Is the 1935 Goudey wrapper a "Babe Ruth item"?
 

It's fairly common that someone on this board asks about the best bargain Babe Ruth card. While most of his playing days cards are now over $1000 even if terrible shape, I was curious if anyone considered the 1935 Goudey wrapper as a Babe Ruth item. They can be had for under $100, and I believe the image on the wrapper is indeed intended to be Ruth...and it's from his final playing year.

However, it's just a silhouette of a chubby left handed slugger. Could be anybody. Just curious as to if anyone considers it a cheap Ruth collectible.

Attachment 488216

looks more like Bartolo Colon the Big Sexy

it's in the likeness of the babe...in similar fashion to the churchman ruth which does not state in writing that the image is babe ruth...this will always hold back its value.

this wrapper imo is not a period ruth item.

The image on this wrapper somewhat physically resembles Ruth, but the image appears to me to be a right-handed batter.

+1

Well, now that you mention it, it appears you are correct...the hands appear to be in the position of a right handed batter. However, that pose appears to be a left handed batting follow through (right leg forward, gaze is UP at the ball in flilght). And that is a classic Ruth left handed follow through.

For the record, I voted for the third choice myself. I do think it's supposed to be Ruth....but at the same time it doesn't quite hit me as a Ruth collectible.

I'd love to see that Premiums poster that the storekeeper had to promote the set, as described on the side panel of the wrapper. That must be amazing. Wonder how many still exist?

Other than the wrapper artist swapping hands and the odd forward lean, it looks a lot like this pic.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=32184

I think it's Paul Waner. The earlobes are a match.:D

Could be it was intended to suggest Ruth without actually depicting him, otherwise Goudey might have had to pay him a royalty.

I went with the third option, though if you wanted to call it a Babe Ruth item, I wouldn't argue.

I agree with this.

Many items were produced around this time that obviously implied or depicted Ruth, but were not ever labeled as such.