1933 Goudey (Ruth) Market currently?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by orly57

I know this is an unpopular stance, but I don't get the whole Goudey Ruth thing. I've owned all 4, and they are very nice cards. I get that they are playing-era cards of the most iconic figure in sports. My issues are: 1. They were released 18 years into his career (the season before he retired). 2. They are renderings, rather than photos. 3. There are about 1,000 of each in the psa population alone. I didn't check sgc, but I know they have graded a ton as well. They are far from rare. And that doesn't even include the WWG pop. 4. Three of the cards use the same image, and two are identical other than the color on the background.
So while I do think they are attractive cards of the game's greatest figure, I don't really see why they are so revered in contrast to far earlier and more rare Ruth cards. You may bash me now.

1933 Goudey was the very first set issued with bubble gum. Many of us grew up buying packs of baseball cards with bubble gum in them. It is a landmark set that defines the hobby. It doesn't hurt that it has 4 Babe Ruth cards in it. These are the real bubble gum cards of the game's best player. Most eveything else are pretenders. That is like asking what is the big deal about the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. Firsts in the hobby equate with iconic cards and iconic sets.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by rats60

That is like asking what is the big deal about the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. Firsts in the hobby equate with iconic cards and iconic sets.

I like this point. It may be a rendering and not a photo, but the art blew away any rendering before it.

Also, I think the pop-culture aspect of Ruth's Goudey cards is overlooked. I get that there are many rarer cards that core vintage collectors can wax poetic on all day long, but if the masses can identify with any Ruth card, it's a Goudey, guaranteed. I know a guy who owns one and he couldn't care less about baseball. When I asked him why he owns it, he said "it's like holding a piece of America in your hand." Goudey Ruths are baseball card equivalents of cross-over collectibles. In the Venn Diagram of collectibles, they're smack in the middle.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by conor912

I like this point. It may be a rendering and not a photo, but the art blew away any rendering before it.

Also, I think the pop-culture aspect of Ruth's Goudey cards is overlooked. I get that there are many rarer cards that core vintage collectors can wax poetic on all day long, but if the masses can identify with any Ruth card, it's a Goudey, guaranteed. I know a guy who owns one and he couldn't care less about baseball. When I asked him why he owns it, he said "it's like holding a piece of America in your hand." Goudey Ruths are baseball card equivalents of cross-over collectibles. In the Venn Diagram of collectibles, they're smack in the middle.

2nd this...my good buddy who doesn't collect has a psa 2.5 #181. His mom bought it for him as a present in 1979 for under $100 bucks.

[DeanH3]

Another thought and correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't the '33 Goudey the first big set issued since T206's and CJ's. It has a large checklist of the current big names (eventual HOF'ers), nationally distributed, beautifully colored artwork and issued with gum. Hence the huge popularity. The sets from the '20's seem to be more "regionally" issued and therefore not as much "national" demand. Where there any sets issued between CJ's and '33 Goudeys that fit those criteria? Just a thought on why Goudeys became so popular over time.

[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.

[Neal]

The PWCC examples are poised to possibly hit record levels for the assigned grades ..... and affect the market moving forward