Mastronet Babe Ruth book is a reprint edition

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

For those of you who may be tempted to dabble in the book world, you should be aware that Mastronet's offering http://mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=41616&CurrentRow=1 --while a gorgeous book--is the A.L. Burt reprint edition. The first edition of this book was published by Putnam, and is a larger size book, with the dust jacket being a lighter shade of blue. Mastronet has modified its description of the auction, but has not made it clear that the Burt offering is a reprint, published shortly after the Putnam printings.

The original description begins: "First published by the A. L. Burt Company in 1928, Babe Ruth's Own Book of Baseball has been reprinted countless times and is recognized as a classic among sports volumes." The modification simply adds: "Please note: The offered book was published by A.L. Burt Company of New York ("by arrangement with G.P. Putnam's Sons") and copyrighted 1928."

Any advanced book collector knows that A.L. Burt is a reprint house, and the vast majority of its editions are reprints (Burt was later purchased by Grosset & Dunlap, and most G&D printings are also reprint editions). However, I assume this is not widely known in the baseball memorabilia world. Hope this helps.

Here's my Burt copy (NOT Mastro's, which is much nicer) and my Putnam copy, for comparison:






Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Now this is what this board is all about!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff S

yeah, but what would it grade?

Thanks for the info, Max.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

your book posts are always welcome in the dusty photo board.

BTW - Leland's is auctioning a 1932 version of the book that looks quite different.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Scott

Do you mean the book that is shown in Lot 1223 (http://lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=1223&auction=412) ? It's indicated to be printed in 1931, not 1932, but I couldn't find any other Ruth book with that latter date in the auction.

The book shown in Lot 1223 is an instuctional ghost written by Ruth How to Play Baseball, published by Cosmopolitan in 1931, and shown without its dust jacket.

I'll upload an image of the book with dj

And if I ever have a concern about the vintage book postings being censored on this list, I have an alternative plan for acceptance: slab and grade them

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

This board allows most anything obviously.

You are right - I quoted 1932 from memory. Before you think I'm getting smart, I was high bidder on that lot until recently.

Back to work - I have a quota of license plates to complete or they move me back to the laundry room (too many dark corners in there for a young man like me!).

James - the guys here in prison are pooling their money to make you an offer on your "baseballvintage" domain name, just in case your current auction doesn't pan out. The old-timers were using t206 cards as book-marks and we've decided to sell them. But if not, maybe you could auction one of my Wagners for me? (it's a rare version that says "Wanger" on it - none of the guys wanted it).

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Scott (and anyone else not totally immersed in Wee Willie)

Here's the 1931 Ruth book, with the dust jacket image. Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I've exited the "Wee Willie" discussion - it was getting pointless as it's obvious there are axes to grind that have very little to do with facts.

So what's the value of this book? I was high bidder on the Leland's lot, but assigned low values to this book and a couple of others that I knew nothing about. I also just got bumped in the Mastro Americana lots I was high on...except for one! ...time to go to bed...I'm whining.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Scott

One is offered for sale on the web at (in my view) a far too high price ($540?) without dust jacket and two fair condition copies for $50 and $75.

The book is "not uncommon" [a horrible book collecting term ] without dust jacket, but a dust jacket is harder to find. For many older books, it often doubles or triples the value, or more. Without dust jacket, the Ruth book appears on ebay now and then for under $100. With a nice dust jacket, the price would be much higher.

And an interesting point on Willie: if a rare first edition was misidentified in such a fashion as the A.L. Burt was in a top-end rare book auction, the fury would be similar to the debate on the Keeler thread. Thus the relative quiet here on the Burt misidentification, and the 130+ postings on Willie.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Heck, I'm still fired up over Wee Willie's facelift...

so I'm ready for another 100+ post thread on rare books!

Or ... maybe I'l just go to bed too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I'm biting my lips here. In any case, both Jay and Mastro responded to this well, which is all you can ask.

But regarding that Ruth book - I guarantee the info you posted will be used as ammunition in the future by someone grinding their Mastro ax. And if someone knew the consignor, and had any past dealings with him that were unsatisfactory, he would get attacked as well. That's the nature of this board. It doesn't excuse the mistake, but I doubt anyone bidding on that book would be unaware of the actual facts - but if not, they should do some research or assign a low default value.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Not sure which edition this is, but it is signed.

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2294400038&category=28221


And a totally different one.

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2294400049&category=28221

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Max,

You have a very good point.


Scott,

I'm not sure what you mean about the consignor. Could you clarify?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

My experience is that MastroNet is loathe to change the desciption once it's been published. More than likely, the Keeler was changed as MastroNet knew that many of the big money bidders on that type of item are regulars to this board.

I can assure you that they don't change a published description because of my say so.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

never mind

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Perhaps I missed something DD. You posted links to 2 ebay auctions and no one in this thread even commented on your post, much less accused you of anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

The two books DD refers to are completely different (thus perhaps his "never mind" post). The signed Ruth is the Putnam limited edition of 1000 (of which over the last 15 years, I've probably seen 25 come up for auction or sale); the other Ruth book is a trade paper edition published 4 years later with completely different material.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Many board members tend to do that to anyone who consigns a questionable item...attack first, then gather the facts. I have been guilty of it as well.