Amazing photo! Looks thin there.

His own cap, no less.

Ha. That’s great.

Kris hit the nail squarely on the head back at the beginning of this truly revealing and interesting thread.

I read an interesting article that non-scarcity in some instances can help drive value to a certain extent. 1933 Goudey was the focus. A lot of the HOFers are fairly plentiful and the availability draws more people in to giving it a go. I got suckered in by that I admit. Obviously a fine balance because scarcity will still create high prices (see eg T206 Wagner) and overproduction will create low prices (see eg a Mike Piazza rookie).

+1
 

Don't get many opportunities to show this one off so might as post one of the balls that got away. This is the last pitch of Rube Walberg's 15th career win on June 15, 1926. Walberg, incidentally, gave up more home runs to Babe Ruth than anyone else:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2281a941_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a3321ca7_z.jpg

+1
 

When somebody is the very best at something, he or she is referred to as "The Babe Ruth of Such-and-Such."
Wayne Gretzky was "The Babe Ruth of Hockey." Arnold Palmer was "The Babe Ruth of Golf" (and later Jack and Tiger). Not only did they excel in their sport, but they transcended it and brought it to a whole new level and popularity. Babe Ruth transcended all of them. His home runs and personality were what the country needed during a crippling Depression. The fact that he died relatively young also increased his legendary status (as it has a tendency to do with celebrities). But because of his popularity, a lot of stuff was produced. There's no item that has the rarity or iconic status as does the T206 Wagner or '52 Mantle (which really aren't that rare). So while Babe items are absolutely expensive and command a premium, they are probably not as expensive as they could be based on his larger-than-life status. A Mike Trout card should never sell for more than a Babe Ruth card, regardless if it's a 1/1 or anything else. People are starting to realize that, and the days of relatively affordable Ruth items are winding down.

Folks, you just can't explain away or revise or re-write history, or say something is exaggerated, just because you don't like it or disagree or think things have evolved into something you think just has to be better or whatever. Some things just are what they are. Accept it. Deal with it. Ruth was and is bigger than life, even now decades after his death. This photo shows him signing a huge pile of baseballs. Name another ballplayer or athlete or anyone for that matter in a setting that even approaches this. He did this on a daily basis, even on playing days after eating 26 hot dogs washed down with 2 pitchers of beer, for 28 years. He took pleasure in doing it. The people (plural) who knew him say it is so - his wife, his daughters, his inner circle of friends. His manager (agent) Christy Walsh not only said it was so, he also said Ruth hired (for pay) an army of people to mail out the colossal number of signed baseballs (and all the other stuff) back to the fans who either sent things to be signed or just asked for an autograph. He didn't ask for compensation for doing it. Accept it, deal with it. He did everything he did in life far beyond what anyone else did, or even could do, because he was Babe Ruth.

Babe Ruth was bigger than life during the 1930's. He dominated sports headlines across the country. Because of that he appeared on many items. Some items were produced in the millions, and others in much smaller numbers. I picked up this item and figure it's probably fairly rare, but not very valuable. It has Babe Ruth and Tom Mix together on a card. The rest of the set are supposed to help you work on your eyesight. I'm guessing it came out in the 1930's.

Very Different and Very Cool

I couldn't agree more. I find myself in between with respect to collecting vintage and modern cards. I have some "big(ish)" Trout rookies (Topps Gold, Diamond Anniversary, etc) and I have several vintage cards of similar value. But when I look at a nice ~$10k Babe Ruth card and compare it to a nice ~$10k Mike Trout (or pick your other modern superstar) I just can't help but always think the Ruth is by far the better buy, especially in the modern era of exponential hobby growth and investors flooding in. High-end vintage is going to dry up at some point. They'll continue to make Mike Trout 1-of-1's and gold refractors and kaleidoscope whoseitsandwhatsits gallore, but there will always be a limited supply of early legends. Even if there are ~10,000 33 Goudey Ruths out there, that's still just a drop in the bucket compared to modern cards. PSA alone has already graded over 50,000 Zion Williamson 2019 Prizm cards. And that's just ONE product line. They have numerous other product lines with similar pop counts (Mosaic, Chronicles, Donruss, Hoops, Optic, Contenders, Spectra, NT, on-and-on-and-on). There are well in excess of a million Zion Williamson rookie cards in total today, and that's no exaggeration. I just sold a modern high-end Zion Williamson card last week and used the funds to buy 2 Babe Ruths, a handful of nice Willie Mays cards, and a Jim Brown RC. And I'm a big believer in Zion Williamson too. But I'll take that trade any day of the week and twice on Sundays. History matters, and particularly in this hobby. I say get em while you still can.

It is certainly a great photo, and I have no doubt that the stories about him signing insanely large amounts of baseballs with regularity are true, and that he did it simply for the love of the game and the appreciation he had for the fans that allowed him to be the larger than life figure he became. As a mathematician, I may quibble about specific numbers for a "fun" debate, but ultimately the numbers themselves don't really matter. It's the story of Ruth and the passing along of history over the generations, and the pieces of memorabilia themselves that make collecting so much fun. I love seeing all these old photos and oddball collectibles that people come up with.

Snowman, yes, there are arguments to be made for the investment value of current players, but the oldies are probably a safer investment. Mike Trout looked like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he's missed so many games with an injury that may be much more serious than they're letting on, and he's been eclipsed by his own teammate. And that teammate, Shohei Ohtani, who looks like the greatest thing since Mike Trout, has a sore arm again that if the pattern continues may put an end to his two-way days. If I had spent thousands (or millions) on a Trout or Ohtani card, I would be a bit nervous about my investment. But Babe Ruth is always going to be Babe Ruth. We know his career and legend, and his card values aren't based on speculation about his potential or projecting his trajectory. It's sort of like blue-chip stocks. You may not get the huge swings either way, but you will make steady gains.

It definitely makes sense from an economic theory perspective. I would imagine that value likely follows some sort of an S-curve similar to an adoption curve with respect to scarcity/supply. If there are too few of something, it often doesn't have a strong demand simply because people are unaware of its existence, but if you make too many of them, then everyone has one. There is always an overall market cap for the current relative value of something (which, of course, changes over time with respect to market conditions that affect that item).

However, there's also an interesting phenomenon that comes into play where something that is extremely rare can still have remarkably strong demand if it is associated with something else that has high population counts & demand. A prime example of this is, of course, the T206 Wagner card. The reason that card is so valuable isn't just because there are only ~50 of them known to exist (or whatever the number is), but rather because there are ~50 from an otherwise massively produced and widely collected set. Contrast that with something like the 1929 Churchman's Cigarettes Babe Ruth card which is far more rare than many of his more popular and valuable cards (PSA's pop count is only 308), but because it belongs to a set that is otherwise not widely collected or known about, it has very little relative value today. This is probably pointing out the obvious, but it's still a fun exercise in market economics to me. It's the same thing with modern cards and the disparity between say a Prizm Gold basketball parallel card numbered to /10 and some other random gold parallel from a far less popular set. Both cards could be /10s, but it is the association with the widely collected Prizm cards that make the Prizm Gold 100x as valuable as a Gold parallel from some other random set that most people don't care about.

some Ruthian eye candy

Great photo’s especially the first one

Those are indeed eye candy. Excellent photos, sir!

This thread has gained more traction than the old Saturn V crawler at Cape Canaveral, far more than I ever imagined, with some really cool and rare as all get out Ruthian stuff posted along the way. Thanks!

By contrast to the relatively common Ruth signed ball and common Goudey card...signed Ruth Goudeys are quite difficult. There's likely less than 50. PSA has somewhere around 30 graded.

Very very nice.
One of my wish list/ bucket list an autographed Ruth playing day card.
Someday

I very am glad that I got this one years ago as I have a feeling the next one on the auction block is going to be pretty costly.

i wish I got one of these when I could!!!! Beautiful example!

I should probably know but don’t - what is that exactly? Amazing.

Ruth
 

My Ruth's

As said before, demand definitely outweights supply when it comes to the Babe. I think some are overestimating how many cards are out there. Only the Goudey 144 has over 1000 in the pop report. Throw in others graded by other TPG's and the number of raw still out there, I just don't think it's as many as some people think.

The other thing I think people sometimes forget when talking about the number of something in existence is the number that exist that are actually on the open market. Way more people that own them and have no intention of selling anytime soon than people who are willing to sell them.

For anyone that has tried winning a Babe Ruth card at auction in the last couple of years, it's not that easy.

That's gorgeous, sir! 1920, yes? Who is the mourning band on the sleeve for?

Babe will always be the "king!"

Slightly OT, but I wonder how many signed Ruth cards are extant. The only ones I can think of are 1933/1935 Goudeys.

I own one of those too via an eBay purchase.

Going to answer a few posts at once here.

Thanks Pete!

The black arm band was for Ray Chapman.

This is the 1920 Pathe Freres Babe Ruth premium, which was issued with this record:

https://www.oldcardboard.com//eNews/...eNews157.htm#2

https://www.oldcardboard.com/o/h/pat...cardsetID=1415

You can hear the record (which is not Babe's voice) on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHFDM_oBRLs&t=40s

Very Nice items

Especially Love the Bambino Tobacco Canister

So many great cards and photos and autographs in this thread. And so many great insights. I've really enjoyed following it.

It's funny...relative to the card market in general (and that's a big relative), I think Ruth stuff is pretty reasonable and some of it even underpriced.

Agreed. This also probably goes a long way toward explaining why one can pick up some really magnificent Type 1 Ruth photos (some of them one of a kind or one of only a handful of known examples) or even original glass negatives for less than the price of a dog-chewed playing days card. I've purchased quite a few over the years because they are really beautiful baseball artifacts, but they will probably always remain on the wrong side of that curve for someone in it for the money....

A few Ruth photos I don't see every day (although admittedly, my photos probably aren't much to a serious collector). From 1923, 1927 and 1927.

Those Babes I no longer own:

Attachment 480058Attachment 480060

Attachment 480061Attachment 480062

Attachment 480063Attachment 480064


And Those Babes I've kept:

Attachment 480065

Attachment 480066

Jamie, did you just get the Ruth card, or did you get the viewer and all the other cards that come with the viewer?

My perhaps flawed summary of vintage versus modern is scarcity with the former is inherent and scarcity with the latter has to be carefully manufactured. Off too a d we can get back to Ruth but a question I’ve had is when a company like Panini gets an amazing signature of a superstar on a 1/1 does that card just go into the packaging department and end up in a random pack or is it done a bit differently? Just wondering if the Luka card and other that sell for a million plus are originally found in a pack by some random person and then make it into the market.

Not much else to say, just wanted to toss in another card of the Big Fella:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...e%20Ruth_1.jpg

Just the Ruth/Mix Stereoview card, not all the other view and other cards. They described it as a 1920s item.

It was around $50 Dec 2020.

Last night in Sterling:

1933 Goudey #144 SGC 50 $16,800
1926 Exhibit PSA 2 $6,600
1948 Leaf SGC 50 $5,400
1922 E121-120 w/bird SGC 10 $2,640

As an aside, and maybe it is coincidental, but there were virtually prewar superstar cards in the auction. Cobb had one (a mutilated T205), Mathewson had nothing, Gehrig had nothing, Johnson had one card, Young had two cards, Wagner had none

of these the exhibit is the most impressive hammer to me?

I guess for me, it's the 48 Leaf. Not even a playing days card of Ruth!

Agreed, not playing days and pretty plentiful. A classic looking card for sure but I’ll take playing days everyday!

The 26 exhibit is a low pop card. The same image is used in other exhibit year cards but the 26 one is tough so that may be why. But still was a strong price on the exhibit!

I consigned the e121-120, was happy with result. I recently upgraded my bird one to a grade 3

I suppose what I meant was I was surprised by the high price on the exhibit in light of the fact it is a duplicate pose and not a very flattering one… seems that population reports and valuations are finally catching up on more obscure issues.

Yeah the 48 Ruth still boggles my mind a little bit… The psychology of collecting it’s certainly interesting! I never would have guessed that Sanela ruths would be worth as much as they are now? And then we’ve got the tharp/Harrington like issues where are the prices escalated partially due to the old Red Sox pitching pose over 10 years old at that point. But I think now rarity has justified the values.

International issues are interesting as some have become popular and valuable whereas others have not? Also issues like fro joy… which are super scarce and relatively easily discerned from fake if you put in the time to learn?

I agree that playing day cards are the place to be. As someone who is trying to track down a 48 Leaf though I’ll try to justify and talk myself into the high prices I’m seeing by saying that the Leaf set is loved (and hated) by many and it’s a key and necessary card for that reason alone. But I think a big driver even with Ruth - and not just Leaf - fans is the fact that the portrait is really nice. It has a somber element and Ruth died in 48 so it’s sort of a tribute card.

Yea, I too was surprised by the exhibits price a bit, but I think the scarcity of the year is getting the recognition a bit more it seems.

It's funny you mention Sanella, I can't believe how much some of the high grade ones pull now! I think at one point I had 5 or 6 Sanellas. I now have one Sanella, raw, in the book and have 2 ASTRA variations which seem incredibly overlooked in comparison to Sanella. I bought a raw ASTRA that I got graded a PSA1 (hammered due to waviness but looks great) and I picked up an SGC 7 ASTRA , which i think I got at a great price. I forget graded pop ratio but I think it may be somewhere around 30-50X , maybe more?, Sanella (all variations combined) vs the ASTRA, and price has not caught up at all! I think Sanella is a great entry Ruth card and maybe many are just not familiar with the ASTRA back.

Yea, the prices on Tharps/Harringtons have been much stronger recently. Partially due to pose I guess but also the 20's black and white issues maybe getting more love.

Astra's are really really tough. Took years to get one of Schmeling-Sharkey for my type collection.

One thing is for sure: when it comes to Ruth there are fewer and fewer career-contemporary issues that are available under four figures in any condition other than shredded "A". I suspect the same will be true of Cobb, Gehrig, Young, Johnson and a few others before too long. As for Ruth, IMO even at the hammer last night that '26 was a good purchase for the long term. The 33 Goudey is practically untouchable by mere mortal collectors at this point, so interest is going to shift to other issues even more than it already has.

Agreed That Exhibit went for strong dollars.
More than I would have been willing to go but obviously some one was willing to

a couple of ruths...still been seeking a red 33 goudey, but not at the current market.

Very nice card and Really Really nice photo

I'm curious - do people really believe that Cobb will belong in this group in the long run? I just wonder if it at some point, given Cobb's reputation for racism in particular, it will become almost taboo to own a Cobb. I understand that the reputation isn't necessarily well-deserved, given the Leershen biography and its debunking of Stump, and I also understand that we're talking about demand for a few thousand total cards, not orders of magnitude higher, so it's not like half the country needs to want to buy one. But I'm curious what people think about this.

I think that any serious vintage baseball card collector either owns a Cobb or has one on their shortlist. He's on baseball's mount rushmore of greatest ever. He owned an obscene amount of records for the longest time, and still holds a couple dozen of them. Outside of Ruth, and Wagner he's the most recognizable name of the prewar hobby in my opinion, and the only reason why Wagner is above him is because of the mainstream attention his t206 issue receives.

We cannot rewrite the history books, Cobb's greatness transcended the sport itself, and anyone that follows baseball knows it. Regardless of how they feel about him.

Everything you say is true. But translating that to future market demand seems to imply that card collectors are trying assemble a sort of museum of the sport that must reflect its history, rather than just collecting what they want, or the people they like. What if it's the latter?

I think a fair share of the collectors do a little of column A, and a little of column B. Chances are though if you're collecting baseball cards, and stick to collecting, it's because you have an interest in the game of baseball and its history. Especially if you are someone that collects vintage.

Not a single person that collects today (to my knowledge at least) was alive during Cobb's tenure as a player. The market that his cards appeals to are people of all ages enamored with the history of the game.

I've always loved baseball history. But as a kid, and a huge Mets fan, I refused to buy Yankees (also, I couldn't afford them) :)

My only Ruth photo.

Don't have too much experience with her comedy outside of the Dean Martin Roasts!

Here's an interesting thought. Of all these all-time Mount Rushmore level greats, they all are publicized and have been portrayed in modern times by movies. Gary Cooper has played Gehrig, William Bendix and John Goodman have been Ruth (along with Ruth playing himself), Tommy Lee Jones has portrayed Cobb, and even Joe Jackson has gotten modern day exposure from being portrayed in Field of Dreams and Eight Men Out. But what about Honus Wagner? I'm not aware of any movies or other shows that portrayed him and told his story, yet he is up there as one of the all- time greats. Can it truly be the legend/myth surrounding his T206 card that drives so much of the popularity and value in the other card issues he appears in?

And getting back to Ruth, as I think about it, he seems to have been portrayed in/the subject of more movies than any player in history. Heck, a signed baseball by him was the central theme of an entire movie - Sandlot. So that right there kind of tells of his level of popularity versus everyone else as well.

Good point. Forgot about the Cobb movie. A Roy Hobbs rookie would fetch huge money I would think but would he be listed as a pitcher or an outfielder?

Any Ty Cobb movie based on Al Stumps lies is best forgotten.

Since the thread is a lot of Ruth and Cobb I wanted to post this link. It’s worth a few minutes. Durocher talks his experiences with Cobb, Ruth, and Mays.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcW7yYFhqk

Great stuff!

LOL

Wasn't saying the movies are perfect, but still they did one just based on Cobb.

The problem with the portrayal of 'The Babe' in movies is does anyone ever let their guard down far enough to actually believe the actor is Babe Ruth?? No frickin' way. They always find the fattest actor around, load him up with makeup and/or prosthetics and then pretend this completely out of shape board treader is the most famously skilled ballplayer of all time, when we wouldn't even choose him for a backyard Wiffle Ball game. Yeah right!

Although not stated directly (IIRC), this guy is supposed to be Babe Ruth in "The Catcher Was A Spy." He's like a four foot tall meatball. Come on, Hollywood!!!

Attachment 480184

Would be hard to find someone to play Gehrig nowadays. Maybe John Hamm a few years ago. I’m not saying he was a good looking man but he was a good looking man.

They weren't always hacks. In 1942's Pride of the Yankees, Ruth actually played himself opposite Gary Cooper as Gehrig, if I remember correctly. And I don't think William Bendix was that bad of a Ruth portrayer.

Oh, and that reminds me of another thing touting Ruth's universal popularity and appeal. Swell actually created an entire card set to go along with and help promote the movie starring Bendix. Until the start of the junk wax era of the 80s-90s, the only similar player I can remember ever having an entire card set of more than just a handful of cards dedicated solely to them would be the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set. And I think that wasn't so much that Fleer wanted to do a set just for Williams, but more because Topps had pretty much everyone else under exclusive contract back then.

You need an actor that excels at playing a charismatic strong and silent type, one that only speaks when they need to IMO.

Ruth
 

Yeah, the amount of Babe Ruth cards i saw as a kid at card shows was stunning and they were always waaaay out of my reach - something i thought of as almost an entirely different scale of collecting. We use his name as a way of describing things that are truly larger than life. And now the prices are "Ruthian" unfortunately. I guess i always figured they would be slightly out of my reach - I did buy one a few years ago and wouldnt trade it for anything. Perhaps my favorite pose of any player.

I'm guilty of helping run up the price on the '26 Exhibit. FOMO is real. LOL!

Here's a pic from a very obscure 1991 made-for-TV movie called "Babe Ruth." Stephen Lang played the Babe, and yes, that's Pete Rose playing Ty Cobb. MLB denied the producers' request for Pete to be allowed to wear a uniform, so the scene had to be rewritten to take place in a bar instead of on the field.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...OxfordRuth.jpg

Best. Pose. Ever. It's absolutely soulful.
The Cobb from this Oxford issue is also my favorite image of his too.
The Hornsby's not a shabby card from this series either.

The cards from the set with Ruth himself are selling for three figures and up.

He also got a subset in 1962 Topps; can't think of any old-timer who got that treatment in the 1950s-1960s Topps issues.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0variation.jpg

I guess it was Topps' version of the 61*

All this talk of Ruth, and it makes me thinking about pivoting to get one of his cards next. His Sanella still seems to be relatively affordable, along with the Japanese issue whose name escapes me at the moment.Though I'm trying to think what other cards of his would be available in the 0-2K range. Probably not much anymore. Any thoughts?

in that range...sanella...shonen club...fro joy...churchman...beater possibilities.

I didn't even think of FroJoy. The Butterfinger as well is another that came to my mind though that's more an oversized than anything. Well lets hope I hit powerball and can buy the full range of Goudey's will report back after the drawing :D

I bought my m114 last year for $40. I know it is from the 40's with 1943 the most common date sited for its 1st release. I would like to find some of the earlier Ruth's from the series.

Other than Ruth and Gehrig, what is the next big money 1933 Goudey card? Foxx, perhaps?

If you leave Lajoie out if it, yeah on Foxx. Dizzy Dean not too far behind. Couple other sneaky ones like Gehringer and Ott get up there.

#119 Hornsby should be in that discussion as well. Maybe #188 too