Poll: Final Hammer Price - 1914 BN Babe Ruth vs the 1952 Rosen Topps Mantle

Jay Wolt · #1 11-15-2023, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who knows, all speculation, but my speculation is that the uber wealthy outside the hobby are buying art and race horses and real estate and whatever and don't venture into sports collectibles and likely won't. I think the buyer of the Ruth will be within the hobby.

So you're saying that you are gonna make a play on it?
Cool, hope ya win it

Peter_Spaeth · #2 11-15-2023, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

So you're saying that you are gonna make a play on it?
Cool, hope ya win it

When REA does a reprint I'll be all over it.

G1911 · #3 11-15-2023, 07:22 PM

A reasonable person would think that SGC just blatantly juicing the grade on any marquee card they get would start to hurt them and their reputation, but as it's the card hobby this is a feature instead of a problem.

The Mantle was not a 9.5, and this ain't a 3. Really awesome cards, it doesn't get much cooler than this Ruth. I'm sure whoever the new owner ends up being won't care the slab they dropped $10M for is a lie.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-15-2023, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

A reasonable person would think that SGC just blatantly juicing the grade on any marquee card they get would start to hurt them and their reputation, but as it's the card hobby this is a feature instead of a problem.

The Mantle was not a 9.5, and this ain't a 3. Really awesome cards, it doesn't get much cooler than this Ruth. I'm sure whoever the new owner ends up being won't care the slab they dropped $10M for is a lie.

The fanboys don't care. But yes the man on the street is treated differently than friends and family.

53toppscollector · #5 11-15-2023, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

A reasonable person would think that SGC just blatantly juicing the grade on any marquee card they get would start to hurt them and their reputation, but as it's the card hobby this is a feature instead of a problem.

The Mantle was not a 9.5, and this ain't a 3. Really awesome cards, it doesn't get much cooler than this Ruth. I'm sure whoever the new owner ends up being won't care the slab they dropped $10M for is a lie.

if i win the bidding i will crack it out and put it in my binder

Bored5000 · #6 11-15-2023, 09:44 PM

I think the Ruth card at REA will sell for more, but I will be honest in that I don't even really even understand why a '52 Topps Mantle (even a PSA 10) would sell for anything close to Babe Ruth's first card with a population of less than a dozen.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 11-15-2023, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I think the Ruth card at REA will sell for more, but I will be honest in that I don't even really even understand why a '52 Topps Mantle (even a PSA 10) would sell for anything close to Babe Ruth's first card with a population of less than a dozen.

Because nobody collecting now saw Ruth, whereas Mantle was a folk hero to a whole generation of guys many of whom are still living. And 1952 Topps is the set that brought in modern collecting.

Bored5000 · #8 11-15-2023, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because nobody collecting now saw Ruth, whereas Mantle was a folk hero to a whole generation of guys many of whom are still living. And 1952 Topps is the set that brought in modern collecting.

I understand the reason why the 1952 Topps Mantle is iconic and that set's impact on the hobby. I should have worded that better and said I don't understand the whole PSA 10 factor at play and why it turns a common card into a six or seven or eight figure card.

Snowman · #9 11-16-2023, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

A reasonable person would think that SGC just blatantly juicing the grade on any marquee card they get would start to hurt them and their reputation, but as it's the card hobby this is a feature instead of a problem.

The Mantle was not a 9.5, and this ain't a 3. Really awesome cards, it doesn't get much cooler than this Ruth. I'm sure whoever the new owner ends up being won't care the slab they dropped $10M for is a lie.

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

brunswickreeves · #10 11-16-2023, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

This is precisely why I think the Rosen 9.5 went to SGC and not PSA. PSA will probably never grade another 52 Topps Mick a 10 even if one were pulled from a pack like happened at the National with the 55 Bowman Mick, as it would conflict with the three already in 10 holders, to protect and honor those. It could have received a 9, but really deserved to be a 10 considering the 2 PSA 10 examples it was compared to and their respective flaws. Since SGC awards half points, there you go, split the difference.

gunboat82 · #11 11-16-2023, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

I think you're absolutely right on all of this, and fudging the grade is probably even the right business decision. It's still off-putting to people like me. Right or wrong, I had a perception of SGC as the straight-and-narrow alternative to PSA. When I saw an SGC 3 slapped on that card, it make me rethink that perception. It should be worth roughly the same whether it's a 1-1.5 or a 3, but they shot high anyway. To what end?

G1911 · #12 11-16-2023, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps the Mantle wasn't a 9.5, but it was certainly better than all of the PSA 9s I've seen and two of the PSA 10s. Ultimately, this is what mattered, and this is why they put it in an SGC 9.5 holder. It was a matter of hierarchy, not accuracy. And given the significance of these cards, I think it was the right move to make. The goalposts never should have been moved on us, but they have. The only 52 Mantle that could give it a run for its money is the sheet cut PSA 10.

I haven't seen all the other BN Ruths, but I suspect this decision was similar. Placed on the old grading scale. Had it gone to PSA, it probably gets a 1 despite being nicer than one already slabbed as a 2.

Yes, I�m sure it was the �right to move make� for the mone, that is the point.. Corruption is a feature, not a problem. It�s blatantly dishonest. A card with staining like that has never before been considered to be in 9.5 or in 9 condition. If I submitted a Dale Coogan in the same condition I would not get a 9 or a 9.5. If I submitted a common T206 in the same exact condition as this Ruth it would not get a 3. I would be lucky to get a 1.5. This whole show is a farce, grading is not to produce an accurate grade it�s to suit the market interests of a select group.

Snowman · #13 11-16-2023, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I�m sure it was the �right to move make� for the mone, that is the point.. Corruption is a feature, not a problem. It�s blatantly dishonest. A card with staining like that has never before been considered to be in 9.5 or in 9 condition. If I submitted a Dale Coogan in the same condition I would not get a 9 or a 9.5. If I submitted a common T206 in the same exact condition as this Ruth it would not get a 3. I would be lucky to get a 1.5. This whole show is a farce, grading is not to produce an accurate grade it�s to suit the market interests of a select group.

When you submit a Dale Coogan though, they're not pulling up examples of previously graded copies to see where it might fit in among the hierarchy of other Coogans. And they shouldn't be expected to, because we want them to keep grading fees affordable. But when they're grading cards like this Ruth and the 9.5 Mantle, I would argue that it's the right thing to do. Even if the grades look silly in comparison to other recently graded cards.

This is why you shouldn't move goalposts.

Peter_Spaeth · #14 11-16-2023, 11:25 AM

Some goalpost movement is inevitable as the hobby changes, but moving them to the 50 yard line as they seem to have done is ridiculous.

G1911 · #15 11-16-2023, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

When you submit a Dale Coogan though, they're not pulling up examples of previously graded copies to see where it might fit in among the hierarchy of other Coogans. And they shouldn't be expected to, because we want them to keep grading fees affordable. But when they're grading cards like this Ruth and the 9.5 Mantle, I would argue that it's the right thing to do. Even if the grades look silly in comparison to other recently graded cards.

This is why you shouldn't move goalposts.

That IS moving the goalposts. The graders claim they do NOT give preferential treatment to high end cards and lift the grades for them. The whole reason for grading, besides the much more honest �it juices the money printer� is that it�s supposed to be a consistent set of criteria applied to the cards to make condition less of a debate. It�s not consistent when there�s 2 completely different sets of rules where the big cards get juiced. They did it with an Wagner fairly recently as well, SGC is clearly overgrading the best cards they get, presumably for the obvious financial reasons. Again, I know that corruption will be very popular among a lot of the hobby but it�s absurd and in a normal business would reduce customer confidence.

View Poll Results: REA 1914 Babe Ruth vs 1952 Rosen Topps Mantle?
Ruth sells for more than the Mantle	134	62.04%
Ruth sells for less than the Mantle	60	27.78%
Ruth sells for roughly the same as the Mantle	22	10.19%
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1952 Rosen Mantle SGC 9.5 Final Price � Too high, too low, just right?	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	191	09-06-2022 04:07 PM
Final price drop: 1952 Topps Mathews	darwinbulldog	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	05-02-2022 08:24 AM
Babe Ruth Bat Hammer - Lelands	Billyscards	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	2	11-09-2017 04:10 PM
Guess The Hammer Price 1952 Mantle	GasHouseGang	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	10-10-2016 09:42 AM
FS: 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth PSA Graded #144 & #149 FINAL PRICE REDUCTION	poorlydrawncat	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	4	07-31-2012 03:40 PM