The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was

[Forever Young]

I remember when this was at auction but didn’t sell. The image itself is from 1927 by Charles Conlon and used for 3 of his 1933 Goudey cards so I am not sure what the Red Sox connection is here.
These are not original photos. Below is the auction listing with more info. Hard to say what it is for sure by info given. If it could be proven a prototype, it is a cool conversation piece i guess.

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/bids...e?itemid=43369

[Chris Counts]

I am skeptical. For one thing, his name is in white, and all the others I've seen from that set have black lettering. Also, Goudey used the photo the previously year for a premium, and they removed the player in the background. Why would they put him back?

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I remember when this was at auction but didn’t sell. The image itself is from 1927 by Charles Conlon and used for 3 of his 1933 Goudey cards so I am not sure what the Red Sox connection is here.
These are not original photos. Below is the auction listing with more info. Hard to say what it is for sure by info given. If it could be proven a prototype, it is a cool conversation piece guess.

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/bids...e?itemid=43369

Yup, that was the same one, didn't sell because it did not meet the reserve price. I sold off 90% of my collection last year when I needed funds to buy a new house. This was part in that auction. Hence its hanging on my walls.

[joshuanip]

Posting this at the request of another member from PM. Wasnt meant to create controversy, thought it was a cool piece to share and wanted to show it off more than just something on my office.

Here is a certificate signed by Ruth's daughter that a Yankee card was being made in 1935 but was pulled when he was traded.

Cert from Ruth daughter that Goudey was making card.jpg

Here is the expert opinion on the photograph that it was extensively worked on for a proof and why it wasnt used after he was traded.

Photography Export Opinion on Proof.jpg

Here is the type confirmation that the Ruth was of the same font type as the Goudey premiums

Type Confirmation of R309-2.jpg

And article from Sports Collector's Digest (500th issue) about the piece. Its truncated, will try to get a better picture of it along with other articles after work.

SCD 500.jpg

I get the comments on the board, its unique.

[ullmandds]

I don't believe the story one bit...the photo is from the 20's and was already used on 33' goudey...how could this be a "proof" for a 1935 card that never was. doesn't make any sense.

[ullmandds]

now having seen the certificate...I still don't believe it!

[joshuanip]

Well that's your opinion and you are right to it. Explain me the extensive markup on the piece; you kind of see it on the picture, but it is really apparent in person. And please read the letters before reserving judgement.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Well that's your opinion and you are right to it. Explain me the extensive markup on the piece; you kind of see it on the picture, but it is really apparent in person. And please read the letters before reserving judgement.

Its certainly nothing personal...but i am skeptical. I cannot see any marks you mention...the “coa” signed by ruths daughter doesn’t mean anyrhing to me. Opinions of 2 photographers...meh. I hope you are right and it is a “proof” but i dont think anyone can prove it.

where are these "other" similar proofs? seeing those could change my mind?

[hangman62]

hmm.. don't sound cricket

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Its certainly nothing personal...but i am skeptical. I cannot see any marks you mention...the “coa” signed by ruths daughter doesn’t mean anyrhing to me. Opinions of 2 photographers...meh. I hope you are right and it is a “proof” but i dont think anyone can prove it.

where are these "other" similar proofs? seeing those could change my mind?

Pete, I dont think you are getting what each point references to. Ruth daughter's statement was not on the proof, it was that there was to be a card by Goudey with Ruth as a Yankee in 1935. That was all it was meant for, was not a COA on the proof. The other letters serves to support the provenance of the piece. One was from a industry expert, which is extraneous, but the Peltz letter was more important on the credibility on the proof.


I think there is a lot of proof here, not sure what else you need.