As promised, here is the letter I have provided Grey Flannel. This is a rather long post as it was a six page letter. Truely a wonderful and historic jersey.
v/r
Dave Grob
Subject: Letter of Opinion Early 1930s Babe Ruth Road Jersey.
On 30 April 2005, I evaluated this jersey for the purpose of offering an opinion as to whether it could be placed as being the jersey Babe Ruth wore in the 1932 World Series when he hit the famous “Called Shot” home run . I was provided access to the jersey and a packet of photographs.
To form any sort of opinion that is defendable, it must begin with a statement of fact. In this case, these were facts about this jersey and what was known about it and the context in which it was being examined.
FACTS:
1. This is a road jersey of Babe Ruth.
2. This jersey was manufactured by Spalding.
3. The Yankees wore this style in 1931 after a two year style of Yankees on the front.
4. We don’t know how many jersey the Yankees ordered each year.
5. The Yankees did not add uniforms numbers to the back of their uniforms until 1929.
6. There are other teams from this period who have some sort of numerical tagging on both home and road uniforms that have nothing to do with year or player number. Some of these teams uniforms were also manufactured by Spalding.
7. The Ruth jersey in question does not have any form of year or set identification.
8. The home jersey of that was offered as a comparative example is a home jersey, manufactured by Spalding that does not have any form of year or set identification.
9. Both the Ruth road jersey and the home representative example jersey both have G.H. RUTH chain stitched in the collar.
10. The collar chain stitching of both of these shirts is different, but both display characteristics with what you would expect to see in Yankees jerseys from this period in terms of style, application, and material.
11. The lack of any year or set tagging does not mean only one set was ordered.
12. If a team wanted players to have more than one home or one road jersey each year, they would have to order two, order one and carry over one, or carry over two from the previous year.
13. There is a player in the 1932 Yankees spring training picture wearing a 1929-1930 style road jersey. The Yankees did not strip all these jerseys down for reuse, or at least one.
14. There are no other Ruth road jerseys on hand from this same period to compare with or use to exclude as possibilities.
15. There is no distinctive and unique feature that can place the jersey in the photograph to the jersey at auction at the exclusion of all other possibilities.
16. The jersey shows no signs of alterations.
17. The annotations of “3”, “4”, “B” on other period jerseys refer to something that serves some purpose or it would not have been done for cosmetic or design purposes as they are not apparent when the jersey is worn.
Assumptions:
1. The home representative jersey in the pictures provided is a 1932 home.
2. The Yankees only ordered one new set of uniforms each year.
3. The Yankees preferred that each player had two homes and two roads at any one given time (this is not the same as saying they ordered two new sets).
4. Other teams from this period preferred their players had more than home or road jersey on hand (this is not the same as saying they ordered two sets of each).
Examination:
The majority of the images were of poor quality. These images lacked an object of know size that could be referenced to add scale to the photograph. Working on the assumption that the rear numeral for these uniforms is a standard 6 15/16th inches (based on a comparison to a Ruth home jersey from the same period that was not on hand at the time I made my evaluation ), it was inferred that the numerals on Lou Gehrig (#4) and Joe Sewell (#21) were the same size for that given year. One of the photos showed both Gehrig and Sewell greeting Ruth as he crossed the plate following the historic home run. This allows some rough scale to be provided to the uniforms. This is only valid for the purposes of confirming some rough scale as it applies to the NEW YORK on the front of the Ruth jersey. The 2 7/8th inch felt lettering is consistent with the approximate size you could infer as being on the Ruth jersey in the photograph, that being under three inches.
This is not conclusive in and of itself to be able to attribute or exclude the jersey from the “Called Shot” for two reasons:
1. No actual scale could be established.
2. Letter size NEW YORK is expected to be consistent for the period/year and therefore not expected to be distinctive.
Grey Flannel had provided a transparency comparison of the front of the jersey in their possession with a zerox image of the “Called Shot” jersey of the same approximate size. This does not substantiate the claim of attribution to the event as this only shows that at a certain point of magnification, the scale is the name. Since this was done on a transparency, I showed how this only has minor value is comparing the arch of the lettering. Since the actual size and scale was not known, and the image of the “Called Shot” jersey was taken when the jersey was worn vs being displayed flat, no conclusion should be made even if the arch was not the same nor the letters matching precisely.
On the issue of button alignment of the second button from the top as aligned with the bottom of the “Y” does permit a definitive claim to be substantiated. Depending on the photo used, and an assumption on where the button was actually located within the button hole at the time of the photograph, that variance in the alignment from the bottom of the “Y” in “YORK” can be as much as a 1/2 inch. The transparency Grey Flannel prepared indicates, by virtue of the shadow and angle of both the button and from which the photograph suggests the “Y” in the photograph was sewn lower than the “Y” on the jersey in their possession. This characteristic alone would not be enough to substantiate the claim of attribution, this variance, given the poor qualities of the photographs and lack of other actual uniforms for comparison is not and should be seen as an automatic disqualifier either.
In certain cases when you are trying to ascertain if a jersey is the exact same one as the item in question, this can be done if you can exclude all other possibilities. It has been suggested that the New York Yankees only issued one set of homes and one set of roads each year. When you are dealing with uniforms from this period, you have to look at additional information to support any reasonable hypothesis one way or another. This is necessary because the hobby lacks any formal records such as shipping records for bats and there just aren't the quantity of uniforms to honestly do much else.
When doing trend analysis, you have to look at a range and then consider what might be probable based on those observations.
1929 Tigers Home of Richard Nolan. Halper Auction Lot #774. This jersey predates Tiger's using numbers (began in 1931). This jersey has "3-29" chain stitched in the tail. MFG is Spalding.
1931 Chicago Cubs Home of Ed Baect. Masto Net June of 2003., Lot # 1236. This uniform has "3-31" chain stitched in the tail. Cubs did not begin wearing numbers until 1932. MFG is Spalding.
1932 St. Louis Browns Home Jerseys of Rick Ferrell (Hunt Actions Lot # 992, FEB 2004), Lou Polli (Hunts Auction Lot # 993 FEB 2004) and George Blaeholder (Hunts Auction Lot # 995 FEB 2004). All three of these jerseys manufactured by Spalding have the annotation of “ 3 32” chain stitched in them. In this offering are two other home uniforms from the same period (1931-1933) without any sort of numerical annotations. Lot # 994 is placed to 1933 because that is the only year Lin Storti wore that style with that number. Lot # 997 is placed to the 1931-1932 period for the same reasons. This shows examples from the same team and years when none of these players wore # 3 (Goose Goslin wore # 3 that season). It also shows a sampling of both tagged and untagged uniforms within the same period. This example shows commonality with the Ruth jersey in terms of manufacturer and year if the jersey is presumed to be from 1932.
1932 Chicago Cubs Home Jersey of Rogers Hornsby ( Richard Wolfers Auctions November 1991, Lot 861 and then later in Robert Edwards Auction as Lot 5 June of 1996). This jersey is manufactured by Spalding and has “3 32” chain stitched in the back rear tail.
1934 Cincinnati Reds Road of Ray Kolp. Leland's Auction June of 1998, Lot # 729. Jersey has “4 21” or “B 21” Chain stitched in the tail. Kolp wore #21. MFG is Gold Smith.
What this suggests is that these annotations have nothing to do with uniform number. Since we are dealing with the numbers 3 and 4, I feel it is reasonable to assume they relate to uniform quantity. I don't think this suggest that this these are the third or fourth home or third or fourth road, rather they reflect relative number in respect to total. If not, then what do they reasonably mean? This sampling, albeit small, accounts for a 6 year period and is both before and after the Ruth jersey. What would be the rational for tagging the one home jersey as “3” and one road jersey as “4”? It might be more logical to suggest that the first home untagged (uniform #1), first road untagged (uniform #2) second home uniform tagged # 3 and forth road uniform tagged #4.
Working with the assumption that Yankee's preferred players to have two home and road uniforms each season, it is necessary to consider the possibilities involved in generating that quantity. This is important as it establishes the population of possible jerseys.
The Yankees, according to Mark Okkonen’s book, “Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century,” changed the front of the road jerseys in 1931 from Yankees to NEW YORK. There is no evidence that the Yankees wore both a style of “YANKEES” and “NEW YORK” in 1931. To give each player two jerseys for the 1931 season these are the options available:
Option One: They stripped the YANKEES off the front and replaced it with NEW YORK prior to the 1931 season. If this was the case, then one would have to account for why a player in the 1932 spring training picture( GF photo pack) has a YANKEES Road. This would have been a year after the uniforms where stripped down.
Option Two: They stripped down one and ordered one set.
Option Three: Ordered two jerseys for the 1931 season.
Since the NY Yankees uniforms from this time period lack any set or year identification and there is no empirical data or inventory records that I am currently aware of to substantiate the claim, it is necessary to consider the possibilities that relate to the total number of possible jerseys. I bring this up to highlight that relative number of jersey possibilities does not permit the exclusion of all other possibilities necessary to substantiate any absolute claim that this jersey is the “Called Shot” uniform. Nor is it an automatic disqualifier either.
This jersey posses all the characteristics of what you would expect to see in a Babe Ruth New York Yankees road jersey from the period of 1931-1932 in terms of period Spalding manufacturers label, original felt lettering and numeral, and style/cut of letting in NEW YORK. Buttons are vintage and original. “Ruth. G. H” is correctly chain stitched in red cotton based thread in the back of the neck area. This player identification is only sewn through the first collar fold. There are no signs that the collar was opened up at any point as indicative of contrived player attribution. Since the photographs from the home jersey showing the collar stitching is only assumed to be from the 1932 season, it can not be used to substantiate year placement to 1932. Although they are similar in construction, fabric, and general application, they are also manner specific differences between the two:
The Letter “H”: Look at the "H" in both. The home has an extra point of fabric extending out in the middle left of the letter.
The Letter “R”: The "R" is different as well. The road jersey lacks any sort of real down turn at the end. The home jersey, on the other hand is very pronounced with respect to down turn.
The Letter "G":
In the road jersey, the end of the "G" with the start point being the closest to the end of the "r" and you begin to sewn or "sign" it upwards, ends without crossing back over into the l body of the letter "G". On the home jersey, the end of the "G" clearly cuts back into and through the body of the letter. There is also a pronounced upturn in the beginning of the G on the home jersey that is not present on the road shirt. The road "G" also appears to have a closing line of stitching at the bottom right that is not present on the home jersey.
The elongation of the loops in the "R" "H" and "G" of the road shirt are also consistently wider than those same points in home jersey.
This area is addressed in detail to highlight that a claim that the road jersey is from the same year as the home jersey because the collar tagging matches is not defendable. It should be noted as well that since they do not match, this in and of itself would not serve as an automatic disqualifier either.
There are no signs of alterations of any kind or customization that facilitate placing this uniform to that worn during the “Called Shot.” Likewise, this factor does not provide any automatic disqualification such as variance in sleeve length.
Given the poor quality of the images provided and the apparent lack distinguishable or unique characteristics on the uniform in the photos and the uniform in question (other than the tear in the back of the left shoulder which does not appear in any of the photographs); combined with the fact the original offering of this jersey and supporting provenance by Grey Flannel attributed this jersey to 1930 and spring training in 1931, it is my opinion that the jersey can not definitively declared as the jersey worn by Babe Ruth when he hit the “Called Shot” home run against the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field on 1 October 1932. It would only be reasonable and accurate at best to state that it is possible. This is not the same as probable or likely.
My opinion is that this jersey is an unaltered Babe Ruth NY Yankees Road jersey manufactured in either 1931 or 1932 and it is possible that it was the jersey he was wearing when he hit the famous “Called Shot” home run.
I have not been paid for this opinion nor offered any form of compensation in any manner for my work. I base my opinion off of commonly accepted practices for imagery analysis with regard to mensuration techniques, use of negatives for the purpose of determining shadow and angle of object as it relates to angle from which the photograph was taken. I am a graduate of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Officer’s Advanced Course and have a Master of Science Degree in Strategic Intelligence. I have served in intelligence positions since 1993.
I have been a collector/researcher of baseball uniforms for over 15 years. I have self published references within this area that are on file at the Giamatti Research Library at Cooperstwon, NY. I have provided assistance to the Cooperstown Graduate Research program in the area of uniform manufacturers of the 20th Century. I have provided similar work and opinions on jerseys using these same principles and techniques in the past, including be able to substantiate the claim for the jersey Roger Maris was wearing when he broke Babe Ruth single season home run record in 1961.
I have agreed to offer this opinion in support of my continuing research on Major League Game Used Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century. I will gladly answer any questions about anything provided in this letter.
DAVID W. GROB
Encls
Grey Flannel November 10-11 1999 Auction Description; lot # 491
Photographic images provided to me for analysis and comparison
What an amazing piece of research. I just got done looking at the jersey on the GF website after reading your letter. What an amazing jersey. The fact that this jersey cannot be substantiated as "THE" called shot jersey should in no way diminish the fact that this is an amazing jersey. We can only wish that all of the so-called "professional" authenicators went to this level to authenticate the jerseys on which they routinely write letters of opinion.
Your hard work and level of professionalism is appreciated.
A couple of questions if I may:
How were your conclusions received by GF?
Was there any detailed discussion of the necessity of having an item of known scale in a photograph in order to properly analyze an image?
Thanks for the kind words. I consider myself very fortunate to have been given the chance to look at the jersey..
Obviously there are some differences in opinions and differnt methods used by anyone who looked at the shirt.. I just have my way of doing things and part of what I do in a letter is tell and show you why I think the way I do..If I can do that then I feel I have permitted the bidder to make an informed purchase.
I will not attempt to speak for Grey Flannel on what they thought of my opinion as that would be out of place. Any questions about that should be fielded by them.
As far as having an object of known size, this did come up and I think they understand what part that plays in the process.
Once again, thanks for the post and for taking the time to read it..
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.
To GF's credit, by the wording of their description regarding "the majority" of those who examined the jerseys, there is an implication that there was a dissenting opinion.
Regardless, it's still a beautiful jersey and a wonderful piece of history.
Dave, thanks for posting your findings, very interesting indeed. I do not collect game used but am very fasinated by this jersey. Without divulging names or places, could you give us some idea of the provinance of this jersey. Where obtained, how long in one particulare collection etc... I would also be interested in knowing your opinion on what the hammer price could be on this jersey. Thanks for all of your work.
Eric
p.s. How in the world do you find the time to do all this?!!
Thanks for the post..and for the chance to look at a shirt like this..you make the time.
As far as provenance, this is what was listed in the Grey Flannel Cataloge back in November of 1999 (lot # 491): "The provenance of this uniform can be traced back to the daughter of one of Ruth's golfing cronies. In 1991, Grey Flannel obtained this uniform from her for one of their customers."
I don't know who that person was nor do I know who consigned it now. For me, I prefer not to be told who consigned the jersey so that there is not the percieved issue of having objectivity influenced one way or another.
Since my opinion on this item may or may not effect a persons bidding decision, I would rather not offer any price estimate as well. I think what will drive the price one way or another is the degree of comfort the person(s) bidding has in what they feel they are bidding on with respect to it being the "Called Shot" jersey or not.
Dave
I have taken the liberty of printing a copy of your research. GREAT WORK! It makes a fantastic checklist and template for "at-home" authentication of my own collection!
I admire your "just the facts" attitude...a lesson for authenticators everywhere!
Thanks..I am sure many who read this forum are not likley bidders on this jersey simply because of the price it will command. If you can take away something from the letter in the form of TTP's (Army speak for Tactics, Techinques, and Procedures)then that is even better...
