The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was

[packs]

I don't think this premium is particularly valuable or desirable regardless of the content of the letters that come with it. The photo was used on previous cards, the premium set isn't widely collected, and the caption is in the wrong color.

Adding to the contradiction is that the photo used on Ruth's 1935 Goudey Four in One card is a photo of Ruth as a Yankee despite saying Braves under his name. Why would they not issue a card of Ruth because he retired from the Yankees for the premium set only? It is also the same exact photo used for the 1934 premium.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think this premium is particularly valuable or desirable regardless of the content of the letters that come with it. The photo was used on previous cards, the premium set isn't widely collected, and the caption is in the wrong color.

Adding to the contradiction is that the photo used on Ruth's 1935 Goudey Four in One card is a photo of Ruth as a Yankee despite saying Braves under his name. Why would they not issue a card of Ruth because he retired from the Yankees for the premium set only? It is also the same exact photo used for the 1934 premium.

This is not a premium, this is a proof photo for the premium that was never made. I disagree that people do not collect premiums and they arent worth anything; popularity has been increasing along with postcards... Check out the auction realizations for 1934/1935 premiums. That's neither here nor there...

The photo was used for previous cards, as this picture was the 1927 year he batted 60 HRs; it was a widely recognized picture of Ruth. But this is not just a picture, the one below the proof is. Per the photography expert opinion letter,. this work was done in the 30's in anticipation of the photo being used for printing procedures. This involves literally hours and hours of painstaking labor....The old world craftmanship is simply not done today and hasnt been done since the 50's...The hours of labor involved leads me to believe that the work was definitely done so the photo could be used for a baseball card or premium card."

Regarding the caption not being the right color; the proof wasnt used. So likely didnt finish. But it's the exact same font used for the premiums, as provided by the other letter.

And on the 4 in one, they did an airbrush over the cap and it was a closeup. The Goudey premiums were action and body shots, as this proof. They could get away with a crammed 4/1 card, not a body shot. And the 1934 Ruth premium had him in Yankee pinstripes when he was a Yankee. Why would they not issue a card, perhaps they didnt have a Braves body shot of him, would would definitely make sense based on the 4 in 1 you refer to. Because, he was in a "painted" braves cap right?

[joshuanip]

Also, attached is an article from the San Francisco Examiner from 5/5/90 providing some backstory.

Why the photo was reused in Goudey's cards, and that this proof went up on Goudey's office walls after the card was shelved.

Any case, its really cool for something that should have been Babe's last card in his playing days.

SFE top.jpg

SFE bottom.jpg

[joshuanip]

And a better post of the sports collectors digest article. I am beating a dead horse, but I find myself defending this really cool piece of history. I guess if the back story, articles, 2 expert letters, a statement from Ruth's daughter is not enough, I don't know what to say.

SCD better.jpg

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I have no dog in this fight, but citing articles where the owner is the primary source is just a feedback loop.

I think it's cool regardless of what it is, but obviously you were hoping for SOME form of validation posting it here, even if it was just to hear that others appreciated it. If you've been on these boards, even as a lurker, for any amount of time you should realize that people are going to ask tough, knowledgeable questions BECAUSE of their interest in a cool piece such as this one.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I have no dog in this fight, but citing articles where the owner is the primary source is just a feedback loop.

I think it's cool regardless of what it is, but obviously you were hoping for SOME form of validation posting it here, even if it was just to hear that others appreciated it. If you've been on these boards, even as a lurker, for any amount of time you should realize that people are going to ask tough, knowledgeable questions BECAUSE of their interest in a cool piece such as this one.

Thanks for your comments. You're right about the circular loop, that's the closest to the source I have on the origin story. But in totality all the pieces "fit". Problem is its a really complicated story with several steps, so its easy to take one piece of it, take it out of context and cascade it into a reason to refute it.

[joshuanip]

Picture A was retouch work throughout the photo, including the uniform, bat, feet and hands.

Picture A - Proof
IMG_3618.jpg
Picture B - Original Photo
IMG_3621.jpg