Gehrig 1925 Exhibit

[MattyC]

So I am a huge fan of the man and player. Was wondering how his 1925 Exhibit is viewed within the larger collecting community-- in terms of it being his RC.

Edited to say that it seems clear to me now that it is indeed his RC. This card seems tragically undervalued to me, considering the man's character, the legacy of his famous speech, the incredible stats, the hallowed record held for so long, and of course the sadness at how he was struck down in his prime. The salient thing for me is the grace with which he conducted himself in the face of that; to consider yourself lucky in that circumstance...amazing.

I have to believe that in time, once Ruth's cards are done skyrocketing lol, perhaps another film, widespread doc on MLB channel, or a special on ESPN will help bring Gehrig (and in turn his cards) the props they deserve.

[familytoad]

Hi Matt
I am one who consider the 1927 York Caramel (type2) as the Lou Gehrig RC.
I do have some bias because it's my latest pickup. (posted in the July thread:D)
This card was on my list of "dreams" for many many years, and I sometimes still pinch myself when looking at it...
Anyway I think The exhibit folks have a legitimate argument as well, but this is just my opinion, I think the York fits better by some of the common designated "rules".
US Caramel wouldn't qualify in my mind.

You can't go wrong with either, but I think you should have both just in case...:p

[Exhibitman]

If exhibit cards are cards then yes. We have a nationally-distributed card of Lou Gehrig from 1925. It isn't a postcard [not that there's anything wrong with postcards, if that's what you collect]. It isn't a photograph. It wasn't cut from something else or turned into a card from something else. It isn't outlandishly sized [if so, then are Topps Supers from 1964-70-71 also not cards?]. It is ACC-listed. About the only knock on it is that it wasn't sold with something else or to promote something else, which I find to be a facile distinction, frankly, since that would also boot most "W" cards from the list of cards. But I could be wrong, so all of you with 1925 Gehrigs, please discard them immediately by sending them to me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Like Adam said, the '25 Exhibit of Gehrig certainly makes sense to me as his Rookie Card. Gehrig also appears in the W590 strip card series which is most often dated 1925-31 although most would probably agree that the Gehrig card was most likely produced after 1925.

[Leon]

I have always thought his '25 Exhibit is his rookie. I bought a raw one in a Mastro auction, about 12-14 yrs ago raw, and it came back a 70 which eventually got bumped to an 80. Great looking pose. If you don't count Exhibits then I would go with his York Caramel also...

[MattyC]

I'm personally of the mind that the 1925 Exhibit is the way to go. Now the big question is who will sell me one?

[HRBAKER]

If there such a thing as a Rookie Card then the 1925 Exhibit would surely qualify. You have to make up rules for the things to even exist, I don't see how you disqualify the Exhibit.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Not interested in selling it but here's mine................

[HRBAKER]

Nice Phil!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, Jeff.

One piece of advice, if you are buying one of these raw, look very closely at the color tint, there exists the exact same image in a blue-gray tint which was produced in 1926 as opposed to the gray tint from 1925. Sometimes, it is not that easy to tell the two apart if you don't have another example available for a side-by-side comparison. I think that, from time to time, even the grading companies have gotten them wrong.

[MattyC]

Phil's killing me with that card!

[smtjoy]

Yup not sure how it would not be his exhibit. Happy with mine but would like to purchase/trade for an SGC downgrade or upgrade anyone?

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n182/smtjoy/Exhibit%20Collection/1925/1925Exhibit-Gehrig-4.jpg (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/smtjoy/media/Exhibit%20Collection/1925/1925Exhibit-Gehrig-4.jpg.html)

[MBMiller25]

I'll throw my vote in for this being Gehrig's Rookie. I am looking for this card as well. It's not on the top of my list right now, so I will keep my eyes open for you.

[Guttapercha]

I will post a PSA 5 up for sale in the sell section if anyone is interested.

[glchen]

I think the premium that the 1925 Exhibits gets shows that most collectors consider this Gehrig's rookie card. The 1932 US Caramel card is expensive also, but not out of line when you consider the Ruth card from the same set. One thing to note for the 1925 Exhibits card is that the card should have a definitive gray shade. On some cards, the TPG's have mislabeled the bluish 1926 Exhibits incorrectly as a 1925 Exhibits. Also, note the 1927 Exhibits Gehrig which has the same image, but has the greenish tint, and different fonts for the caption.

[shammus]

What evidence do we have to support that the w590 Gehrig was produced after 1925 and not with the initial run? I always considered his w590 and the 25 Exhibit to be his rookies. The w590 has always been clearly the more affordable of the two but shows a terrific likeness of Gehrig which I don't believe was used on any other card.

106112

[h2oya311]

I'm partial to this 1923 Type I Photo which ended up being the image used on his 1925 Exhibit:

[bcbgcbrcb]

Brian:

I do not have any hard evidence indicating that the W590 Gehrig card was not issued in 1925. Since 1925 was his first full MLB season (1923 & 1924 contained only a scant few at-bats), it is much more likely that his card was issued after that season. Of course, it could have been issued later in the season or right after the season ended and still be a 1925 issue.

The best way to tell would be if someone has seen a complete strip including the Gehrig card and then look at the possible dates of all of the other players based on their team designations, etc. I have seen a number of strips from this issue but have never seen one with the Gehrig card included. Does anyone have one that they care to post?

[ScottFandango]

But that has to be the most awkward pose captured in baseball card photography....sounds like the idea for a new thread....

[WWG]

What do you think is a fair offer if you were thinking of buying?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-Exhibit-Lou-Gehrig-Rookie-PSA-4-MK-/192240051401?hash=item2cc26664c9:g:3wgAAOSwq~tZXpP 3

[orly57]

Considering a psa 3 sold for 60k and and sgc 40 sold for 32k THIS YEAR, his price doesn't seem unreasonable. Though it was suspected that this was one of the cards that were "manipulated," it is a very rare true rookie card of a legend. I would throw a 30k offer and go from there, though there are varying opinions on this board as to what a "best offer" should be. You can always hang your hat on the qualifier.

[Bicem]

Nice call by MattyC on the meteoric rise of this card. Four years ago to the day! Should have bought every one that I could find.

[Yoda]

It is easy to see from the awkward stance where Lou's strength as a power hitter came from - the big butt and tree trunk legs.

[WWG]

Besides the pencil writing on the front, how was this card manipulated?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Besides the pencil writing on the front, how was this card manipulated?

He means the price of the card in general, nothing about this card specifically.

[Touch'EmAll]

So the 1925 Gehrig Exhibit is now recognized as THE rookie card and consequently is super spendy. How are the second year cards doing value wise? i.e.. the 1926-29 Exhibits which have two variations, the "batting" (looks like '33 Goudey pic) and the "portrait". I haven't seen the 1926-29's play out in auction for a long time - I missed them if/when available. Also, I think there is a 1927 Gehrig Exhibit as well. How have these cards done? PSA populations appear quite low.

[BeanTown]

Price fluxuations happening with that card. Goodwin sold one under 20k a couple of months this ago. LOTG sold one for 30k which didn't seem any better than the Goodwin one. I wouldn't pay more than 20k for it. Yes, I saw the HA ones that fetched a lot more a year ago, but since then the prices have come down. Be patient as more will turn up soon including the next LOTG auction which is much nicer than the eBay one

[1952boyntoncollector]

To me its in the 25k-35k range I would list it for auction if i had 15-20k into it..

[DeanH3]

I paid $1,500 for my '27 Exhibit back in May. Maybe I overpaid some, not the first time for me :) but,

I wanted something from Gehrig's first MVP year and from the Yankees historic 1927 murderer's row campaign.
Love the pose.
Population is pretty low.
Didn't want to risk the price escalating like the '25 exhibit.

So I took the plunge. Don't regret it one bit!

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=244&pictureid=22531

[pokerplyr80]

What do you think is a fair offer if you were thinking of buying?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-Exhibit-Lou-Gehrig-Rookie-PSA-4-MK-/192240051401?hash=item2cc26664c9:g:3wgAAOSwq~tZXpP 3

I could see that one bringing 60k or close to it in an auction. I could also see it going in the 30-40k range. Hard to say what's fair for an offer. I would just send an offer of what you're willing to spend and see what he says.

[DeanH3]

What do you think is a fair offer if you were thinking of buying?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-Exhibit-Lou-Gehrig-Rookie-PSA-4-MK-/192240051401?hash=item2cc26664c9:g:3wgAAOSwq~tZXpP 3

He is member here as well.

[orly57]

It's no longer available. It didn't sell on eBay, which isn't to say it didn't sell, but it's no longer listed.

[BeanTown]

It's the second or third time it's been listed and then pulled.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Price fluxuations happening with that card. Goodwin sold one under 20k a couple of months this ago. LOTG sold one for 30k which didn't seem any better than the Goodwin one. I wouldn't pay more than 20k for it. Yes, I saw the HA ones that fetched a lot more a year ago, but since then the prices have come down. Be patient as more will turn up soon including the next LOTG auction which is much nicer than the eBay one

The SGC 60 in LOTG is beautiful, but to my eye it looks quite light/white compared to Scott's posted above and reproduced here for comparison, as well as others I have seen. I suppose it could just be the scan, which is as is from the website, but the contrast is rather striking to me. Are there variations in the tints perhaps?

[oldjudge]

Personally, I do not think postcards or exhibits are cards so for me this would not be his rookie card.

[orly57]

The '25 exhibits isn't a postcard. It is postcard-size, but not a postcard. It is blank-backed.
How about if it were just as tall, but thinner like a Namath rookie? Or does it need to be small like a T206, but no bigger than a 52 topps? Does it need stats or bios on the back? Are blank-backs "cards" in your opinion? How about redemption cards with coupons that were to be traded for ice cream? Does it need advertising, or does it have to come with gum or tobacco to be a card? With bread? With candy? In a magazine? In packs of hot dogs? Do you consider T3's to be cards? Stahl Meyer (oversized)? Or what about Old Judge Cabinets? Are those "cards?" Please tell me what a baseball card is. I thought it was cardboard images of players which were distributed to the public.

[ullmandds]

The '25 exhibits isn't a postcard. It is postcard-size, but not a postcard. It is blank-backed.
How about if it were just as tall, but thinner like a Namath rookie? Or does it need to be small like a T206, but no bigger than a 52 topps? Does it need stats or bios on the back? Are blank-backs "cards" in your opinion? How about redemption cards with coupons that were to be traded for ice cream? Does it need advertising, or does it have to come with gum or tobacco to be a card? With bread? With candy? In a magazine? Do you consider T3's to be cards? Or what about Old Judge Cabinets? Are those "cards?" Please tell me what a baseball card is. I thought it was cardboard images of players which were distributed to the public.

:D

[Peter_Spaeth]

The '25 exhibits isn't a postcard. It is postcard-size, but not a postcard. It is blank-backed.
How about if it were just as tall, but thinner like a Namath rookie? Or does it need to be small like a T206, but no bigger than a 52 topps? Does it need stats or bios on the back? Are blank-backs "cards" in your opinion? How about redemption cards with coupons that were to be traded for ice cream? Does it need advertising, or does it have to come with gum or tobacco to be a card? With bread? With candy? In a magazine? Do you consider T3's to be cards? Or what about Old Judge Cabinets? Are those "cards?" Please tell me what a baseball card is. I thought it was cardboard images of players which were distributed to the public.

Jay didn't say the Gehrig was a postcard. He said he didn't think postcards OR exhibits were baseball cards.

[irv]

:D

:D:D

[orly57]

Jay didn't say the Gehrig was a postcard. He said he didn't think postcards OR exhibits were baseball cards.

How about if it were just as tall, but thinner like a Namath rookie? Or does it need to be small like a T206, but no bigger than a 52 topps? Does it need stats or bios on the back? Are blank-backs "cards" in your opinion? How about redemption cards with coupons that were to be traded for ice cream? Does it need advertising, or does it have to come with gum or tobacco to be a card? With bread? With candy? In a magazine? In packs of hot dogs? Do you consider T3's to be cards? Stahl Meyer? Or what about Old Judge Cabinets? Are those "cards?" Please tell me what a baseball card is. I thought it was cardboard images of players which were distributed to the public.

Fixed for Peter
And to clarify, the card on the left is not really a card, but the one on the right is.

[botn]

There was just a great thread on what a "rookie card" is. This will never be agreed upon. However it is pretty clear the consensus of the hobby is that the 25 Exhibit is Gehrig's rookie.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Thanks Orlando. As far as the rest of it goes, I don't think there is really any good way to define a card, someone could always find some inconsistency in your definition. Not sure why it matters, as the old cliché goes, CWYL. Anyhow there were tons of debates on this question back in the days when Hal Lewis was obsessed with collecting rookie cards of HOFers, and I think some of Phil Garry's posts provoked some good discussions too.

Anyone wanna talk about the SGC 60? Seems not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There was just a great thread on what a "rookie card" is. This will never be agreed upon. However it is pretty clear the consensus of the hobby is that the 25 Exhibit is Gehrig's rookie.

I think that's right; 10 years ago it may have been less clear but Exhibits have become generally accepted by most hobbyists.

[RedsFan1941]

for what it's worth -- and apparently not much -- the whiteness of the exhibit Gehrig also struck me as odd when I saw it online in the auction

[BeanTown]

Make sure you know it's a 1925 Exhibit and not a 1926. Can't trust any holder from any TPG on the Gehrig rookie Exhibit. I hear PSA uses a consultant to help identify/figure out what the actual designation and year is on them now.

Orlando valid points and looking forward to Jays response. Would make for a great discussion to talk about 19th century cards and then compare to postcards and exhibits. Guess we can't use the SCD "Baseball Card" price guide as it prices out many 19th century items along with postcards as they felt everything belong in the baseball guide.

Interesting strategy someone is doing on the LOTG Gehrig as it went from 15k to over 40k with just 2 bids. Does that really stop people from bidding on it who really want to win it?

[WWG]

That big jump strategy in bidding was probably due to the card having a reserve and now that reserve has been met.

[oldjudge]

Personally, I think the best (albeit not perfect)definition of a baseball card is one that Rob Lifson came up with: a baseball card is an image of a ballplayer/ballplayers on a collectible card available to the general public, intended to advertise and promote the sale of a product other than itself. Of course there are other definitions, many less restrictive. However, I think Rob's was the traditional definition. Under this definition, postcards and exhibits are not baseball cards. That doesn't mean that they are not great collectibles, just not (to me) baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jay by that definition nothing after they stopped including gum in the packs is a baseball card?

[Baseball Rarities]

Jay - what is your feeling on strip cards or similar issues such as R315?

[ullmandds]

honestly who cares what Jay considers is a card and what is not? I imagine most of you...like myself will collect what we want...despite what one person thinks?

[oldjudge]

Jay by that definition nothing after they stopped including gum in the packs is a baseball card?


Peter S.-I agree; that's why I say it is not perfect. The other issue I see is a little more esoteric. Take two 1869 Cincinnati CdVs, one blank back, the other advertising Charwick's annual. By this definition, the latter would be a baseball card, but not the former. To me, they both are. Perhaps the definition could be improved if it was expanded some to say the card was, or could have been, used to advertise.... I would need to give it some thought. However, this is just the definition for me. I have no problem with someone else having a completely different definition.

Peter U-I agree with you also. This is just my definition. Others should make up their own mind.

Kevin-My opinion is that almost all strip cards (as opposed to cards of women stripping) are really ugly and I would never collect them.

[1952boyntoncollector]

honestly who cares what Jay considers is a card and what is not? I imagine most of you...like myself will collect what we want...despite what one person thinks?

Nah, if one person thinks it thats all the matters...

However, at the National you will hear about one auction about a lone auction that is 4k higher than last sale...so in theory that final win price is based on what one person thinks...so in essence it would matter in that sense

[Baseball Rarities]

honestly who cares what Jay considers is a card and what is not? I imagine most of you...like myself will collect what we want...despite what one person thinks?

I collect what I want (hence my avatar), but I am always interested in hearing other collectors' opinions on different subjects.

[Bicem]

Especially when they are so ludicrous.

And Rob called postcards and Exhibits cards in every auction he did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

honestly who cares what Jay considers is a card and what is not? I imagine most of you...like myself will collect what we want...despite what one person thinks?

Man, you could take that to its logical conclusion and just shut down the chatboard lol.

[botn]

Especially when they are so ludicrous.

And Rob called postcards and Exhibits cards in every auction he did.

In Rob's defense I am not sure when he said what Jay has attributed to him and no offense to Jay, but is what Jay posted exactly what Rob said?

In my opinion if it is made of paper, intended for distribution and promoting the sport of baseball it is a baseball card. Does not have to come in a box, with a product, in a wrapper or be advertising something.

[oldjudge]

Greg-it was when Rob was arguing that the 1863 Wright Grand Match ticket was the first baseball card.

[Stampsfan]

Fixed for Peter
And to clarify, the card on the left is not really a card, but the one on the right is.

And the card on the right... just who is that Pipp guy?

Never heard much of him after Gehrig...

[botn]

Greg-it was when Rob was arguing that the 1863 Wright Grand Match ticket was the first baseball card.

Hi Jay,

I am assuming that was a discussion that took place here? I went to do a search and it appears the search function is not working for me.

Thanks,
Greg

[BeanTown]

The SGC 60 in LOTG is beautiful, but to my eye it looks quite light/white compared to Scott's posted above and reproduced here for comparison, as well as others I have seen. I suppose it could just be the scan, which is as is from the website, but the contrast is rather striking to me. Are there variations in the tints perhaps?

Many times the person or should I say the graphic artist who does the scanning for the AH works diligently to make sure the image comes out in the most flattering way. I can't tell you how many times I have recieved my auction winnings, to only discover when I got the card in hand the crease seems to be a lot bigger and deeper than what was shown in the catalog or online. The LOTG Gehrig that is currently being auctioned is a great looking card. I've seen it in person and the grade is very accurate from SGC. Hopefully it won't be crossed over.

[botn]

I think the scan of the 25 Gehrig in LOTG was done with too much contrast if you look at the SGC label. Would be nice to see the card in hand but I don't think there is too much risk of someone crossing it to PSA 5 holder, but ya never know, due to the snow/surface wear. Besides like most cards, a 25 Gehrig looks much better in an SGC holder.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Many times the person or should I say the graphic artist who does the scanning for the AH works diligently to make sure the image comes out in the most flattering way. I can't tell you how many times I have recieved my auction winnings, to only discover when I got the card in hand the crease seems to be a lot bigger and deeper than what was shown in the catalog or online. The LOTG Gehrig that is currently being auctioned is a great looking card. I've seen it in person and the grade is very accurate from SGC. Hopefully it won't be crossed over.

So are you saying in hand it looks like the PSA 4 in terms of brightness/tint?

[BeanTown]

So are you saying in hand it looks like the PSA 4 in terms of brightness/tint?

I would never make it as a grader. Something I might give a 7 will get hammered as a 4 or 5 and vise versa. With the later being more probable.

The Gehrig card we are speaking about, I did not study it and only looked at for 5 seconds.

When buying any 1925/26 exhibit I would study the brightness/tint as they are key to determine what year it is. Hopefully a graphic artist doesn't change the color tint in a scan which might make the card pop more for the catalog picture.

#Notallgraded1925exhibitsare1925

[Peter_Spaeth]

So you didn't study it, and only looked at it for 5 seconds, yet you assured us before the grade is "very accurate." Count me as confused.

[BeanTown]

So you didn't study it, and only looked at it for 5 seconds, yet you assured us before the grade is "very accurate." Count me as confused.

Slow day at the law office Peter? Most of "us" know if we like a card in about 5 to 10 seconds. I just squeezed another 5 seconds in which I'm sure you picked up in being a detailed person. When you referred to "us" is that you and some loyal followers you have? Is it you representing all collectors, or is it representing you and your best friend lassie your loyal 🐶

Try not to hijack another thread or make something out of nothing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

JC, you really should quit while you are behind.

"Us" is the board, obviously. I was referring to your post where you confidently pronounced that the grade was "very accurate."

And you must be a better man than I am, because I could never make that determination -- recall cards have a back too -- in 5 seconds. Especially about an expensive vintage card. Sure, I would know whether I liked it, but that wasn't the question. Nice attempted deflection though.

And I am not hijacking the thread at all. The thread is about 1925 Exhibit Gehrigs. We are discussing one. Indeed, you first raised the topic of the one in LOTG. Now that it is live, I posted because I was struck by the (apparent) contrast between it and others I have seen, and was interested in what people had to say. As you said you had seen the card, I asked you a perfectly reasonable question, and you begged off.

Feel free to respond with more remarks like the one about Lassie though. Very impressive.

[Bicem]

At the show, crappy cell phone pic but card looks good to me...

http://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/misc/websize/IMG_20170726_131713.jpg

[BeanTown]

The card looks good in Jeff's picture. I said the card looked good when I saw it in person to. Not sure what you are implying Peter other than you are confused. Maybe you got confused when I said you need to make sure to look at the color tint on all 1925/26 Exhibits as they are very tough to tell apart. Feel free to keep discussing the Gehrig.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I was confused because I asked you what I thought was a straightforward question, whether in hand the SGC 60 looked like the PSA 4 (despite the apparent huge differences in appearance based on the scans), and instead of answering you put up what seemed to be a disclaimer that you had only looked at the card for 5 seconds.

[Frank A]

Why should an SGC 60 look like a PSA4. Its an SGC 5 and looks like one. Whats your point?

[insidethewrapper]

It must look good to someone as it is currently at $ 67K

[WWG]

It's probably gonna go for over $100K, not too many out there especially in this grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why should an SGC 60 look like a PSA4. Its an SGC 5 and looks like one. Whats your point?

You must not have read the posts leading up to it; they give the context for the question.

[BeanTown]

It's probably gonna go for over $100K, not too many out there especially in this grade.

Its a great card and it's in great condition. I will add IMO, that there are more ungraded exhibits than graded exhibits at this time. I'm not sure when PSA/SGC even started to grade these size cards. Many postcard/Exhibit collections are still burried and are raw. Plus collectors who like stamps or writing on the back wouldn't want to get their cards graded to just receive the Authentic or 1 rating. Yes I know the 25 Exhibit is a blank back, but I still think there are many out there still ungraded. True with a high price like over 100k might motivate some collectors to get their 25/26 Gehrig out and enjoy the wave. It's a super card regardless of grade and glad sweet Lou is getting his respect.

[Snapolit1]

Not sure what your basis is to say a lot out there not graded. Could be true or not. Any evidence besides a raw hunch?

[botn]

Not sure what your basis is to say a lot out there not graded. Could be true or not. Any evidence besides a raw hunch?

Maybe he took 5 seconds to conduct a survey?

[BeanTown]

Not sure what your basis is to say a lot out there not graded. Could be true or not. Any evidence besides a raw hunch?

Been collecting a long time and know of a couple raw ones in collections including mine. Took less than 5 seconds for that and no survey needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but TPGs have been grading these cards for how long? 10-12 years. Look at how many have been graded over the last year. They will continue to come out most likely for another 10-20 years is my guess. Still a low population on them and it shouldn't affect the market or value one bit. If anything, it will create a very popular market as they won't be the impossible dream to own.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not specific to the Gehrig, but it's one of those topics that gets debated from time to time here: how many high grade/valuable raw cards are still out there. We get opinions ranging from the romantic notion that there are countless guys still sitting on pristine raw collections and that graded cards are still a drop in the bucket, to the opposite notion that the high prices commanded by graded cards have resulted in most high grade cards being submitted already. But other than anecdotes, I don't think anyone really knows or even has an educated guess.

[smtjoy]

Funny thread. On the PSA 4 vs SGC 60, I was lucky enough to have owned both years ago, they are great 1925 examples. Gloss/tint wise they are very similar when looking at them side by side, biggest difference between the two was corner wear. I always felt both were accurately graded.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Funny thread. On the PSA 4 vs SGC 60, I was lucky enough to have owned both years ago, they are great 1925 examples. Gloss/tint wise they are very similar when looking at them side by side, biggest difference between the two was corner wear. I always felt both were accurately graded.

Thank you for clearing that up, Scott. Really shows how much difference scans can make.

[Snapolit1]

Not specific to the Gehrig, but it's one of those topics that gets debated from time to time here: how many high grade/valuable raw cards are still out there. We get opinions ranging from the romantic notion that there are countless guys still sitting on pristine raw collections and that graded cards are still a drop in the bucket, to the opposite notion that the high prices commanded by graded cards have resulted in most high grade cards being submitted already. But other than anecdotes, I don't think anyone really knows or even has an educated guess.

Seems like someone has an ungraded one and knows of two others. I guess that means there are many ungraded. Ok. I'm convinced based on that. Again, not saying it's wrong. But we can all speculate.

[Leon]

The '25 exhibits isn't a postcard. It is postcard-size, but not a postcard. It is blank-backed.
How about if it were just as tall, but thinner like a Namath rookie? Or does it need to be small like a T206, but no bigger than a 52 topps? Does it need stats or bios on the back? Are blank-backs "cards" in your opinion? How about redemption cards with coupons that were to be traded for ice cream? Does it need advertising, or does it have to come with gum or tobacco to be a card? With bread? With candy? In a magazine? In packs of hot dogs? Do you consider T3's to be cards? Stahl Meyer (oversized)? Or what about Old Judge Cabinets? Are those "cards?" Please tell me what a baseball card is. I thought it was cardboard images of players which were distributed to the public.

Could it be a blank backed postcard? :) The debate over what a card is will never be settled because it can't be...

.

[Frank A]

Well the latest Gehrig exhibit rookie, a SGC 60, (5), just sold at LOTG for the sum of $82,419. I guess there's no dought that his card prices are holding for real