[orly57]

Yeah Dean, I agree. The gap between Cracker Jack and Goudey was not a good one for baseball cards. I've always thought it was a shame that this period coincided precisely with Ruth's career. Imagine an early t206, T3, T227, or Cracker Jack Babe Ruth! When I entered pre-war collecting, I was initially going to focus on Ruth, but after buying several of his cards, I found myself enjoying my Cobb cards far more. That's when I switched my focus.
Rats made a comparison between the Goudey Ruth's and the 52 mantle. I think the analogy is appropriate only in that they are star players in legendary sets. Mantle made his appearance in the 52 Topps set as a fresh-faced second-year player, and only had the one card in the set. In contrast, Ruth had 4 cards, and was in his 18th year in the league. We always value rookie or earlier cards over cards released later in a career. A 1968 Mantle doesn't come close to a mantle from the 50's. And I guarantee you that the 52 mantle wouldn't be nearly as popular, iconic, or valuable if it were released in Mantle's 8th, or much less, 18th season in the league. After reading all of the comments, most of which I agree with, I think I discovered that the main ressons for my indifference (for lack of a better word, because I do like them) towards the Goudey Ruth's has more to do with the fact that they are pretty common, and released so very late in his career. But I most certainly do understand the draw, and why so many collectors are attracted to them.