1933 Goudey Ruth #144 or 1921 Exhibit Ruth?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Absent an unusual find or someone letting go of a hoard, the relative quantities of these cards is going to remain the same in the future. So why is it that in the future, rarity is going to dictate value more than it already does?

It reminds me of those endless posts about how Musial and Eddie Collins and Spahn are undervalued, and SOMEDAY, the market is going to value them correctly. Why?

[JeremyW]

Just a guess, but people will realize the scarcity?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

Just a guess, but people will realize the scarcity?

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

I think that there are new buyers who don't actually know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I think that there are new buyers who don't actually know.

Based on what? And further, why do you assume they care?

[parkplace33]

144. Go with the best and most popular Ruth.

[JeremyW]

I assume that they don't care & are only looking for profits.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I assume that they don't care & are only looking for profits.

In that case, scarcity won't come into it in the future any more than it has already. Perhaps I missed your point. But you started by suggesting people WOULD realize the scarcity.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

Exhibits and postcards were always second fiddle to gum and candy cards. I can only assume that trend will continue

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Exhibits and postcards were always second fiddle to gum and candy cards. I can only assume that trend will continue

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

Agreed. Cards are king. I think postcards and exhibits have become much much more accepted, but they are nevertheless (usually) second fiddle. That said, I think people now more widely recognize that a PC (Gehrig or Cobb) or a Cabinet (Plank, Wagner, Matty, Cobb) can be a rookie "card". I dont think the hobby is there yet with supplements, advertising pieces, magazines, scorecards, programs, etc. For now, those seem to be "other" whereas post cards and cabinets seems to be more accepted as "cards"(ish)

[JeremyW]

[QUOTE=Rhotchkiss;2236618]Agreed. Cards are king. I think postcards and exhibits have become much much more accepted, but they are nevertheless (usually) second fiddle. That said, I think people now more widely recognize that a PC (Gehrig or Cobb) or a Cabinet (Plank, Wagner, Matty, Cobb) can be a rookie "card". I dont think the hobby is there yet with supplements, advertising pieces, magazines, scorecards, programs, etc. For now, those seem to be "other" whereas post cards and cabinets seems to be more accepted as "cards"(ish)[/QUO

[Jstottlemire1]

I’d have to say I’d rather own the 21’ I hope to add one soon also. The #144 is crazy in demand and from a huge set like all have stated. The fielding poses are pretty coveted though also I feel along with cards with him pitching and or throwing as well.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

agreed and I would love to someday own a Rookie 25 Gehrig. They are great looking cards

[hcv123]

My opinion - which will likely mirror much of what has already been shared.

From a purely "collector" perspective - I'd give it to the 33 Goudey - as mentioned it is the iconic card which image is conjured when using the words "collecting baseball cards!". It is also part of one of the most collected vintage sets.

From an investment perspective - it gets MUCH tougher. While the Goudey is definitely higher supply (combined PSA and SGC population approaching 2K) currently it also has CONSIDERABLY stronger demand than the 21 exhibit and I agree with the opinions that as long as demand in the hobby grows then the card has strong investment potential.......BUT, as highlighted by Ryan - the 21 Exhibit has started to get some love, but hasn't run like the Goudey's. It would take a much smaller increase in demand to cause a really strong price spike.

That all said, it has puzzled me why the 25 Gehrig seems to be the anomaly amongst the exhibits - getting props as Gehrig's "rookie" and incredible valuation, EVEN THOUGH it is an exhibit. If Gehrig can get that kind of recognition, for all the reasons previously stated the Ruth "should" too!

They are 2 of my favorite cards - the Exhibit being the greater favorite by a lot.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

agreed and I would love to someday own a Rookie 25 Gehrig. They are great looking cards

I really like the 25 exhibit Gehrig as well, always wondered why the 27 is priced like it is being the same pose and only two years later. Its also a very rare early card and Id think having the same image as the 25 rookie would be huge appeal to many.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Absent an unusual find or someone letting go of a hoard, the relative quantities of these cards is going to remain the same in the future. So why is it that in the future, rarity is going to dictate value more than it already does?

It reminds me of those endless posts about how Musial and Eddie Collins and Spahn are undervalued, and SOMEDAY, the market is going to value them correctly. Why?

For almost every card throughout time, the older the card for a player the more valuable/desirable it tends to be with a few notable exceptions. In time as more modern collectors venture into the pre war era, or new collectors enter, the early Ruth card automatically has that advantage of being an early playing days card.

The fact that it is more rare, if ten new serious buyers venture into the market searching for the 1921 Ruth and 10 new buyers enter searching for the 1933 Goudey...it has greater potential for bidding wars on the scarcer card since there are much less opportunities to buy one.

The same can be said of Ruth's 1920's caramel cards. More rare and early playing days.

As for Spahn, Collins, Musial etc...preferences change. Soon there will be nobody left on earth who actually saw any of them play or formed any personal connection to them to make them want to buy their cards(popularity). So the 'trend' of owning Mickey Mantle above everyone else will lose its luster as some point, especially with the trend toward baseball statistical evaluations that paint a more accurate picture of how good everyone in history actually was(not that Mantle was not elite, just that his card prices above Mays/Aaron don't reflect that Mays and Aaron actually had better careers, not just peak years).

In the year 2050, collectors wanting the best players of a generation may very well look a stat like WAR( which will be mainstream by then), and see that Eddie Collins is the tenth best of all time, and that may hold a lot of weight as to who they should buy.

Or in short, preferences simply change over time, so if you are holding the rarer item and there is any type of increase in demand, then you are holding the lottery ticket.