Rube was good but...
 

...he was not Babe Ruth

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1917-Youths-...item20d3595b44

another costly example(to the buyer atleast) of the price guides..and the grading companies...and the general collecting public not being aware of the truth?!?!

I'd love to know more - I'm not familiar with this stamp. Is it not Babe Ruth but Rube Foster?? It looks like Ruth to me.....

uhhhh...rube marguard...not rube foster!

Here's the link to the previous thread (my photobucket pictures have since been rearranged so do not appear):

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=131276

I went with Rube Foster, assuming it was a Boston item. Thanks for the info....

1917 Youth's Companion Stamp - 1914 Lawrence Semon Postcard
 

1917 Youth's Companion and 1914 Lawrence Semon Postcards (not mine):
(Leon, borrowed your image from previous thread)

Thought I'd try to find an accompanying photo. Seems pretty darn close but strangely, he doesn't look to be throwing a knuckle ball.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/6...8d632c17_z.jpg

edit - I now notice his glove hand is higher in the photo.

Wondering....
 

The face in the artwork looks to be changed so that it looks more like Ruth than Marquard IMO. Could it possibly have been the original intention of the distributor to take the original photo and make it loook like Ruth intentionally? Just wondering.

tony...i agree...or +1 as some like to say!!!!:D

+2

Certainly looks like Ruth.

That stamp IS in beautiful condition. Dave.

That's interesting...I'd guess it's generic in design because it was intended to be purely educational.

The details in the faces look the same to me: shape of heads, mouths, eyes, etc, but the quality of the postcard image was better. Even if we looked at it trying to see Babe Ruth, we know the image is of Marquard, with no name, and base subjective identity on it being a Boston item and lefty pitcher (identified as Rube Marquard). And because it's Marquard, we can erase the lefty pitcher part and are left with it being from Boston only. That is extremely subjective and a long, long stretch. Interesting perspective though.

I spent a lot of time and years trying to see Babe Ruth on there just like many, many other people. It's not him in the photo AND his name isn't on it.

The publishers must have liked red borders around their images (not mine!):

There was disclaimer added yesterday pointing out that some believe it isn't ruth, though they do strongly suggest that it is Ruth.

From the auction:

+3

Looks like Ruth and it appears they widened the nose on the stamp and furled the mouth a bit. Also, the cheeks look a little chubbier and not as chiseled as the 1914 Marquard PC shown.

I think there was *possibly* an intent to make the pitcher look like Ruth and not Marquard...

It's Marquard not Ruth. Anyone thinking that is Ruth, to me, is fantasizing. It's an exact photo match. Do we need fingerprints and blood samples? sheesh....

It's an exact picture on the stamp, taken from the magazine. This guy in red is Ruth too, after his first pitching win...And for the record I have at least one of the stamps so am certainly not feathering my own nest. Whomever pays all that money...come see me. I will sell you one for half that much...

That was my inclination as well. +1

And for the record, Beckett now grades this stamp rightfully as Marquard. To me, but I guess not many others, it's hard to argue with a positive id. Bob Lemke also stated he is/did change it in the SCD...

http://b-lauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=2806



.

Leon, thanks very much for the mention!

Has this been changed in the most recent SCD yet? (I only have the 2010 copy.) Also, does anyone know if SGC has changed this to Marquard yet like Beckett? I see this old listing from Goodwin for SGC here Link, but I don't see it in SGC's population reports anymore, so I'm wondering if they've also modified it.

There's no doubt that the face work has changed. It's obviously a copy of Marquard, but the stamp definitely looks more like Ruth.

I don't know. Sure looks like the same guy to me.

http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/3103/184079.jpg

The 2011 scd has it still as Ruth and the 2013 Vintage SCD guide omitted it altogether....from what I can tell. I will admit that Marquard had a resemblance to Ruth. For me that is about as far as this stamp gets to being Ruth. But if others want to believe it's Ruth, more power to them, even though it clearly isn't to me.

I agree with most others, it's obviously Marquard's pose, but looks like it was changed to resemble Ruth's face. It's a fairly low-quality production piece, so I could see that happening

So if its not ruth, and the PSA flip says ruth, is the PSA flip a fake, or did PSA get it wrong? If they got it wrong could they be liable?

I don't think that PSA will say that they're liable because they will state that they were just following the old Standard Catalog in labeling the stamp as Ruth.

However, if PSA and SGC do follow Beckett and change this stamp to Marquard, the value will obviously drop like a rock. However, I'm not sure it's clear if they will. The TPG's usually follow the standard guides. However, if SCD removed the entry, but did not change it, then PSA and SGC may also not change it since they may still rely on what was in the older catalogs. However, if Beckett has changed it in their standard guide, then it's still possible PSA and SGC will use this and change it.

If any of them want to be correct they will change it to Marquard. I don't know how any collector can look at the Postcard and not say it's the same picture. Maybe I am more blind than I thought :eek:.

OK, it looks like in the 2012 version of the SCD, this was changed to Marquard. You can see this on Google Books here: Link. I would think that with this information, PSA and SGC should change it to Marquard even if it were possible that the artist modified the drawing slightly to resemble Ruth more. (BTW, I am not the consignor for this item, but I was seriously thinking of bidding strongly for it because Ruth items during his Red Sox days are so tough. I will pass on it now.)

psa has 2 listed in pop report...as ruth.

Hi-
I am a frequent attendee of antique paper and ephemera shows. At these shows, this style of stamp is known as a "poster stamp". Within the poster stamp world, this is considered to be Ruth because of a contract that is signed by Ruth with the Youth Companion magazine. Supposedly, this contract is at the baseball hall of fame. I have heard this from multiple poster stamp dealers. Interestingly, these can be had in beautiful condition at paper shows for less than 100.00, and usually less than 50.00, so the identification of Ruth does not mean much to these dealers.
I have two, one in my Red Sox collection for Marquard and the other in my Hall of Fame collection (also Marquard). One I found in a scrapbook, but the other (in really nice shape) I got for 40.00 at the Hartford paper show about a year and a half ago.
I have never seen the contract, and for all I know it could have been for something that was not produced. I only want to clarify why at least some dealers label it as Ruth.

Alan

BOOM - tough actin' Tinactin! Take that Leon!! Thanks for the info Alan.

:)

Honestly, why have you gotten so worked up over this?? Anyone can see the face on the stamp was modified from the original Marquard image. Look at that nose!!!

I would not buy that thing........ but that rinkeydink ruth stamp, now that's what im lookin for!

FYI, am guessing you maybe meant Waddell (?) though he never played for Boston. Anyway just as FYI, Rube Foster is one of the greatest (maybe the greatest) early 20th century black pitcher, and is known as the "father of black baseball" for his work playing (in), managing (in), and organizing (of) the negro leagues.

Lots of early 20th Century Rubes to keep track of for sure ;)... Wish the nickname would make a comeback.

Quick link to wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Foster

I still don't know how that rinkeydink stamp on ebay hit $400. I have two of them, and I bought one for $50, and the other for $100. I think it's probably more the power of net54 advertising/outing that the ebay one hit such a high price.

Also, I don't seem to see any Brooklyn Robins uniforms w/ red stripes on their socks!!!

As an FYI, Back in the early 2000s, this stamp was listed as a 1916 issue (and graded as such). I almost grabbed one as an affordable Ruth rookie, but glad I didn't, given the subsequent date ammendment and now all the speculation over who the player is!!

You haven't? :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/themart...n%20Cadore.JPG

Admittedly, my eyesight isn't what it once was, but both noses look wide to me. I'll take your word for it though.

Interesting Alan, I reckon the Babe allowed them to use Rube's image. Apparently there weren't enough pictures of young Babe pitching; had to settle for a well established future hall of famer. He signed a contract for something that didn't have his name or actual image. Money for nothing. :)

From what I recall without getting the book out, the card catalogue only mentioned Ruth being associated with the stamp in the context of people think it might be him, not that it was him.

I have a Red Sox postcard with Babe hitting. :)

It really isn't uncommon to draw the head of your subject on the pose/body of another figure. Especially if there is a particular pose that looks better than others (or more convenient to draw). I think the Dick Perez collection was recently sold. Included were hundreds of photos used to create his postcards. I am fairly certain Dick mixed and matched some players however he seemed fit.

I could be wrong though.

These are the unis from 1916-17:

http://baseballeras.blogspot.com/201...ltime.html?m=1

See #5 for the fugliest uniforms of all time!!

Anyway, if you do a Dressed to the Nines search, it looks like Brooklyn Tip-tops of rhe Federal league did use red stripes on their socks from 1914-15, but not the Brooklyn Robins. That said, maybe the makers of the Youth's Companion Stamp AND the 1916-20 Big Heads felt inclined to make the Brooklyn Robins uniform look cooler by adding red to the socks. I guess that's logical.

Also, and more importantly, why does Leon Cadore have a large "C" on his uniform???

I'm in the process of figuring out that and some other details in the set...going on three years now. BTW, the Cadore card looks more like Judge and the Judge card looks less like Judge...Still need a few for my set, including the great one mentioned here.

Have a pleasant evening fellas

.

Oh well.. Like I said too many Rubes to keep track of

WOW...over $1900 for Babe...I mean Rube W...insane!!!

Nice pick up Pete.

i didn't buy it!!!!!!!!! $1900 for THAT...c'mon Mike!!!!!

I know...

Just wanted to update this thread per this comment. After seeing this, I emailed the Baseball Hall of Fame (research@baseballhall.org), and asked them the following question:

"I have an usual question. I am trying to determine who is on the picture of a 1917 poster stamp from Youth Companion magazine, a publication in Boston. Originally, the cartoon image player on the stamp was thought to be Babe Ruth. However, it has been found that there is a match for that image from one for Rube Marquard. There is a thread from a hobby forum on this issue here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=169653
Because there was a match for this image for Rube Marquard, it was thought that this was definitively Marqard on the poster stamp. However, one of the posters in that thread has stated that Babe Ruth signed a contract with Youth Companion magazine, and that this contract is currently at the Baseball Hall of Fame. If this is true, then this brings back the possibility that the image on the poster stamp is intended to be Ruth, and that the artist modified the original Marquard image to make it appear more like Ruth.
Therefore my question is, does this contract for Babe Ruth with Youth Companion magazine indeed exist at the Baseball Hall of Fame, or was this just an unfounded rumor? I realize that this is an unusual request and do appreciate any assistance here."

Today, Bill Francis from the Baseball Hall of Fame replied, and stated that the Hall of Fame does not have a copy of this contract.

Good work Gary. :)