Most overrated pre-war card?

[oldjudge]

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

Originally Posted by rats60

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Yeah, but gold is soft and lustrous and beautiful - unlike any other rock.

I would go more with tulip bulbs. Perhaps this Ruth card will eventually follow suit.

[MattyC]

One can dream.

[Runscott]

Yeah, I don't know why I keep following Ruth 'rookie card' auctions. I keep hoping one will slip through the cracks. At least I can still buy tulip bulbs.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

Uniform fashions of the era notwithstanding, I love that intense, competitive glare in his eye.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

Agreed. I know it's not the point of this thread, but I don't have a problem with the value of any card - they are commodities to an extent, so if you really want any particular one, you can always wait for a price that will allow you to relinquish it if you ever need to.

[packs]

I think every common E107 is grossly overrated. I understand the rarity of the set and the important place it occupies in the baseball card timeline. But come on. $500 to $1,000 for a poor conditioned common? Not to mention a lot of the cards have guys who aren't even in uniform.

[atx840]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

+1

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by rats60

The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

[Econteachert205]

I mainly collect and love the t205 set. I have no interest in shelling out for a hoblitzell no stats. There's four versions of the same card and it's a back variation. My opinion.

[packs]

The thing about the Wagner is that in the grand scheme of things it is a circus card. The public at large is aware of the Wagner and that it is the most valuable card. But they aren't interested in the card itself, or Wagner, or T206. They are interested because it's expensive. So to me, it is overrated because it has become something more than a baseball card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MattyC

We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

[ullmandds]

this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here.

Maybe so, but the name of this thread is "Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards", so I mean ...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

The M101-4/5 Ruth is insignificant when compared to the Doyle. The discovery of the T206 Doyle was a significant moment in hobby history.

I really don't understand the fascination with the M101-4/5 Ruth. A PSA 10 1975 Topps Robin Yount RC sold for 19K+. A PSA 10 1975 SSPC Robin Yount sold for 10.00. M101-4/5 is SSPC.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

1. There is much subjectivity.
2. N172 was the first largely distributed baseball card set.
3. "Scrapps" are the first bubble gum baseball cards.

Anyone care to fact-check paragraphs 2 and 3?

[1963Topps Set]

See, I just learned something. I honestly thought pre - war cards was before WW2 (1941)

[RGold]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1. There is much subjectivity.
2. N172 was the first largely distributed baseball card set.
3. "Scrapps" are the first bubble gum baseball cards.

Anyone care to fact-check paragraphs 2 and 3?

Shelby Gum Company is known as the originator of bubblegum. One of their laboratory employees, while trying to come up with a preservative to extend the shelf life of gum, accidentally came up with bubblegum.

During the 1930's, Shelby Gum Company issued several sets of trading cards. Hollywood Picture Stars was the most popular set, and was reprinted several times.

Gum has been around since ancient times. Many attempts to make bubblegum starting in the late 1800s were not successful and the results not marketable until Shelby Gum Company in the mid 1920s.

The 1933 Goudey Indian Gum set was followed by the Goudey Baseball set that same year, and is given credit for being the first major baseball cards issued with bubblegum.

For you youngsters, Joan Blondell, real name Rosebud Blondell, was a former Miss Dallas and runner-up in the 1926 Miss America Pageant. You might remember her as the diner waitress in Grease.

[nolemmings]

The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards.

1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

As for 2 & 3, those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

[MattyC]

It is the definition of overhyped.

By definition, it is the first card depicting the most famous name in the game of baseball in a major league uniform. It is thus the rookie card of the most famous player in the game's history. Ruth is a name that simply dwarfs the likes of Doyle, in terms their comparative places in both the game and American cultural history (not intended as a knock on the Doyle card, but in a comparative analysis, he just can't touch Babe Ruth-- not many can, though some are right there with him). It is also one of very few cards depicting Ruth pitching in a Sox uniform, which is a very important part of baseball lore and history, considering the eventual deal to the Yankees, conversion to full-time hitter, and how his homeruns took the popularity of the game we all love to new levels. End of the day, no one has to like every card, but a Babe Ruth rookie card is patently significant, no matter when the financial side of things recognized it as such.

Any card I want, or the last card I bought

In all seriousness, I'm just flabbergasted by Ten Million Obak's as previously mentioned, and [I'm probably going to step on some toes here] the exponential increase of a Zeenut with a coupon attached. A tab of paper that has nothing to do with the depicted player or his career is worth that much coin?