Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Babe Ruth mitt from youth in Goldins Next Auction (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=220290)

ullmandds 03-29-2016 09:23 PM

Babe Ruth mitt from youth in Goldins Next Auction
 
What do you guys think of this purported right handed catchers mitt the Ruth supposedly used at St Marys Industrial School as a youth?

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...oming-auction/

vintagesportscollector 03-29-2016 10:49 PM

I'd like to see the listing on Goldins when it's available and how they match the mitt shown to the supporting photos and to a Reach mitt from the era.

vintagesportscollector 03-29-2016 11:33 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Attachment 226026Attachment 226028
Attachment 226029

murphusa 03-29-2016 11:47 PM

~

prewarsports 03-30-2016 12:27 AM

If the school was so poor and relied on donations, why would Ruth have been allowed to keep the glove?

ullmandds 03-30-2016 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports (Post 1520653)
If the school was so poor and relied on donations, why would Ruth have been allowed to keep the glove?

Not that I am convinced this story is true...but I would have to think after ruth got famous he likely "gave back" to st mary's in some way. So maybe st marys wasnt so dire after this...who know?

To me...its possible the glove may have been given "back" to him at a later date...I'm just playing devils advocate here.

I have not looked into said provenance at all yet.

Either way it seems to me that whether authentic or not this item really belongs in the museum where it's been for a long time.

khkco4bls 03-30-2016 09:00 AM

I hate to say it but at the bottom of the glove in the picture the dimple or stain isn't that the same one on the glove

Michael B 03-30-2016 12:54 PM

I noticed in the photos that the opening in the back spans at least three fingers and cuts high into the thumb. The one shown spans two fingers and does not cut high. I would say not the same glove as in the photos.

JollyElm 03-31-2016 04:33 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Based on the pictures, it really doesn't look to be the same mitt. But it made me think of 1962 card #135, because that guy seated in front looked very familiar. And sure enough, he's the same guy in the lower right whose face is cut off...

Attachment 226152

ullmandds 03-31-2016 07:28 AM

it really does not look to be the same mitt based on the pics to me either.

sad thing is that someone will spend a pretty sizable chunk of change on it regardless of whether its real or not.

ullmandds 03-31-2016 07:28 AM

And Im sure Ken will revise the story to suggest that there were multiple catchers mitts used at st marys.

vintagesportscollector 03-31-2016 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 1521175)
Based on the pictures, it really doesn't look to be the same mitt. But it made me think of 1962 card #135, because that guy seated in front looked very familiar. And sure enough, he's the same guy in the lower right whose face is cut off...

Attachment 226152

Thanks Darren. That card provides another good view of the Mitt for comparison.

dhernandez 03-31-2016 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murphusa (Post 1520648)
Dream on. Another case of a good story used to get someone to give away their money


+1

murphusa 03-31-2016 12:19 PM

~

53Browns 03-31-2016 01:54 PM

Talk about a streeeeetch. Next they'll be selling his baby rattle. With the correct provenance of course.

murphusa 04-01-2016 01:44 PM

*

murphusa 04-01-2016 01:59 PM

`

perezfan 04-01-2016 02:11 PM

...

sporteq 04-01-2016 02:39 PM

How about Lot #28: Spectacular 1920's Autographed 11"x14" Babe Ruth Photo.. This is clearly a 1940's photo. In fact, I think it's a 1942.

These are major screw-ups.. Great stuff guys!

Leon 04-01-2016 02:47 PM

Everyone in this thread needs to have their first and last name in your post or have your name be easily ascertained from your sig line, website etc..or you can edit your comments out.....thanks

keithsky 04-01-2016 03:23 PM

There are so many more knowledgeable guys on Net54 than the so called experts that these auction companies use. Maybe it's time they get more than one opinion from there so called experts. Good job guys

murphusa 04-01-2016 03:51 PM

~

WindyCityGameUsed 04-02-2016 11:49 AM

,

mickeymao34 04-02-2016 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithsky (Post 1521871)
There are so many more knowledgeable guys on Net54 than the so called experts that these auction companies use. Maybe it's time they get more than one opinion from there so called experts. Good job guys

I agree

sbfinley 04-02-2016 01:29 PM

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but to me the glove offered looks more like that pictured in the Ruth photos (particularly the 62 topps) than the example provided as a true era catchers mitt. Just because it isn't a catchers mitt doesn't mean it wasn't used by an orphan at an industrial school near the turn of the century. He wasn't exactly playing at the IMG academy. Also, the "dimple" someone alluded to as not being evident can actually be seen (IMO) in the auction photos. As an aside, someone mentioned the lengths that an auction house will go to prove a story or item for their own good. In my experience, the sentiment is just as strong on the other side of the fence as there are some who will move heaven and earth to discredit an auction house or authenticator just because of their distrust for the particular system. I don't collect this particular memorabilia and I'm definitely not an expert, but it's plausible as authentic. Just my two cents.

David Atkatz 04-02-2016 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbfinley (Post 1522250)
I'm definitely not an expert, but it's plausible as authentic. Just my two cents.

I entirely disagree. It is very, very, improbable that the glove Ruth used as a boy still exists. It is an extraordinary claim that it does, and that this is it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see none here.

Peter_Spaeth 04-02-2016 04:47 PM

I have no idea about the authenticity of this item -- just skepticism about memorabilia in general -- but these big ticket memorabilia items always make me think of the great Wallace Stevens line: "And what we said of it/became a part of what it is."

perezfan 04-02-2016 05:07 PM

...

WindyCityGameUsed 04-02-2016 05:58 PM

,

dhernandez 04-02-2016 09:58 PM

I'm NOT a big fan of this auction house by any means. But in all honesty they have held 2 stellar Babe Ruth Auctions with amazing historical items. So it is very possible that this AH has connections to Ruth's stuff that others don't. Something of this vintage and age you would have to place some merit on provenance. Lets face it NO photomatch of an item this old is going to be produced and provenance is as good as it will get. Putting this item aside this auction does also offer an amazing Christy Mathewson bat.

sbfinley 04-02-2016 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindyCityGameUsed (Post 1522361)
EXCELLENT POST!!!!

My Point Exactly Spot On

IMO from what I have seen in the hobby over the years is that memorabilia in general doesn't have to be AUTHENTIC/GAME USED anymore, memorabilia only needs to meet the unwritten industry standard of being plausible authentic to cover sellers backsides from retrobution.

If your going to spend hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands don’t you think items being sold should meet a standard of more than just being plausible???

Considering I based my "plausible" opinion from reading an article on a phone at a 5 year old's birthday party, yeah plausible should be enough of a standard for this item.

btcarfagno 04-03-2016 12:20 AM

Not to pile on or anything, but lot #68 was not worn by Ted Williams. This piece originated from the Halper collection (bad start). Research that I did proves that Wliams did not wear uniform #9 during this series. Whether Williams thinks he did or not is irrelevant. He didn't. This is someone else's uniform.

Tom C

yanks12025 04-03-2016 06:10 AM

,,,,

jsage 04-03-2016 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1522507)
Not to pile on or anything, but lot #68 was not worn by Ted Williams. This piece originated from the Halper collection (bad start). Research that I did proves that Wliams did not wear uniform #9 during this series. Whether Williams thinks he did or not is irrelevant. He didn't. This is someone else's uniform.

Tom C

What uniform # did Ted Williams wear in the series?
Jerry Sage

Shoeless Moe 04-03-2016 01:51 PM

Did anyone see the mention the Piazza 9/11 jersey got on the Sports Reporters on ESPN today?

They couldn't believe the Mets sold it.

btcarfagno 04-03-2016 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsage (Post 1522664)
What uniform # did Ted Williams wear in the series?
Jerry Sage

He wore #23. Stan Musial wore #14.

Tom C

ooo-ribay 04-03-2016 04:58 PM

Well, Barry Bonds is the all time HR leader, anyway. :D

sbfinley 04-03-2016 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1522687)
He wore #23. Stan Musial wore #14.

Tom C

I know this is true for the 45' series, but what about 43' (not sure if they played one in 44'). If I remember correctly #9 in the 45' series was attributed to a college player (Oregon State maybe). I'm not defending the jersey, just questioning.

btcarfagno 04-03-2016 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbfinley (Post 1522942)
I know this is true for the 45' series, but what about 43' (not sure if they played one in 44'). If I remember correctly #9 in the 45' series was attributed to a college player (Oregon State maybe). I'm not defending the jersey, just questioning.

Is there anything that dates this jersey to a specific year? The photo provided was from the 1945 series where he wore #23, and Williams erroneously states that it is the jersey in the picture. Nothing in the item description says that another person wore #9 in one of the possible years for the jersey. Also notable that there is no authentication provided.

Adding in the fact that it hails from the collection of Barry Halper and anyone who buys the jersey thinking Williams actually wore it is deluding himself.

Tom C

David Atkatz 04-03-2016 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1522970)
Adding in the fact that it hails from the collection of Barry Halper and anyone who buys the jersey thinking Williams actually wore it is deluding himself.

Tom C

Ditto the "Ruth" mitt.

sbfinley 04-03-2016 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1522970)
Is there anything that dates this jersey to a specific year? The photo provided was from the 1945 series where he wore #23, and Williams erroneously states that it is the jersey in the picture. Nothing in the item description says that another person wore #9 in one of the possible years for the jersey. Also notable that there is no authentication provided.

Adding in the fact that it hails from the collection of Barry Halper and anyone who buys the jersey thinking Williams actually wore it is deluding himself.

Tom C

By stating "attributed" I was recalling a lineup or scorecard I've seen from the series. I only asked the date because there were multiple series and one of the Williams "letters" mentions 1943. The 43 series was on the east coast, but I think they wore jerseys with trimmed letters. If that style of Jersey was only worn in 45, then yeah it wasn't worn by Williams.

btcarfagno 04-04-2016 01:23 PM

***Update on the Williams Navy Uniform***

I didn't see it in my email originally, but Goldin Auctions contacted me very soon after my original post requesting what info I had. After speaking with them today, they have amended the item and removed all mention of it having been worn by Williams in a game. It is now shown as a period uniform that is autographed by Williams.

Good job by Goldin on that front for sure.

https://goldinauctions.com/1940s_Ted...-LOT21440.aspx

Tom C

EDIT: I see that it still says that it was likely worn by Williams during the period from the original description. Not sure if that maybe cannot be removed? In red across the top they have corrected to being a period uniform signed by Williams.

baseball tourist 04-04-2016 02:18 PM

-
 
Re: Lot 339 - 2015 Josh Donaldson Game Used and Signed Toronto Blue Jays Postseason Away Jersey (PSA/DNA)

I sent this to a Goldin rep and then posted this here unfortunately without waiting very long for the auction house to respond and possibly to amend (if they chose to). It was posted and emailed to give them the head's up, not to criticise. The auction house's response has been quick and amendments have been made.

https://goldinauctions.com/2015_Josh...-LOT21633.aspx

Just thought I should point something out to you, regarding the Donaldson Jays jersey in your current action (pls see link and item listing above).

I am a rabid and long time Jays fan and collector and can tell you with 100% certainty that the road gray Toronto jerseys weren’t worn in the 2015 Jays postseason run.

The Jays only wore their “alternate” jerseys, the dark blues throughout the entire 2015 ALDS and 2015 ALCS, both at home and away. There were only 5 postseason road games played by Toronto in the postseason (Game 3 & 4 of the ALDS in Texas and Games 1, 2 & 6 of the ALCS in KC) and if you look at the following game recap links you will see that the grays were not worn (btw..the photo in the last link is hard for me to view, even now ).

Game 3 ALDS http://www.680news.com/2015/10/13/bl...s-game-3-alds/
Game 4 ALDS http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...alds/73841916/

Game 1 ALCS http://www.thestar.com/sports/blueja...s-tonight.html
Game 2 ALCS http://m.mlb.com/news/article/154785...ys-alcs-game-2
Game 6 ALCS http://wtop.com/mlb/2015/10/royals-r...n-alcs-game-6/

Still a great jersey, and one that was no doubt readied for PS Game use, and possibly used in the regular season prior to being crested for intended use in the PS, but unfortunately couldn’t have seen PS game action.

murphusa 04-04-2016 07:25 PM

I am issuing this post as an apology to Goldin Auctions and its consignor of the circa 1912 Babe Ruth catcher’s mitt. I have been shown evidence that proves to my satisfaction that my prior statements on the issue were incorrect. I have, accordingly, withdrawn my prior posts and write to wish Goldin Auctions much success on its auction

bnorth 04-04-2016 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murphusa (Post 1523318)
I am issuing this post as an apology to Goldin Auctions and its consignor of the circa 1912 Babe Ruth catcher’s mitt. I have been shown evidence that proves to my satisfaction that my prior statements on the issue were incorrect. I have, accordingly, withdrawn my prior posts and write to wish Goldin Auctions much success on its auction

Can you comment on what the new evidence is?

Peter_Spaeth 04-04-2016 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1523323)
Can you comment on what the new evidence is?

I second the motion.

Peter_Spaeth 04-04-2016 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhernandez (Post 1522458)
I'm NOT a big fan of this auction house by any means. But in all honesty they have held 2 stellar Babe Ruth Auctions with amazing historical items. So it is very possible that this AH has connections to Ruth's stuff that others don't. Something of this vintage and age you would have to place some merit on provenance. Lets face it NO photomatch of an item this old is going to be produced and provenance is as good as it will get. Putting this item aside this auction does also offer an amazing Christy Mathewson bat.

Two 180s in one thread. (see post 13) What gives?

Correction, three, Perezfan also deleted his post.

botn 04-04-2016 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1523342)
Two 180s in one thread. (see post 13) What gives?

Correction, three, Perezfan also deleted his post.

I think there are 4 people who deleted posts not to mention one person who as recent as a week ago has been on a mission to attack the auction house in question at every chance but on this thread he actually promoted the sale and gave props to the house. Could be that someone's lawyer drafted a letter or email.

I love the silence afterwards. No hesitation sharing their opinions publicly about why they felt the mitt did not id but unwilling to share the basis for retracting the original opinion. That has to be kept quiet. LOL.

Leon 04-05-2016 09:16 AM

I wonder how many lawsuits were threatened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by botn (Post 1523400)
I think there are 4 people who deleted posts not to mention one person who as recent as a week ago has been on a mission to attack the auction house in question at every chance but on this thread he actually promoted the sale and gave props to the house. Could be that someone's lawyer drafted a letter or email.

I love the silence afterwards. No hesitation sharing their opinions publicly about why they felt the mitt did not id but unwilling to share the basis for retracting the original opinion. That has to be kept quiet. LOL.


slidekellyslide 04-05-2016 09:35 AM

I look forward to this convincing evidence being added to the auction description.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.