" to look at individual letters. I completely agree that we can't judge it being good or bad by one individual letter, but I do take those very atypical variations into account.

With that said, I'm also a believer in Chirs' so-called "autograph eye". I first try to get the overall feel of the auto, and my first impression is that this piece is good. By like I said, those two variant letter connections bother me (particularly the "B" to the "a").

Just figured that with well respected opinions being on both sides of this item, it would be a great conversation piece here.

[David Atkatz]

Well, OK. "Absurd" is too strong a word, I'll admit.

[slidekellyslide]

Would the post office in Cooperstown even cancel a letter that had no address on it? I think the Babe had one sent to himself....like a million other Americans did in 1939.

edited to add: a simple google search shows that they clearly did cancel a ton of these FDCs without any addresses on them, and half of them are signed by major leaguers....I think though with the address on this one that he did indeed have it sent to himself.

[Westsiders]

Dan,

It's definitely possible...and in looking at the photo, the signature appears to be on top of the postmark....so maybe they post marked it prior to him self-addressing it. But does that seem like the most likely scenario?

If this is "the one" that the Babe sent to himself, I would think that it would go for a substantial premium at auction (but that hasn't been the case in the past).

[David Atkatz]

Is it possible that there was a ceremony of sorts in which the inductees had FDCs sent to themselves? I ask because this item is in my collection:

[Westsiders]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Is it possible that there was a ceremony of sorts in which the inductees had FDCs sent to themselves? I ask because this item is in my collection:

Absolutely....

Maybe the first five inductees all sent FDCs to themselves (and maybe multiples at that). Is there more than one "Big Train" self addressed FDC? (Great piece btw).

Could be more than one Ruth self addressed FDC...but this is the only one I could find. And if this is the only one (the one he actually sent to himself), I would think it would carry a hefty premium.

It just seems like I'm missing something. It has the blessing of the big authenticators, it's been featured by at least one of the major auction houses, but just doesn't get the action that it seemingly should.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by canjond

With respect the comments about being a collector/addressing it to himself, I had thought that this was simply a self addressed envelope that fell into the hands of an early collector who then got it postmarked in '39 (and clearly glued the Ruth photo over the address). In other words, it didn't even cross my mind Ruth "could" have been the collector who addressed this to himself. I had always assumed someone had the signature postmarked later on.

It would be interesting to get it under a microscope to see what is on the top -- the signature or the postal cancellation.

If the cancellation is on top, one could argue it's plausible the signature is authentic and it would put the signature back to a time before deceptive forgeries existed.

If the signature is on top of the cancellation, it becomes much more difficult to envision a plausible scenario why Babe Ruth would be adding his name and mailing address to an envelope that had already been cancelled.

[bigfanNY]

Why only a month apart is the address changed from New York NY to New York City NY. Not good in my very humble opinion. For this and other inconsistencies already pointed out in this thread. Paul Gallagher who started the first NYC show in the early 1970's told me in 1973 that babe Ruth signed more than any other Baseball player and was forged more than any baseball player.