Update Numbers For The Harringtons Ruth Types

These numbers are based on what I could find online with pictures front and back of graded Harringtons Ruth, which are 23, no duplicate slab numbers plus my raw Ruth for 24. I know this is not much for numbers, but it’s a start

Type 1: 6 (No Quarts) out of 24
Type 2: 18 (Quarts) out of 24
Type3: 4 (Apostrophe/Quarts) out of 18 (Quarts)

I found 3 more online I’m recording the slab numbers so there are no duplicates so far for PSA & SGC.
This should be a legitimate type / variation for the Harringtons Ruth I have had this card since 1980 and noticed the differences that I seen over the years and feel it should be recognized

Update

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rgpete

These numbers are based on what I could find online with pictures front and back of graded Harringtons Ruth, which are 20 ,no duplicate slab numbers plus my raw Ruth for 24. I know this is not much for numbers, but it’s a start

Type 1: 6 (No Quarts) out of 24
Type 2: 18 (Quarts) out of 24
Type3: 4 (Apostrophe/Quarts) out of 18 (Quarts)

I found 3 more online I’m recording the slab numbers so there are no duplicates so far for PSA & SGC.
This should be a legitimate type / variation for the Harringtons Ruth I have had this card since 1980 and noticed the differences that I seen over the years and feel it should be recognized

No doubt they are different variations. But, there are so few anyway, I am not sure it makes a ton of difference; which might be why the lack of responses. I am not saying I haven't done similar, but needing each variation of a back is getting in the weeds, such as 4? different typeset Everybody's backs, or 3 Gimbels..or the different exact measurements of the 1915-Wunc cards..
Me and 3 other guys care. I think most of us get in the weeds sometimes. Some more than others. It can keep it interesting.

Now if it was a T206 and there was a freaking period where there should have been a comma, then hold the presses!!
.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think most of us get in the weeds sometimes. Some more than others. It can keep it interesting.

Now if it was a T206 and there was a freaking period where there should have been a comma, then hold the presses!!
.

I don't have a period instead of comma T206, but I am hoping some day this stain, with a little magic sauce applied, will disappear and reveal a punctuation oddity that will titillate the T206 elite among us.

Brian

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I don't have a period instead of comma T206, but I am hoping some day this stain, with a little magic sauce applied, will disappear and reveal a punctuation oddity that will titillate the T206 elite among us.

Brian

You should try Kurt’s Card Care maybe that would help

Originally Posted by Leon

No doubt they are different variations. But, there are so few anyway, I am not sure it makes a ton of difference; which might be why the lack of responses. I am not saying I haven't done similar, but needing each variation of a back is getting in the weeds, such as 4? different typeset Everybody's backs, or 3 Gimbels..or the different exact measurements of the 1915-Wunc cards..
Me and 3 other guys care. I think most of us get in the weeds sometimes. Some more than others. It can keep it interesting.

Now if it was a T206 and there was a freaking period where there should have been a comma, then hold the presses!!
.

Measurements and back variations are comparing apples to oranges just why because no one else on here payed attention to this have fun I’m done with this net 54 crap here

[Lucas00]

Such a weird thing to have a melt down over.

[brianp-beme]

I believe I am to blame, as we typically lose 1 or 2 members every time I post that stained T206 Manning.

Brian

[glchen]

rgpete, sorry to see you leave the forum due to this. I thought that this was pretty good analysis that I had never seen before. Since I collect Babe Ruth variations, I was definitely excited to learn about this one, which had not realized existed before.

Does anyone know if these same variations exist in the other 1928 cards that are part of this same "family" such as Tharps, Yeungling, etc?

[doug.goodman]

I'm confused as to why he left the forum.

If it's because he didn't think people were interested enough in the weird little variations he found (which were pretty darned cool, if you ask me), then he should absolutely not start collecting the m113 & m114 caption variations that nobody on here but me cares about.

Hahahaha.

Doug

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by glchen

rgpete, sorry to see you leave the forum due to this. I thought that this was pretty good analysis that I had never seen before. Since I collect Babe Ruth variations, I was definitely excited to learn about this one, which had not realized existed before.

Does anyone know if these same variations exist in the other 1928 cards that are part of this same "family" such as Tharps, Yeungling, etc?

Gary, the 1928 F50 Yuengling"s Ice Cream cards have two back variations:

[Spike]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Gary, the 1928 F50 Yuengling"s Ice Cream cards have two back variations:

Fair guess that these are the $5 skooters mentioned as promo on that Rice card back?

https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/1931-skooter-skate/

[glchen]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Gary, the 1928 F50 Yuengling"s Ice Cream cards have two back variations:

Great info. Thanks, Val!