SGC has stopped putting Babe Ruth's name on the 1929 Churchman

[brianp-beme]

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[Leon]

Well said! (I think)

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[D. Bergin]

I understand where Justin is coming from, and of course many collectors and the grading companies have been duped with false narratives and information in the past, so the prevailing opinion is "better safe then sorry" I guess.

If there is overwhelming consensus, I don't think it should hurt adding an addendum as has already been suggested and has prior precedence such as "shows Ruth".

It's funny, it wasn't that long ago when most collectors didn't give two hoots about this card. In the late 90's this was considered a fairly common set overseas, and you could pick up the whole set in top condition for a fraction of what a VG Ruth goes for nowadays. I even ordered a few of the "Ruth" cards from the London Cigarette Card Company for the price of a common.

I thought I was super clever and would unleash it on to the collecting public as an affordable and rare "Ruth" card. Joke was on me. I probably sold them for less then what a Joey Gallo Xfractor card goes for nowadays.

[D. Bergin]

Now, here's an example from PSA I wish somebody could explain to me.

I have a whole set of these graded by PSA. All the exact same way. They only identify the guy on the back of the cards (the subject the playing card set was named for)...but the front of the cards are identified by their playing card designation only.

If you look at the cards closely, each subject is identified pretty clearly. This ain't no guessing game here.

I don't know if PSA has changed their policy on this set since...but it is pretty annoying either way.

In the PSA registry, the Tom Sharkey card is simply identified as "King Of Spades".

If PSA can't put names to these cards...I don't see how they could possibly put a name on the Churchman Ruth card.

[Beercan collector]

Can someone post the actual photograph for the 1929 Churchman ,
I don’t think I’m finding it
Thanks

[GasHouseGang]

Not quite a photo, but another example where they used that photo. Maybe they say his name in Japanese so PSA labels it that way?

[JustinD]

Thanks for the great discussion on this one everyone! I love it.