The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Not really a fair request to put on a message board as to what my reserve price was.

fair enough...my point being if this was a one of a kind, ruth "proof" and the evidence to support this was a "slam dunk"...as hot as ruth items are these days...I'd assume it would sell rather briskly.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

fair enough...my point being if this was a one of a kind, ruth "proof" and the evidence to support this was a "slam dunk"...as hot as ruth items are these days...I'd assume it would sell rather briskly.

exactly. The fact that it didn’t sell at auction tells me all I need to know.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

exactly. The fact that it didn’t sell at auction tells me all I need to know.

Red, it didnt sell because it didnt reach my reserve.

And by the way, its fun to be skeptical (and hueristic) on something you dont own. So you look at shortcuts and make quick judgments. But if you are calling a piece out, provide evidence that refutes the piece, not opinion please. Otherwise, I think this piece has a lot of support on it's provenance.

All this is not related to why I was sharing the piece initially...

[bigtrain]

Let's say that in 1990, at the time of the SCD article, Julia Ruth Stevens,
then a mere 74 years old was asked about this piece. Why would she
remember anything about the circumstances involving a photo from 56 years earlier? Why would this stick in the memory of Babe's 18 year old daughter?
I have no idea whether this piece is legitimate. However, I don't think Ms. Steven's certificate adds much to the proofs.

[joshuanip]

Hi Tom,

The statement from Ruth's daughter has nothing to do with the proof. All she says was that Goudey was going to do a premium card for her father but was not made because he left the Yankees.

Does not prove the piece and remembering a very disappointing point in her father's life was plausible, as he was hoping for the manager job with the yankees. It does prove that there was to be a Goudey premium with Ruth as Yankee in 1935.

[Rookiemonster]

I can’t see any of the images in this thread.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Hi Tom,

The statement from Ruth's daughter has nothing to do with the proof. All she says was that Goudey was going to do a premium card for her father but was not made because he left the Yankees.

Does not prove the piece and remembering a very disappointing point in her father's life was plausible, as he was hoping for the manager job with the yankees. It does prove that there was to be a Goudey premium with Ruth as Yankee in 1935.

A traumatic event in her father's life, and what she recalls many decades later was that Goudey had to cancel a specific premium card of the Babe. The same Babe that licensed his name and image to tons and tons of products. That's really odd. His daughter has this particular memory. Damm that strains credulity.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

A traumatic event in her father's life, and what she recalls many decades later was that Goudey had to cancel a specific premium card of the Babe. The same Babe that licensed his name and image to tons and tons of products. That's really odd. His daughter has this particular memory. Damm that strains credulity.

I am not her, but she signed it stating that the course of events happened and didn't happen. Not like he had a lot of baseball cards that year... and the course of events was a big point in Ruth's career, so there is a chance you would remember that and anything surrounding that.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

Let's say that in 1990, at the time of the SCD article, Julia Ruth Stevens,
then a mere 74 years old was asked about this piece. Why would she
remember anything about the circumstances involving a photo from 56 years earlier? Why would this stick in the memory of Babe's 18 year old daughter?
I have no idea whether this piece is legitimate. However, I don't think Ms. Steven's certificate adds much to the proofs.

I tend to agree with this sentiment on the JRS document...then again if this DID happen and she were highly aware of her dads escapades...it's a story you'd remember.

Obviously when any of us own a piece we want it to be rare...and valuable...because we own it! I think we're all guilty of that phenomenon. Are there any other "proof" 35 goudeys that appear similar to this? I have not been able to find a comparable. It'd be great if you could get a high res scan of it so we could see more of the detail of the alterations.

The crux was to show off your piece...it's a cool piece...and the fact it raises a lot of questions makes it a lot more interesting than "look at my new t206!"

I am not super familiar with the 35 premiums. Are most of the poses shared with 33 goudey poses?

[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]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I tend to agree with this sentiment on the JRS document...then again if this DID happen and she were highly aware of her dads escapades...it's a story you'd remember.

Obviously when any of us own a piece we want it to be rare...and valuable...because we own it! I think we're all guilty of that phenomenon. Are there any other "proof" 35 goudeys that appear similar to this? I have not been able to find a comparable. It'd be great if you could get a high res scan of it so we could see more of the detail of the alterations.

The crux was to show off your piece...it's a cool piece...and the fact it raises a lot of questions makes it a lot more interesting than "look at my new t206!"

I am not super familiar with the 35 premiums. Are most of the poses shared with 33 goudey poses?

Thanks Pete... Google R309-2 if you care, that's the catalog for the 35 premiums.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

Red, it didnt sell because it didnt reach my reserve.



All this is not related to why I was sharing the piece initially...

Why were you sharing the piece originally then? I am confused by the Red Sox comment/comparison. Was it to get feedback or to find a buyer?
Whatever the reason, i am glad you did as it is certainly a convo piece regardless of origin.

Were you able to get better scans of the artwork copy? Would be interesting to see.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Why were you sharing the piece originally then? I am confused by the Red Sox comment/comparison. Was it to get feedback or to find a buyer?
Whatever the reason, i am glad you did as it is certainly a convo piece regardless of origin.

Were you able to get better scans of the artwork copy? Would be interesting to see.

I was sharing the piece because I was bored. Not looking to sell it, just a cool thing to discuss on a board like this. So I guess feedback. If anything, it reinforces what I know about the piece.

Yeah, I wasn't too clear on the Red Sox comment, I meant that everything with Ruth in the beginning of his career is hot, wanted to show something with a story at the back end of his career. Has nothing to do with Red Sox and everything to do with I suck as a writer when using this board as escapism when having a rough day at work.

Sure, I post a closer scan, only thing is its in a room with little lighting. I will see what I can do.