Babe Ruth Rookie

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

[CW]

In my opinion, this is debatable and you won't get 100% consensus in the hobby any time soon. An argument can be made for Baltimore News, but some think it's more of a schedule than a "baseball card". These days it seems like many collectors are leaning towards the M101 as Ruth's "rookie card".

Much like Cobb, nobody is in 100% agreement for that player's rookie card, and I'm not sure we all have to agree, necessarily (especially with prewar players).

[DennyH]

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by DennyH

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

Denny,
When you say that the Sporting News is obtainable.........that is simply untrue unless of course by obtainable you mean "incredibly rare and unaffordable".
Back in 2011, the worst conditioned PSA graded Sporting News Ruth sold for $15,275. It was a PSA 1. There are only 2 PSA 1s in existence (to date) and there are only 2 slabbed PSA Authentic examples. If those 2 Authentic examples came to light, my guess is they would bring north of $10,000 each but do not hold your breath. If you want an "affordable" Ruth, I'd stick with the 1933 Goudeys where the unwritten rule is about a grand for each PSA grade (for the lower grades under 5) so if you find a PSA 3 (1933 Goudey Ruth) you might expect to pay around $3000 for that copy. For a PSA 2, 2 grand, etc....

The early Ruth cards are like Gold right now so unless you make the find of the century, you will need a LARGE bankroll to obtain one.

Peace, Mike

PS I did not check the SGC pop report for Ruth Sporting News but I think my point is pretty self explanatory.

[kailes2872]

There are two in the current Heritage Auction.

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7135-80965.s

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7135-80966.s

70 grand for the 5 (+ BP), 34 grand for the 4 (+BP) with 2 weeks left. I guess attainable is a relative term - much more attainable than a Wagner, but well outside of my pay grade.

[vthobby]

Kevin,
We must have been typing at the same time with the same "obtainable" word kicking around in our heads!

Peace, Mike

[DennyH]

Is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards? Anyone on this board or anyone whom one can contact to see about purchasing an Authentic because it sounds like its within my range north of 10,000 for a Ruth rookie.

If anyone is selling or know anyone who is please contact me about a possible purchase.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by DennyH

Is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards? Anyone on this board or anyone whom one can contact to see about purchasing an Authentic because it sounds like its within my range north of 10,000 for a Ruth rookie.

If anyone is selling or know anyone who is please contact me about a possible purchase.

Denny my friend...you are new to this game...you can't just go to target and buy a Ruth rookie card. You will have to put in some time searching for the right one and then go after it. It could take months even longer. Have fun searching!

[Bicem]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

+1

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

I think that Jeff summarized it perfectly.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

Agreed...are there less 1915 RPPCs than Baltimore News 1914 cards? What is the combined pop on the B-News?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

Well put, Jeff!

Highest regards,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in. The 1916 M101-4 and 101-5 are his actual major league rookies, while his 1914 Blatimore News is considered his first card. The latter is actually a schedule card for the then minor league Baltimore Orioles, used to promote both the Orioles and circulation of the local Baltimore paper. By 1933, the Babe was 38 years old, most certainly not a rookie, and beginning to fade quite quickly (34 homers; .301, purely by recollection, with just 22 HR's and .288 his next and last year with the Yankees).

I'm sure other members have said the same thing, but just saw the original post and wanted to get my two cents ($1.25???) in. Unfortunately for most, the time for purchasing the real Ruth rookie for any semblance of an affordable price was in the early '90's, when prices varied from around $2,000 for a legitimate VG example to $5,000 plus for EXMT or better (one graded "Fair" recently sold for $36,000, if I recall correctly, in the most recent REA auction). IMHO, any contemporary Ruth is likely to rise in value--you may want to check out the 1921 Exhibit, which is somewhat available (though not abundant) as one that is reasonably priced. That year also represented the Babe's best performance (again, by recollection only, .378 or .376 BA; 59 HR's; 44 Doubles; 16 Triples, for a record 119 extra base hits). It was also the year of the Yankees' first pennant).

Enjoy any Ruth issued contemporaneously with his playing days that you can find, in the best condition you can afford.

Best of luck,

Larry

PS: The only market that "crashed" in the early '90's was the new card market, which had been based primarily upon speculation and transient demand.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in.

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

[nolemmings]

What are promotional cards?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

Like I said, it's not my logic. I tried to go out of my way to say that, actually. I simply gave Beckett's rationale, which is what I've heard echoed over the years numerous times when this subject has come up elsewhere.

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back). (Edited to add in addition to the blank backs, obviously)

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is obviously Ruth's rookie card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider his rookie card?

[MetsBaseball1973]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

From what I have heard, this whole collecting rookie cards didn't even exist in the hobby until the 70s/80s where it was perpetuated by some card dealers in order to increase business. So, it's not like kids in the 1930s were jumping for joy after opening a 1933 Goudey pack and find Babe Ruth's "rookie" card, and then sending the card into their favorite TPG to be properly entombed. So whatever "long held hobby definition" of rookie cards that there has been, really hasn't been held for that long of a period.

[MetsBaseball1973]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest solo card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I can see that. And I think the many years off from the beginning of Ruth's career to the Goudey cards are a big problem when trying to justify them as rookie cards. His is a special case for sure.

I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

...
I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

It's tough to figure out rookie cards for a lot of players, both modern and pre-war. For modern cards, you usually have a lot of sets who distribute the rookie card of the player in that year, and some of the parallels are limited to a specific # run like 25. So usually collectors try to choose the "best" card from the rookie year that's not limited to a small print run as the player's rookie card. (However, the cards that tend to be most valuable are the auto cards with the limited run for that rookie year.)

For pre-war, there are a lot of players like Cobb and Gehrig who have a whole bunch of cards issued around their rookie year, so it can be hard to figure out which one is the "best" rookie card. For Gehrig, I think most collectors choose the 1925 Exhibits as his rookie card, but some collectors don't like postcard size (or larger) cards as rookie cards. However, then the 1925-31 W590 was issued over a period of years, so collectors don't like that either.

I think most "advanced collectors" for pre-war rookie cards follow one of Phil's lists for HOF rookies or first cards issued or look at the list on Old Cardboard and pick the best one they like: Link. (If you click on the player's name on the list, you can see some of the different options.)

[nolemmings]

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

[nolemmings]

Next tell me that Sporting News was regional. The m101 Ruths were distributed from California, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana and Washington DC. They were distributed by a national periodical--at that time likely the pre-eminent baseball paper--to anywhere the US mail was received.

Can you show me that Goudey gum was that widely distributed?

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

Fair enough - my definition of 'promotional' may have technically been a bit off and there's surely a better way of saying it. But the gist of my argument is that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News mainstream cards - which is why they have always called the Goudey Ruth cards his rookies. Right or wrong, I believe that has always been their stance.