One more Babe Ruth vs. Rube Waddell 1917 Sports Companion thread

[frankh8147]

Hello all,

NOTE: I meant Marquard, not Waddell... pretty much agree with most of the revelations and documentations on this site but I wanted to bring up an old topic just one more time.

I'm still not sold that the 1917 Sports Companion stamp isn't Babe Ruth rather than Wadell although that photograph of Waddell looks too close to be coincidental and also, full disclosure, I own this stamp.

-The face. It's looks exactly like a young Babe Ruth and nothing like Rube Wadell. The eyes are wider, the mouth is bigger and the nose looks way wider. Rube had a slimmer, more muscular face and this, to me, just doesn't resemble him at all. I can't look at this image and look at pictures of Wadell and see any recognition whatsoever.
-The glove is placed completely differently.
-The pitching arm is shadowed on the Youth Companion card but not on the photograph but not on the photograph.
-The socks are different
-the shading on the cap is different
-the background is completely different

It just still looks like Babe Ruth to me... can someone put some facial recognition software to this and see what it comes up with haha!

[frankh8147]

..

[Rhotchkiss]

I know nothing about this stamp and I was unaware of the debate. Just two quick takes: (1) Rube Waddell was dead by 1917 (not sure if that matters), and (2) kind of looks like Rube Marquard to me. Note also the thing on the sleeve, which could have been a NY symbol?

[BobC]

I also thought this had been determined to be Rube Marquard (not Wadell) as well. For a while the SCD catalogs even stated that the image on the stamp was taken from and identical to a known photo of Marquard, more or less definitively assuring the identification. The same photo Frank was showing in his post.

[frankh8147]

Sorry all, I meant Marquard in the original post.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by frankh8147

Sorry all, I meant Marquard in the original post.

No problem Frank, easy mistake. LOL

And I also have one of these stamps, and wish it was Ruth as well. I noticed that though close, if that photo you originally posted an image of is the same photo referenced and mentioned by others as being the source and an identical match to the image on the stamp, it is not exactly identical and the same after all. And as you said, there is a somewhat similar type of resemblance to a young Ruth's face in that stamp's image. I can also see a bit of a resemblance to Marquard's face as well, when comparing it to the photo Ryan had in post #3. That stamp's facial image alone is just too obscure and unclear to make a definitive identification match though. I had never seen a copy of the photo that was claimed to be used for the stamp's image, and if that one you posted is it, it does leave room for doubt after all that maybe the stamp was supposed to be a depiction of Ruth, someone else, or even no one in particular and just truly a generic figure after all. Sadly, with no other confirming information, evidence, and/or provenance about the image used on the stamp, I think we're stuck with the current thinking and opinion that it is not Ruth after all, or at best, just a generic image. Still a very neat item.

[Leon]

I can't find it right now (someone will) but that is the exact same picture clearly identified as Marquard in another place. IT is 100% Marquard. No question once that picture will resurface.

I think I found it....


.

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by BobC

No problem Frank, easy mistake. LOL

And I also have one of these stamps, and wish it was Ruth as well. But The photo you mentioned and showed, isn't just close, it is pretty much an exact duplicate of the image on the stamp. Also, take another look at the photo of Marquard that Ryan added in post #3, and then go back and look at the photo you posted. Would be nice if it was Ruth, but sadly, I don't think so.

I get what you are saying but I've been looking at this comparison and I still just don't see it for some reason! I look at photo of Marquard he showed, and still see a thin face with features to go along with that. I look at this stamp and see Ruth.

[Rhotchkiss]

Frank, I am sorry, but unless you are this guy: https://www.ebay.com/itm/13408201502...=20001&mkevt=1

It’s Marquard!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Leon

I can't find it right now (someone will) but that is the exact same picture clearly identified as Marquard in another place. IT is 100% Marquard. No question once that picture will resurface.

I think I found it....


.

Ah, thanks Leon. There it is, that is the exact same image proving it is Marquard. Though that photo the OP initially posted was surprisingly similar.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobC

Ah, thanks Leon. There it is, that is the exact same image proving it is Marquard. Though that photo the OP initially posted was surprisingly similar.

great discussion although addressed in the past and Great resource of the board members

[frankh8147]

Originally Posted by BobC

Ah, thanks Leon. There it is, that is the exact same image proving it is Marquard. Though that photo the OP initially posted was surprisingly similar.

Yeah they are almost identical pose-wise, except for the differences I pointed out. My problem was that I just don't see Rube Marquard at all when looking at that face..

[BobC]

Hmmmm. I take back my earlier comment that the magazine cover image Leon posted is the exact same image as on the Youth's Companion stamp. I do see some minor changes and differences between the magazine cover and stamp images, and also see a little more resemblance to a young Ruth in the stamp image. But they are all very minor and subtle differences, and make it difficult to argue they are still not the same. So again, I think current public opinion will still override all else, and it will remain as Marquard being on the stamp. But I can't necessarily say Frank may not have a point as well after all.

[Leon]

Same image. The stamp is only a cartoonish looking drawing of the postcard. Look at how he is holding the ball and look at his glove....along with everything else.

Originally Posted by frankh8147

Yeah they are almost identical pose-wise, except for the differences I pointed out. My problem was that I just don't see Rube Marquard at all when looking at that face..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Leon

Same image. The stamp is only a cartoonish looking drawing of the postcard. Look at how he is holding the ball and look at his glove....along with everything else.

Do not disagree at all, but then, why the differences in the two images? Why not make them exactly the same if that actually was the intent?

The stamp has two horizontal stripes going around the top part of the player's socks, the Semon drawing only has one solid stripe/block. The belt showing on the Semon drawing is just a simple, rectangular shape, with no detail at all. But on the stamp, there is detail added, and definitely what looks like either belt loops or notches, as well as what appears to be the excess end piece of the belt that looks to be hanging down. it is definitely not the simple rectangular shape as shown on the Semon drawing. In addition, the Semon drawing shows the details of the sections/lines on the player's cap, as well as the brim being a dark color. But this time the stamp is less detailed, and shows no sections/lines on the cap, and also doesn't appear to show the brim of the cap as a different, dark color, merely the same light color as the cap, but with a shadow across the front edge of the brim that doesn't show in the Semon drawing. And you know how when somebody tries to show two different photos of someone, and claim they're the same person, it seems the first thing everybody else immediately chimes in on and points to is how the ears don't match up. Well, look at the image/outline of this player's left ear in relation to where the player's eyes are located. It sure as heck looks to me that the bottom of the player's earlobe on the Semon drawing goes farther/lower down on the player's face in relation to where his eyes are, than it does on the stamp. And then the shadow effect on the player's face is different as well. The Semon drawing clearly shows a curved facial line around the left side of the player's mouth, but there is no such facial line showing on the stamp image. Whoever the stamp's artist was, if he/she did use Semon's drawing as the basis for the stamp, they clearly, and purposely, made changes to the face that was on the Semon drawing.

Answer me this, if the drawing, not a photo but a drawing, by Semon is supposed to be the identical image used on the Youth's Companion stamp, why would the stamp's artist take the trouble to add/alter some details to the stamp drawing, but then also bother to remove some other details at the same time? That makes absolutely no logical sense at all. Unless maybe the stamp's artist didn't intend for the stamp's image to be Marquard, and made the various changes to make the stamp's image more generic. OR, maybe the stamp's artist did use the base image from the Semon drawing, but then actually did make some additional changes to the shape and size of the player's nose, head, and face on the stamp's image so that it did start to look a little like Ruth after all? Though there are some similarities in the face of the player on the stamp to both Ruth and Marquard, there definitely to my eyes looks to be more similarities to Ruth, much more.

I have had a copy of this stamp for years, but never tried examining it with a loupe or magnifying glass, nor tried viewing a much larger and blown-up image of it, like the one Frank posted in this thread, to see that it really did look exactly like Marquard. I always just took and believed what I had heard from others, and read in the SCD catalogs, that the image/player was Marquard and not Ruth. I am not so sure now, and can see where Frank is coming from with his question.

[bbcard1]

I've spent my career in advertising (I'm 62 now)....when I was in my 20s, some of the artists who were in their 60s had what they called Swipe Files...scrapbooks of images they would trace to make drawings...they would deviate from the pic a bit here and there, but the deviation on this particular subject looks minimal.

[EddieP]

Ruth had a different pitching motion

https://youtu.be/sCwsi8MP5Bo

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I've spent my career in advertising (I'm 62 now)....when I was in my 20s, some of the artists who were in their 60s had what they called Swipe Files...scrapbooks of images they would trace to make drawings...they would deviate from the pic a bit here and there, but the deviation on this particular subject looks minimal.

Looks like that could be exactly what is going on here. Someone used a different drawing as a basis for another one they created. And it doesn't really matter if the deviation looks minimal or not, does it? If the idea is simply to make it look just slightly different enough so that it could be argued that it is not the same image, and/or even the exact same person, I would think that just a few subtly differences are all that would be needed. And the fact that Ruth may have had a different pitching motion has absolutely nothing to do with this either. Again, if the artist's goal was to possibly trace an image from elsewhere, and then subtly change things like the facial features to make it look like it was someone else, they aren't going to be worrying about whether the pitching motion was correct or not. For all we know, the stamps' artist could have just been trying to make the player look more generic than how Marquard looked in the Semon drawing, and maybe it wasn't supposed to look anything like Ruth at all either. But then, why does it look a bit like Ruth? And by the way, does anyone know if it is possible that Semon was also used as the artist for the Youth's Companion stamp? If so, I can easily see the same artist re-using an earlier drawing as a basis for creating a slightly different version for a different project. I'm sure that has happened on many occasions in the past for artists trying to create things for public/commercial use.

Which leads me to point out another subtle, though very obvious, facial difference between the two images. On the Semon drawing, look at the shape of what is supposed to be Marquard's mouth, it very clearly is turned up ever so slightly at both ends. But now look at the mouth of the player on the stamp. The ends of that player's mouth are most definitely turning down. That isn't just some optical illusion, or some casual change. That is quite obviously an intentional change made by the stamp's artist, assuming he/she did use the original Semon drawing as a basis for the player's image on the stamp. I'm beginning to think more and more that it is very possible that the stamp's artist may have intentionally changed the facial features on a known Rube Marquard drawing, to at least have the face (and therefore the player) be more generic, let alone possibly be that the intent was for it to actually be Ruth after all. So again, why else the intentional, though subtle, changes to a known drawing of Rube Marquard like that?

Now if the stamp's image was based on an actual photo, that could be different. But it apparently isn't, so Todd's point about the possible use of a "Swipe File" sure doesn't seem implausible.

[robertsmithnocure]

100% Marquard IMHO.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

There's a ton less detail and resolution in the image on the stamp which accounts for the differences and frankly the vagueness in the image. There's no doubt in my mind it's Marquard though. Look at other images that were translated into cards even on T206's there are often subtle differences because there is an artist interpretation between the two plus different mediums being used.