Babe Ruth Rookie

[DennyH]

Hello everyone I am new to board but a collector from the 80's before the market crashed and slowly working on a pre war collection.

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I would love to purchase his true rookie and Beckett claims the Goudey is his rookie and just wanted the thoughts of this board.

[Gobucsmagic74]

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

[CW]

In my opinion, this is debatable and you won't get 100% consensus in the hobby any time soon. An argument can be made for Baltimore News, but some think it's more of a schedule than a "baseball card". These days it seems like many collectors are leaning towards the M101 as Ruth's "rookie card".

Much like Cobb, nobody is in 100% agreement for that player's rookie card, and I'm not sure we all have to agree, necessarily (especially with prewar players).

[DennyH]

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

[vthobby]

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

Denny,
When you say that the Sporting News is obtainable.........that is simply untrue unless of course by obtainable you mean "incredibly rare and unaffordable".
Back in 2011, the worst conditioned PSA graded Sporting News Ruth sold for $15,275. It was a PSA 1. There are only 2 PSA 1s in existence (to date) and there are only 2 slabbed PSA Authentic examples. If those 2 Authentic examples came to light, my guess is they would bring north of $10,000 each but do not hold your breath. If you want an "affordable" Ruth, I'd stick with the 1933 Goudeys where the unwritten rule is about a grand for each PSA grade (for the lower grades under 5) so if you find a PSA 3 (1933 Goudey Ruth) you might expect to pay around $3000 for that copy. For a PSA 2, 2 grand, etc....

The early Ruth cards are like Gold right now so unless you make the find of the century, you will need a LARGE bankroll to obtain one.

Peace, Mike

PS I did not check the SGC pop report for Ruth Sporting News but I think my point is pretty self explanatory.

[kailes2872]

There are two in the current Heritage Auction.

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1916-d329-weil-baking-babe-ruth-rookie-151-sgc-60-ex-5-/a/7135-80965.s

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1916-m101-5-blank-back-babe-ruth-rookie-151-psa-vg-ex-4/a/7135-80966.s

70 grand for the 5 (+ BP), 34 grand for the 4 (+BP) with 2 weeks left. I guess attainable is a relative term - much more attainable than a Wagner, but well outside of my pay grade.

[vthobby]

Kevin,
We must have been typing at the same time with the same "obtainable" word kicking around in our heads! :o

Peace, Mike

[DennyH]

Is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards? Anyone on this board or anyone whom one can contact to see about purchasing an Authentic because it sounds like its within my range north of 10,000 for a Ruth rookie.

If anyone is selling or know anyone who is please contact me about a possible purchase.

[Bicem]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

[ullmandds]

Is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards? Anyone on this board or anyone whom one can contact to see about purchasing an Authentic because it sounds like its within my range north of 10,000 for a Ruth rookie.

If anyone is selling or know anyone who is please contact me about a possible purchase.

Denny my friend...you are new to this game...you can't just go to target and buy a Ruth rookie card. You will have to put in some time searching for the right one and then go after it. It could take months even longer. Have fun searching!

[ullmandds]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

+1

[DennyH]

:) figured I would go ahead and start from top and work my way down and the Babe is the epitome of baseball so thought it would be best to go for his rookie card.

It seems like after my bit of research it may be pretty hard to find one under the $20k range... or at all.

I guess at the end of the day coming from collecting in the 80's I never thought that there could be such a limited supply of a card especially with numbers like only 2 exist in the Authentic grade... Wow!

Can anyone explain why the M101 Ruth is not worth more than the T206 Wagner with this type of rarity because it seems like they are neck to neck on the number out there.

please forgive me if I am off as I am simply a novice in the prewar era trying to learn more and understand.

[vthobby]

Denny,

That is a good question.

They are both INCREDIBLE cards but the Wagner has 100 years of stories and lore. If you read about the "old days" and the old old time collectors like Burdick and Carter, they always referred to the Wagner (not always in great regard either!) but there has always been mystery, confusion, drama, HIGH profile buyers, and it has snowballed. Read this board for awhile and you will see and learn about COUNTLESS cards that are rarer than "daddy wags" but that apparently does not matter to the folks that keep shelling out millions of dollars for him.

Who knows maybe someday, the tide will reverse and the TRUE rarities will overtake the T206 Honus Wagner but I'm still waiting for that day.

Take care and welcome to the boards,

Peace, Mike

PS to answer your question " is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards": The quick answer is "No". Those 2 folks are probably sitting on those 2 and are quite content. If they ever surface, it will most likely be at a larger auction so as to maximize potential and profit. You would be surprised as some slabbed "Authentic" cards surpass even some lower graded examples so you never know!

[Jewish-collector]

There always seems to be at least one of the 1916 M101-5 Babe Ruth Rookie cards #151 in every large catalog auction. Just keep watching.

[x2drich2000]

Denny, one of the big things I think you might be missing from the pop reports is that the Ruth comes with so many different backs split between both the m101-4 and m101-5 sets. Both PSA and SGC split all these backs out separately. If you combined the pop reports of all the various backs I think you'll see the Ruth is not as rare as you think. This is why the Ruth also seems to show up in just about every major auction, sometimes with multiple copies in the same auction. On the other hand, the Wagner comes up about two to three times a year on average and I don't recall ever hearing of an auction with more than one. Add in the history, controversy, and popularity of the Wagner, I think it is easy to see why the Wagner sells for more. In addition, If it was not for the Ruth, the m101-4/5 sets would probably rarely be thought about by most collectors where as the Wagner is from probably the most collected pre-1930's set.

DJ

[felada]

This is Adrian all over again...

[ullmandds]

this is adrian all over again...

totally!

[Paul S]

.

[4815162342]

Is there any way to determine who owns the Authentic stabbed cards? Anyone on this board or anyone whom one can contact to see about purchasing an Authentic because it sounds like its within my range north of 10,000 for a Ruth rookie.



If anyone is selling or know anyone who is please contact me about a possible purchase.



This is Adrian all over again...


Denny, are you by any chance looking to sell a rare coin to fund this purchase? Welcome to the board!

[canjond]

Well you just missed an authentic one... sold in the last Goodwin auction for almost $20k.

http://goodwinandco.com/1916_M101_5_Blank_Back__151_Babe_Ruth_Rookie_SGC_A-LOT29651.aspx

[JasonD08]

The goodwin authentic used to be mine. I sold it for $3K just a few short years ago. Wow. Also the PSA 4 I sold for $16,500 is up for auction. Those are 2 cards I wished would not have gotten away.

[glchen]

The goodwin authentic used to be mine. I sold it for $3K just a few short years ago. Wow. Also the PSA 4 I sold for $16,500 is up for auction. Those are 2 cards I wished would not have gotten away.

That card used to me be mine also. :) I sold it on Goodwin around 2 years before this recent auction for ~$9K (Link (http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=23007)), and it's basically doubled in price since then. :rolleyes: Ouch. I was hoping to upgrade to a slightly better looking Authentic copy, but it looks like that won't be happening anymore.

[JasonD08]

Sold it to a fellow Ruth collector at a discount raw because I had a 4 and thought it was going into his collection. He then had it slabbed by GAI (against my advice) and sold it to Lelands I think. Did you purchase it from lelands? I purchased this card with a complete master set which was removed from black binder. The set also included 3 ultra rarities Cady, Becker, and Wallace which I sold in REA here: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2011/559.html. They brought huge money, more than I originally paid for the entire set so I was pleased. That collection also had a near complete set of 1915 Cracker Jacks. I wish I would have kept the PSA 4.

Jason

[glchen]

I purchased the card in the GAI slab in a private transaction from an eBay seller. He had bought it from a Vintage Authentics auction. I crossed the card into the SGC slab after PSA refused to holder it saying it was too fragile.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nothing wrong with buying just a basic boring Goudey, or go for all four.

[rgpete]

How about one of the 1928 Harringtons or Yuenglings Ice Cream Cards that use the same photo from the 1917-20 M101-6 series

[DennyH]

is it really this hard to purchase a Ruth Sporting news for under $20k?

I have done some more research over the last couple of days and am starting to think it may be a fruitless effort to find anything even with a decent budget.

maybe I am so new I haven't learned of all the outlets or auctions but this seems like its going to be tough to find a Ruth low grade.

[ullmandds]

Congratulations...you have graduated to 'advanced collector!'

[pawpawdiv9]

I know i cant ever get one of those M101 or whatever RC, but someday i will get a Goudey
Right now i settled with a photo, and someday may find a card to go with the photo.
http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg481/kylerowdybusch/1914baberuthRC_zpszxpf23vm.jpg (http://s1240.photobucket.com/user/kylerowdybusch/media/1914baberuthRC_zpszxpf23vm.jpg.html)

[Bored5000]

How about one of the 1928 Harringtons or Yuenglings Ice Cream Cards that use the same photo from the 1917-20 M101-6 series

The Harrington's, Yuengling's and Tharp's ice cream cards are viable choices for a career-era Ruth card, IMO. They at least are a real photo of Babe and not cartoonish like some of the strip card alternatives. While most of the pre-Goudey Babe cards have sailed out of reach for many collectors in recent years, a low-grade Harrington's, Yuengling's or Tharp's Ruth can still be had for $1,500-$2,000.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I believe there are only around 100 or so M101 Ruth rookies, all backs considered, graded by PSA & SGC. Then subtract crossovers which create those phantoms in the population reports. There is always debate as to how many of any card are out there raw, but it's impossible to know. I'm personally of the mind that famous expensive cards tend to find their way into TPG holders quickly.

Considering the M101 Ruth is the rookie of the game's premiere player of all time, it seems like supply is very tiny compared to the demand of those collectors, like myself, who would one day love to brandish one in their collections.

Whenever I look at the ones that surface on the auction circuit and think, or should I say dream, of chasing it, it is the poor centering that really gets me. It seems like 9 out of 10 are way off. Then there's those pesky print lines.

(A board member here owns an example with the exact qualities I would want in one-- you know who you are! I will keep raising my offer over time (assuming my savings can outpace the card's appreciation) and one day you'll say yes! ;) )

[DennyH]

would it be safe to say around 25% of that total could be crossovers which would put total around 75? I guess being naïve and new to pre war I always assumed there would be at least 100's of older cards if not thousands out there and it is eye opening to realize there are less than 100 of a particular card out there especially of such an important player.

puts cards more in realm of art in my opinion.

[x2drich2000]

You'll definitely gain more experience hanging around this board. You'll also find out pretty quickly that even 75 of a particular card can be lot. There are plenty of sets where individual cards, including HOFers, have less than 10 known. Check out this thread for a sampling http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=199179

DJ

[ls7plus]

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in. The 1916 M101-4 and 101-5 are his actual major league rookies, while his 1914 Blatimore News is considered his first card. The latter is actually a schedule card for the then minor league Baltimore Orioles, used to promote both the Orioles and circulation of the local Baltimore paper. By 1933, the Babe was 38 years old, most certainly not a rookie, and beginning to fade quite quickly (34 homers; .301, purely by recollection, with just 22 HR's and .288 his next and last year with the Yankees).

I'm sure other members have said the same thing, but just saw the original post and wanted to get my two cents ($1.25???) in. Unfortunately for most, the time for purchasing the real Ruth rookie for any semblance of an affordable price was in the early '90's, when prices varied from around $2,000 for a legitimate VG example to $5,000 plus for EXMT or better (one graded "Fair" recently sold for $36,000, if I recall correctly, in the most recent REA auction). IMHO, any contemporary Ruth is likely to rise in value--you may want to check out the 1921 Exhibit, which is somewhat available (though not abundant) as one that is reasonably priced. That year also represented the Babe's best performance (again, by recollection only, .378 or .376 BA; 59 HR's; 44 Doubles; 16 Triples, for a record 119 extra base hits). It was also the year of the Yankees' first pennant).

Enjoy any Ruth issued contemporaneously with his playing days that you can find, in the best condition you can afford.

Best of luck,

Larry

PS: The only market that "crashed" in the early '90's was the new card market, which had been based primarily upon speculation and transient demand.

[ls7plus]

Denny, one of the big things I think you might be missing from the pop reports is that the Ruth comes with so many different backs split between both the m101-4 and m101-5 sets. Both PSA and SGC split all these backs out separately. If you combined the pop reports of all the various backs I think you'll see the Ruth is not as rare as you think. This is why the Ruth also seems to show up in just about every major auction, sometimes with multiple copies in the same auction. On the other hand, the Wagner comes up about two to three times a year on average and I don't recall ever hearing of an auction with more than one. Add in the history, controversy, and popularity of the Wagner, I think it is easy to see why the Wagner sells for more. In addition, If it was not for the Ruth, the m101-4/5 sets would probably rarely be thought about by most collectors where as the Wagner is from probably the most collected pre-1930's set.

DJ

My best guess, which matches that of several dealers I have discussed the matter with, is there are around 200 of the 1916 M101's. About 60-65 of the T206 Wagners are believed to exist.

Best,

Larry

[ls7plus]

That card used to me be mine also. :) I sold it on Goodwin around 2 years before this recent auction for ~$9K (Link (http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=23007)), and it's basically doubled in price since then. :rolleyes: Ouch. I was hoping to upgrade to a slightly better looking Authentic copy, but it looks like that won't be happening anymore.

No, its 0--60 (grand) times in even lesser grades are besting even the fastest McLaren's, Ferrari's and Lamborgini's!

Happy collecting,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Nothing wrong with buying just a basic boring Goudey, or go for all four.

+1. Although there are lots of the '33 Goudeys, a rising tide raises all ships!

Highest regards,

Larry

[EvilKing00]

There are plenty of awesome ruth cards thst are affordable, i started with those!:D

[MetsBaseball1973]

So where are the Ruth Rookie pictures boyz? I know there are a few in the hands of some members here! Throw the rest of us a bone!

[DennyH]

would love to see some board members centerpiece

[MetsBaseball1973]

This is the one I want. Just sent MattyC a PM, hope it's okay.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/MattyC/-the-core-four-/23610/1916-m101-babe-ruth

[MattyC]

PM received, playa. All good. You know if I ever sell, will drop you a line.

[Cozumeleno]

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in.

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

[nolemmings]

What are promotional cards?

[ullmandds]

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

[glchen]

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

[Cozumeleno]

I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.


Like I said, it's not my logic. I tried to go out of my way to say that, actually. I simply gave Beckett's rationale, which is what I've heard echoed over the years numerous times when this subject has come up elsewhere.

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back). (Edited to add in addition to the blank backs, obviously)

[rats60]

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

[Cozumeleno]

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I can see that. And I think the many years off from the beginning of Ruth's career to the Goudey cards are a big problem when trying to justify them as rookie cards. His is a special case for sure.

I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

[glchen]

...
I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

It's tough to figure out rookie cards for a lot of players, both modern and pre-war. For modern cards, you usually have a lot of sets who distribute the rookie card of the player in that year, and some of the parallels are limited to a specific # run like 25. So usually collectors try to choose the "best" card from the rookie year that's not limited to a small print run as the player's rookie card. (However, the cards that tend to be most valuable are the auto cards with the limited run for that rookie year.)

For pre-war, there are a lot of players like Cobb and Gehrig who have a whole bunch of cards issued around their rookie year, so it can be hard to figure out which one is the "best" rookie card. For Gehrig, I think most collectors choose the 1925 Exhibits as his rookie card, but some collectors don't like postcard size (or larger) cards as rookie cards. However, then the 1925-31 W590 was issued over a period of years, so collectors don't like that either.

I think most "advanced collectors" for pre-war rookie cards follow one of Phil's lists for HOF rookies or first cards issued or look at the list on Old Cardboard and pick the best one they like: Link (http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/RookiesList.asp). (If you click on the player's name on the list, you can see some of the different options.)

[nolemmings]

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back
I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

[nolemmings]

Next tell me that Sporting News was regional. The m101 Ruths were distributed from California, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana and Washington DC. They were distributed by a national periodical--at that time likely the pre-eminent baseball paper--to anywhere the US mail was received.

Can you show me that Goudey gum was that widely distributed?

[Cozumeleno]

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

Fair enough - my definition of 'promotional' may have technically been a bit off and there's surely a better way of saying it. But the gist of my argument is that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News mainstream cards - which is why they have always called the Goudey Ruth cards his rookies. Right or wrong, I believe that has always been their stance.

[nolemmings]

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

[Baseball Rarities]

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider his rookie card?

[Cozumeleno]

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

[rats60]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

Except it wasn't nationally distributed. For example, being available only in San Francisco and not in Los Angeles or anywhere else in the state of California doesn't make the set distributed in California.

The cards were bought as complete sets from the printer by a few individual business and given away as premiums in a few locations. It does not meet the definition of nationally distributed or rookie card.

As far as "your definition" of rookie card, I guess that you don't think the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera is a rookie card, but the 1975 SSPC George Brett is.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I think the M101 is Babe Ruth's rookie card, is what I think. Curious what you believe bets fits that slot?

[MattyC]

Mets, my man, you are just gonna drive yourself crazy locking horns with people on the internet. It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it. Why waste time arguing semantics over what terms like "nationally distributed" means with strangers? Though last I checked SF was in California. The M101 is his first MLB appearance on a card. For the huge majority, that suffices. It's impossible for all humans to agree 100% on anything, let alone a hot-button topic as toxic and contentious as baseball cards, LOL.

[1880nonsports]

an apt comment that has multiple applications here and elsewhere. Beware what the coming digital era will bring.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is obviously Ruth's rookie card.

[rats60]

It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it.

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true. LOL.

[MattyC]

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

[glchen]

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

From what I have heard, this whole collecting rookie cards didn't even exist in the hobby until the 70s/80s where it was perpetuated by some card dealers in order to increase business. So, it's not like kids in the 1930s were jumping for joy after opening a 1933 Goudey pack and find Babe Ruth's "rookie" card, and then sending the card into their favorite TPG to be properly entombed. So whatever "long held hobby definition" of rookie cards that there has been, really hasn't been held for that long of a period.

[rats60]

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

I am not the one claiming the card is his rookie.

[MetsBaseball1973]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest solo card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

[glchen]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.


Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Put me with guys who prefer solo cards over group/team shots. I should edit my last post to say "solo" card, to be more precise. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

He never has offered his opinion-- it has been asked of him multiple times, as has his definition of a rookie card. He does not because he cannot. Similarly, he has not offered the names of long-time collectors or dealers who share what was the "long-held" hobby opinion of some other Ruth rookie from the so-called old days. He is a troll.

What part of being available through a National publication and thus mailed throughout the entire country (at least) he does not understand is beyond me. And has been pointed out to him previously, many m101s were doled out one at a time--look at the very Standard Biscuit ad I quoted. He does not offer that Goudey gum was even available in California in 1933, or that it was found West of the Mississippi for that matter, yet apparently concludes that it was, well, just because.

So yes, continue to call him out on it-- he is the one claiming it is not a rookie, while offering absolutely nothing to support his claim nor ever offering an alternative or an explanation as to what is the long-held hobby definition of Ruth's rookie. His view is no more meaningful than that of Peter Chao.

[Leon]

He is a troll.

.

Not so, trolls are anonymous and Rats is Flo.yd Pa.rr


And as a reminder everyone who gives an opinion of a person or company needs their name by their post or in their sig line. And that goes for any kind of snarky comments too. :) Nothing personal, just the rules.

[ValKehl]

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

Perhaps, this helps explain why serious collectors of pre-War cards don't send their cards to Beckett for slabbing.
Val

[bcbgcbrcb]

The true Ruth RC............

[ALR-bishop]

Book it. :)

[Enfuego]

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH:confused:

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

[ullmandds]

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH:confused:

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

I'm guessing he is a long time subscriber to SCD!

[Peter_Spaeth]

1948 Leaf, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

[ullmandds]

1948 Leaf, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

Dunno Peter...I think the 1976 topps sporting news ruth is the true rookie. No wait...that was a "promotional" card wasnt it?

[Enfuego]

I always thought it was the 60's "Ruth hits 60" was his RC??? You guys are pulling my leg.:confused:

[Vintageclout]

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

You got that right Matty! Ruth's inaugural 'solo appearAnce' on a MAJOR LEAGUE Card is the 1916 Issue. Game...set.....match!

[nolemmings]

I'm curious and would ask the Beckett followers-- do Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson even have Beckett-designated rookie cards and if so, what are they? Are T206 and Cracker Jack "worthy" of Beckett's criteria? How about George Sisler, Casey Stengel and Dave Bancroft? Is Nap Lajoie's rookie his 1934/33 Goudey?

[yanksfan09]

It's my opinion that Beckett has made designations like this to suite there own interests. By designating the Goudey a "RC" it's helps the dealers to give them another angle to market the Goudeys which are so plentiful compared to other earlier Ruth issues.

Not many dealers would benefit by designating the M101 issues or something else more obscure because there's not enough cards to go around. I think it's just a silly, ludicrous marketing ploy myself.

By 1933 Ruth was almost done as a player, there's countless earlier issues. I don't know why some think Beckett has full authority on making RC designations but I digress....

This is not a bashing of the Goudey Ruths either, they're great cards. Plentiful, but great attractive issues. But about the furthest thing from what I'd ever consider a Rookie card!

[yanksfan09]

At a show a year or 2 ago, I had asked to look at a Ruth Goudey (I think the green #181) and when the guy took it out of the case he said that it was Ruth's rookie card and quoted me a price about 3X what I thought the value of it should be.

I did my best not to burst out laughing in his face, politely handed the card back to him and moved on...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm curious and would ask the Beckett followers-- do Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson even have Beckett-designated rookie cards and if so, what are they? Are T206 and Cracker Jack "worthy" of Beckett's criteria? How about George Sisler, Casey Stengel and Dave Bancroft? Is Nap Lajoie's rookie his 1934/33 Goudey?

Pointed cross-examination indeed. :eek:

[oldjudge]

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

[MetsBaseball1973]

I can only speak for myself but I think when people want to focus on collecting a player, or having a card represent a player in a collection, they find most ideal an early depiction of the subject-- an image from the embarkation point of a great career. The start and origin, if you will. Hence why cards issued earliest are generally more sought after in the hobby.

With the News being a minor league card, it is surely desirable as an early and rare card, yet minor league depictions are something unique and separate from the majors.

With respect to population supply, I suppose it's all relative to demand. There could only be one existing card of some common player or even semi star, but if no one is after it, not much value there. In contrast, there could probably be a hundred more Ruth M101s and collector demand would gobble them up at a high price point-- Ruth's enduring popularity seems more than up to the task when it comes to generating demand to absorb supply.

[TanksAndSpartans]

There was an episode of History channel's Pawn Stars and I'm pretty sure someone brought in a Baltimore News Ruth that turned out to be either a fake or a reprint. What was interesting is the expert that came in actually mentioned that the Goudey Ruth was the one most desired by collectors. I searched the internet for a clip, but unfortunately couldn't come up with one and I can't remember who the expert was.

One other thing I thought, non-company issued PSA registry sets, sometimes ones that don't even have the word "rookie" in it often include a very early mainstream card of the player as the one required. Red Grange comes to mind on the football side. The 33 Goudey SK is the Grange card in all the sets, but there are a number of earlier cards of Grange.

Finally, the prior poster made a good point - a lot of collectors do have a desire for that "origin card" - the card before whoever was a big star - often the player looks a lot younger than the image we have in our heads, the write up on the back doesn't recognize him as a big star, maybe the position isn't even one he wound up playing, etc. That's part of the historical research aspect of collecting to me.

For me, I have no problem calling the earliest card the rookie even if that makes it out of my reach financially. One thing that hasn't come up yet, as a card collector, I wouldn't feel bad about excluding a matchbook, or a pin, or whatever - I'd want it to be a card, but I'm sure we don't all agree on that either or even what a card is.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

[Orioles1954]

It seems very obvious to me. A "rookie" card is a card from the player's rookie season, no more or less. For that reason, not every player in a respective sport has a "rookie" card.

1951 Bowman Mantle? Rookie Card
1952 Topps Mantle? Not a rookie card
1979-80 Topps Wayne Gretzky? Rookie card
1981 Donruss Golf Jack Niklaus? Don't make me laugh
1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan? Not a rookie card.

[Orioles1954]

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

I actually do agree that while rookie cards are part of the hobby, their role is not as substantial or important as they once were. It seems more like the fore-mentioned construct from an earlier age in the hobby.

[Bicem]

Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

:D

[bcbgcbrcb]

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

[Orioles1954]

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

I agee. However, I work with many clients in the industry and have yet to find one who is actively pursing football, basketball or hockey Hall of Famers. Even those who collect baseball rookie HOFers seem to be dwindling. I may be in the vast minority, but as a collector, the prospect of paying several thousand dollars for Babe Ruth as a Red Sox pitcher is not very appealing....even though it is his first mainstream issue. By the way, we should cut the nonsense of national vs. limited distribution. If the card has an ACC designation, it can be a rookie.

[trdcrdkid]

I've never really cared about rookie cards either, maybe because I'm old enough to remember that when I started collecting in the 1970s, the concept of a "rookie card" didn't really exist, or at least wasn't a term than anybody used or cared about. The card that popularized the term around 1980 and the years immediately after was the 1952 Topps Mantle, ironically not his actual rookie card by nearly any modern definition. I remember hearing the term for the first time around then and thinking it sounded kind of strange, like an artificial construct somebody came up with to create demand.

From Dave Jamieson's "Mint Condition":
"As more card sets and hobby publications poured into drugstores and card shops, a new term emerged among schoolboys: "rookie card". In years past, collectors had never made much of a fuss over whether a particular card was the player's first to appear. Things changed in the early '80s after Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps rookie card sold for around $3000, then a staggering sum for a postward piece of cardboard. Such sales marked the beginning of a long nostalgia boom, as the boys who'd collected those early Topps sets grew into professionals with incomes to throw around."

[glchen]

I don't think the concept of collecting rookie cards will ever go away in the hobby. Collectors by definition like to organize and categorize. Therefore to categorize and collect players by their cards from their rookie year makes too much sense. Also, if a baseball fan, but not a collector, asks a hobby friend, hey, I'm a big fan of this star (like Derek Jeter), and I'd like to pick up a card from him, but there are 10,000+ different cards for Jeter, what do you recommend? That friend will probably tell him to buy Jeter's rookie card. It's a lot easier to explain why you should buy a rookie card than to say, you know, most people buy Michael Jordan's 1986 Fleer rookie card, but I recommend you buy his Green Metal card. That's tougher to explain to a casual collector.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Still no Ruth Rookie sightings here! Who won the $200,000 example in REA. Come on, bring it out ---- some of us actually love seeing awesome cards.

[JLange]

In pursuing that card that is the origin of someone's career, it always just made sense to me to try to obtain the earliest card possible. That's the card. Call it a rookie or not, but the earliest card in a player's career is generally undisputed. Now, if you stretch the definition of "card" to include everything that I do, you introduce more debate, but this rookie card stuff is just nonsense. Call it the "Earliest Card" and you generally can't go wrong.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jason gets it, not that difficult of a concept. When I was doing the BB HOF RC collection, that's what I did. My collection included team postcard appearances, minor league cards such as Zeenuts, etc. Basically, the earliest "card" produced for each HOF'er. I also included things like Cameo Pepsin pins, M101-1's, etc. However, when I wrote reference material, I indicated what true rookie cards were for each HOF'er so the collector has the option to go with earliest collectible or true rookie card or even a mix of both.

[oldjudge]

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?


Phil: Many things are part of the hobby that I don't agree with. I don't tell others what to collect--if they want to collect rookie cards good luck to them. I just said to me it makes no sense and therefore I would never collect them. As for the Old Judge pose variations, LOL virtually no one collects them all. However, they are part of an established set. Rookie cards are part of a "constructed" set. This is a big difference. Secondly, rookie card collectors can't even agree what the rookie card of a particular player is. No such problem with Old Judge poses. BTW, how is your book coming?

[bcbgcbrcb]

My book has been completed and is ready to print. However, I have not been able to garner sufficient advertising to help cover the printing costs so it is on hold right now.

[ZenPop]

While all you blow hards talk the talk, I've actually acquired proof that you're ALL wrong. Just got this back from PSA. Babe Ruth ROOKIE CARD. CONFIRMED.

http://s25.postimg.org/h09eklq67/Ruth_Rookie_Card_Final.jpg

[h2oya311]

We have all been put to shame! Thanks zenpop for lightening the mood.

[barrysloate]

While all you blow hards talk the talk, I've actually acquired proof that you're ALL wrong. Just got this back from PSA. Babe Ruth ROOKIE CARD. CONFIRMED.

http://s25.postimg.org/h09eklq67/Ruth_Rookie_Card_Final.jpg

That's some serious photoshopping there John. Great job!

[CW]

Perfect, John! Too funny... I was going to post that same childhood image of Ruth and claim it was his "rookie", but your actual OJ card is SO much better. Nice!

[4815162342]

That's some serious photoshopping there John. Great job!


+1 how long did it take you to make that?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Funny, I owned probably one of the earliest versions of that Babe baby photo. A single original probably remains tucked away in a family photo album somewhere. Mine was produced around 1920, over 20 years later but still at a pretty early stage of the Babe's career. You would think it would have some value to it but when it came time to sell, I couldn't even get $100, I think I ended up letting it go for something like $60 and it was encapsulated by Beckett, which cost money as well. Guess I was the only one that thought it was pretty cool..............

[Peter_Spaeth]

The rookie card craze does, or did, go too far -- 1992 Bowmans of guys in street clothes.

[ZenPop]

+1 how long did it take you to make that?

...about an hour and a half... I just put my kid to bed... and was eating dinner reading the thread, when I thought: "yeah... that'll do."

Thanks for the kind words, good people!

[jhs5120]

I always considered the Baltimore News card to be his rookie.

I realize that it wasn't nationally distributed nor is it an MLB card, but Babe Ruth was a larger than life figure and the Baltimore News premium is a larger than life card. However, I'll concede the M101 Ruth fits the standard unwritten definition of "rookie card" better than the Baltimore News card.

[Baseball Rarities]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

I think that Jeff summarized it perfectly.

[glchen]

The rookie card craze does, or did, go too far -- 1992 Bowmans of guys in street clothes.

Players in street clothes aren't necessarily limited to modern cards. Here's one from pre-war (not mine, obviously).

[bcbgcbrcb]

C'mon, Gary, don't be embarrassed to show off one of your lesser cards.........

[Bicem]

So it that Matty's rookie, or is the 1902 W600 that shares the same image?

My vote would be w600.

[CW]

There are no words to describe the coolness of that Mathewson card. Just pure cool.

[MattyC]

I have and always will sweat that Mathewson card as well. The sh!t is pure pimp.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have and always will sweat that Mathewson card as well. The sh!t is pure pimp.

Those were the exact words that came to my mind too ..... not. :rolleyes:

[Leon]

I have and always will sweat that Mathewson card as well. The sh!t is pure pimp.

another possibility, 1901 M128 or that same pose on a 1915 card......and neither would cost a hundred K....

[Baseball Rarities]

So it that Matty's rookie, or is the 1902 W600 that shares the same image?

My vote would be w600.

Sporting Life did not offer Matty until Jan 31, 1903.

This would would be the earliest W600 Sporting Life Matty - Type 2 mount issued in 1903:

[Bicem]

Ah, so it probably still predates the e107 by a few months, would that matter to RC collectors?

[Bicem]

Those were the exact words that came to my mind too ..... not. :rolleyes:

Allow me to translate as I speak old out of touch white guy...

"I have and always will love that Mathewson card as well. The card is neato."

[bcbgcbrcb]

Leon:

The Matty is his earliest collectible, not a rookie card though........

[4815162342]

allow me to translate as i speak old out of touch white guy...



"i have and always will love that mathewson card as well. The card is neato."


189291

[MattyC]

Daryl, that is hysterical. Never seen that pic before!

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx58/mattianc/l7jcu_zps5yzmcjbh.jpg

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/xx58/mattianc/l7jq5_zps0iiynexf.jpg

[glchen]

C'mon, Gary, don't be embarrassed to show off one of your lesser cards.........

Hi Phil, I think you're mistaking me for Wonka...

[Leon]

Leon:

The Matty is his earliest collectible, not a rookie card though........

Correct but the 1915 W Unc is a card and is his earliest (rookie) pose on a baseball card. thanks much!! (and could easily fill the 100k hole with the caveat of it is what it is :) )

ps...I am biased as I own (for now) the only known copy..

[HerbK]

Allow me to translate as I speak old out of touch white guy...

Now that's the best post in this thread...

[LincolnVT]

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

[Vintageclout]

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

But with Ruth as a mere component of a team picture...sorry Ethan....the 1916 "solo" Ruth is his rookie card!

[LincolnVT]

I can agree to the 100 or so M 101s being "listed" as his rookie card. The first card that he appears on alone issued in 1916. That being said, he appears on a card, in uniform as a professional a year earlier. Only a handful of people can claim ownership of the RPPC...

[MetsBaseball1973]

But with Ruth as a mere component of a team picture...sorry Ethan....the 1916 "solo" Ruth is his rookie card!

Yes, indeed!

The Team card is very cool, and few abound-- but nowhere near the demand for that piece as compared to the M101.

[LincolnVT]

I'm not disputing the M 101 as being his rookie. But I also know that you can own an M 101 if you have the money, they are readily available in most major auctions. This thread was initiated by a member that was looking for a low grade M 101 and had a figure in mind to potentially purchase an example...I think that you would be hard pressed to see an owner of one of the 1915 Red Sox Team RPPC part with it for the same price that the lower end M 101 cards are selling for. Maybe I'm wrong....rare and early Ruth continues to dominate the hobby.

Yes, indeed!

The Team card is very cool, and few abound-- but nowhere near the demand for that piece as compared to the M101.

[ullmandds]

I don't know if you are right or wrong but you are definitely biased!

[LincolnVT]

Ha! Knowing me, I'm probably wrong! I had the chance to pick up a low grade M 101 a year ago for about $9,000 less than the RPPC that I have. Some of us like our Ruth rare.

[Bicem]

Team postcard is definitely more rare and produced a year earlier. Those two facts there's no questioning regardless of bias.

Team cards however in general almost never draw the same demand as individual player cards. Regular card cards are also collected by a much wider audience than postcards. These two facts outweigh the earlier date and rarity of the postcard so the demand for the m101-4/5 I think will always be higher.

[Vintageclout]

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

Rarity has nothing to do with it. There are approx. 60/70 known T206 Wagners and it still stands as the hobby's holy grail and most valuable/desirable card. In fact, sometimes extreme rarity can actually "hurt" a card with the expression "out of sight, out of mind" ringing true. There are THOUSANDS of 52 Topps Mantles and they continue to soar in value every day. Comparitively, roughly 100 graded 1916 Ruth's provide a reasonable number of specimens to keep people "in the hunt", yet a limited supply to augment the value..... a strong balance between relative scarcity and overwhelming demand.

Joe

[LincolnVT]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

Agreed...are there less 1915 RPPCs than Baltimore News 1914 cards? What is the combined pop on the B-News?

[Leon]

Demand is always the main factor in value, not scarcity alone. There are a lot of Ruth cards way more rare than his rookie or his rookie Postcard (though it is rare).

Rarity has nothing to do with it. There are approx. 60/70 known T206 Wagners and it still stands as the hobby's holy grail and most valuable/desirable card. In fact, sometimes extreme rarity can actually "hurt" a card with the expression "out of sight, out of mind" ringing true. There are THOUSANDS of 52 Topps Mantles and they continue to soar in value every day. Comparitively, roughly 100 graded 1916 Ruth's provide a reasonable number of specimens to keep people "in the hunt", yet a limited supply to augment the value..... a strong balance between relative scarcity and overwhelming demand.

Joe

[ullmandds]

Agreed...are there less 1915 RPPCs than Baltimore News 1914 cards? What is the combined pop on the B-News?

Not even close from what ive seen.

[Baseball Rarities]

Agreed...are there less 1915 RPPCs than Baltimore News 1914 cards? What is the combined pop on the B-News?

No, there are definitely more Boston team postcards than Baltimore News Ruth cards. I know of only 10 BN Ruth’s and more than a dozen postcards. It seems as though new to the hobby postcards are being offered every year and I am sure that there are still others buried in old time postcard collections.

[Vintageclout]

Hello everyone I am new to board but a collector from the 80's before the market crashed and slowly working on a pre war collection.

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I would love to purchase his true rookie and Beckett claims the Goudey is his rookie and just wanted the thoughts of this board.

There is minimal debate. Ruth’s 1916 M101 IS his TRUE rookie card. The 1914 Baltimore News card was issued as a minor league card/schedule with Ruth donning his Baltimore uniform; therefore, a “pre-Rookie” minor league issue. As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform. However, while an extremely significant issue (and costly I might add), many collectors disregard that as a true Rookie card because it is a full team image. Bottom line is the 1916 M101 Ruth is his first mainstream card issued with him ALONE and wearing a Boston MLB uniform, thus his “true” rookie card.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Please forgive me if this has been answered already in this thread (I haven't read through the entire thing yet), but why does Beckett call the 1933 Goudey a rookie card when it is so much later than so many other issues?

Thanks, and again, sorry if this has been addressed already.

[joshuanip]

I’m biased but it’s the m101 issue. First featured card of him as a professional. Not going to chime in on the postcard as I’m not a postcard guy. Let market demand decide that.

[Bicem]

As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform.

Well technically... 1914 Ruth (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2018/07/02/collectors-detective-work-lifts-300-ebay-postcard-to-50000-babe-ruth-auction-gem/#7cae88dab229)

[pokerplyr80]

I’m biased but it’s the m101 issue. First featured card of him as a professional. Not going to chime in on the postcard as I’m not a postcard guy. Let market demand decide that.

I dont own one but dont understand why there is any debate on this one. Seems quite obvious.

[oldjudge]

Different people have different "rookie card" definitions. For me it is the first individual baseball card as a major leaguer. This would eliminate the Baltimore News Ruth which is a schedule, not a baseball card, and is not a major league representation. The 1915 Ruth is a team postcard, eliminating it on two accounts (not individual, and for me not a baseball card). That leaves the M101-4/5 Ruth which fits my criteria.

[Vintageclout]

Well technically... 1914 Ruth (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2018/07/02/collectors-detective-work-lifts-300-ebay-postcard-to-50000-babe-ruth-auction-gem/#7cae88dab229)

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

[Bestdj777]

Different people have different "rookie card" definitions. For me it is the first individual baseball card as a major leaguer. This would eliminate the Baltimore News Ruth which is a schedule, not a baseball card, and is not a major league representation. The 1915 Ruth is a team postcard, eliminating it on two accounts (not individual, and for me not a baseball card). That leaves the M101-4/5 Ruth which fits my criteria.

By that definition, the 68 Nolan Ryan and 63 Pete Rose wouldn't be rookie cards, which just doesn't make sense. I can sss eliminating the postcard on the grounds it's not really a card, but the fact that there are multiple players depicted shouldn't make something not a rookie.

[Bicem]

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

Right, he's in a Red Sox uniform in the 1914 postcard.

[LincolnVT]

The "1914" Love Of The Game postcard is cool...especially if it is Ruth...I've spent some time looking over all of the research and am still left wondering. To me it looks like he has a glove is on his left hand. Why is the PC in a Beckett holder rather than a PSA or SGC? Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.

As for the M101, it's his rookie card.

The 1915 PC (which I have a copy of in an SGC 20 holder) is also a rookie image, pre-dates the M101 and is much, much more rare. What I like about the 1915 Red Sox team PC is that it is the first card that you can see Babe Ruth on in a professional uniform. The 1915 postcard IMO is on the move.

[Bicem]

Not sure how anyone can read the research and question if it's Ruth or not.

Don't worry, the 1914 postcard doesn't diminish the importance and value of your 1915 postcard.

[RedsFan1941]

Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.


very valid point!!!!!

[Vintageclout]

Not sure how anyone can read the research and question if it's Ruth or not.

Don't worry, the 1914 postcard doesn't diminish the importance and value of your 1915 postcard.

Jeff,

I don’t think Ethan is questioning the research as much as he’s simply stating you cannot identify Ruth on the 1914 postcard. The pitcher on the mound presents as an unifentifiable blurry image. I agree with Ethan. If it’s going to take a “war in peace” level of literature to prove it’s Ruth because the Ruth image tells us NOTHING, I prefer to pass as well. That’s just me and my taste, and it certainly doesn’t diminish the potential significance of this find and the great research that was put into it. On that subject, one question for you Jeff. As Ethan stated, the research is awesome and points to it being ruth. However, that appears to be a glove on the left hand of the pitcher. It just seems too large of a haze to be Ruth’s left hand? Your thoughts?

[Bicem]

Yes, obviously the image is too blurry to clearly identify Ruth, no one is arguing that. But if you have any doubts that it is actually Ruth that means you have doubts about the research which I can't really understand with all the supporting evidence.

Glove is on the right hand, his left hand is visible. May look a little large due to motion or holding a ball or whatever but again the image is too blurry to really make any kind of credible identification call like that which is why the research is so vital.

I completely understand that this type of item is not for everyone. All I'm saying is that it is 100% definitely Ruth pitching for the Red Sox in 1914.

[orly57]

It’s irrelevant which card is ”the” rookie. The mere fact that they are even in the debate shows that each card is important. The Ruth PC on HA is at 84k with BP right now. Rookie or not, it’s getting a ton of respect as the earliest professional Ruth card. The market will always prefer an individual card to a team card, but that is ok: there are obviously enough collectors who appreciate and will pay big for both.

[shagrotn77]

Pretty simple if you ask me. Baltimore is a minor league rookie and Sporting News is an MLB rookie.

[Vintageclout]

It’s irrelevant which card is ”the” rookie. The mere fact they are in the debate shows that each card is important. The Ruth PC on HA is at 84k with BP right now. Rookie or not, it’s getting a ton of respect as the earliest professional Ruth card. The market will always prefer an individual card to a team card, but that is ok: there are obviously enough collectors who appreciate and will pay big for both.

Well said!

[calvindog]

Well technically... 1914 Ruth (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2018/07/02/collectors-detective-work-lifts-300-ebay-postcard-to-50000-babe-ruth-auction-gem/#7cae88dab229)

I'll take the under on that 50K.

[ls7plus]

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

Well put, Jeff!

Highest regards,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Denny, one of the big things I think you might be missing from the pop reports is that the Ruth comes with so many different backs split between both the m101-4 and m101-5 sets. Both PSA and SGC split all these backs out separately. If you combined the pop reports of all the various backs I think you'll see the Ruth is not as rare as you think. This is why the Ruth also seems to show up in just about every major auction, sometimes with multiple copies in the same auction. On the other hand, the Wagner comes up about two to three times a year on average and I don't recall ever hearing of an auction with more than one. Add in the history, controversy, and popularity of the Wagner, I think it is easy to see why the Wagner sells for more. In addition, If it was not for the Ruth, the m101-4/5 sets would probably rarely be thought about by most collectors where as the Wagner is from probably the most collected pre-1930's set.

DJ

+1. IMHO, probably a couple hundred of the 1916 M 101's in total exist. And indeed, good luck finding any example under $20K.

Happy hunting,

Larry

[ls7plus]

is it really this hard to purchase a Ruth Sporting news for under $20k?

I have done some more research over the last couple of days and am starting to think it may be a fruitless effort to find anything even with a decent budget.

maybe I am so new I haven't learned of all the outlets or auctions but this seems like its going to be tough to find a Ruth low grade.

By my recollection, the last time a VG example was under $10K was around 2005 or so.

Good luck in your quest,

Larry

[oldjudge]

Most of the Ruth rookies are blank back or Sporting News backs(the pop reports don't really differentiate between the two). The total of all other ad backs is under 35. That's pretty scarce.

[Vintageclout]

+1. IMHO, probably a couple hundred of the 1916 M 101's in total exist. And indeed, good luck finding any example under $20K.

Happy hunting,

Larry

Unless an M101 Ruth Rookie is an “authentic” because it has been chewed apart by the family pet, you cannot find one for less than $50K anymore. Low grade 1’s - 2’s range between $65 - $120K (give or take) with really nice eye appeal ones at that grade level sometimes fetching even higher prices. The VG - EX levels easily jump to the $150K - $275K range, once again with aesthetics driving the prices. FYI, any extremely well centered examples typically realize significant premiums.

[Gary Dunaier]

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I don't consider myself a "professional," but I'm thinking that because it's Babe Ruth, who really is in a pantheon category all his own, the 1914 Baltimore News card is the best of the three, simply because it's the first Babe Ruth card ever issued. In this context it doesn't matter that he's a minor leaguer. And from a personal aesthetic standpoint, it adds a lot that the card has the year of issue on the back. So you have a card of the great Babe Ruth before he was B*A*B*E R*U*T*H, produced possibly back when he was better known as George.

[orly57]

I don't consider myself a "professional," but I'm thinking that because it's Babe Ruth, who really is in a pantheon category all his own, the 1914 Baltimore News card is the best of the three, simply because it's the first Babe Ruth card ever issued. In this context it doesn't matter that he's a minor leaguer. And from a personal aesthetic standpoint, it adds a lot that the card has the year of issue on the back. So you have a card of the great Babe Ruth before he was B*A*B*E R*U*T*H, produced possibly back when he was better known as George.

I feel the same way. The BN Ruth is my holy grail card. I don’t give a crap what uniform he’s wearing. Financial considerations aside, I prefer to own the BN Ruth than any other card in the hobby. I would take a low grade BN Ruth over a
high grade M101.

[benjulmag]

BTW, if we are talking about early Ruth "cards", there is also a 1914 Baltimore News team "card" that features Ruth. The only one that I am aware of sold at REA in 2007. Here's the link: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/spring/5/newly-discovered-1914-baltimore-news-team-card-including-babe-ruth/

As I recall shortly after the sale there was an extensive discussion on this forum as to the definition of a baseball card and whether this team photograph qualifies. Regardless how one characterizes it, as is the case with the 1915 team postcard featuring Ruth, it is a great early image of him.

[drcy]

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league, college or other non MLB card.

Which one is his best or most desirable or most valuable or rarest or sometimes even first is another question.

P.s., rarity is strictly a measure of the number of cards, while scarcity is a measure of supply versus demand. Market value is as good a representation of scarcity as any. Whether or not you think the T206 Honus Wagner is rare, the $$ value indicates the card is very, very scarce (demand far exceed supply).

[rats60]

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league.

No, it isn't. The card has to be nationally issued, not a regional. If you are going to ignore that part of the definition, why can't someone else choose his very first card, the Baltimore News or something else?

[nolemmings]

No, it isn't. The card has to be nationally issued, not a regional. If you are going to ignore that part of the definition, why can't someone else choose his very first card, the Baltimore News or something else?

Explain to us again which of the then 48 states did not allow mailing of The Sporting News to its citizens? Or Successful Farming for that matter? I've asked this of you many times before, and have also asked that you enlighten us with what you assert to be the true Babe Ruth rookie. I get crickets.

[Leon]

Explain to us again which of the then 48 states did not allow mailing of The Sporting News to its citizens? Or Successful Farming for that matter? I've asked this of you many times before, and have also asked that you enlighten us with what you assert to be the true Babe Ruth rookie. I get crickets.

The crickets very well might be because I tell members if they are going to get into very much of a debate then the "full name in post rule" is going to apply. Some members don't want to to go there, which is fine, as long as they don't push whatever boundary there is to having your full name have to be in public on this forum. It's a fine line and I try to accommodate all members requests.
Carry on..
..and I happen to agree with you, Todd. I have thought his rookie MLB card is the M101/4&5s. I also don't think you can just say "his rookie card is" unless you qualify it a little bit. To each their own, except for the board policies :).

[nolemmings]

Thanks Leon. I actually don't have strong feelings about what is or is not a rookie card, since I don't collect them as such--heck; I'd rather that most folks considered the m101 not to be his rookie, as that in theory could drive down the price, making it only two stratospheres beyond my budget :) I just never saw any logic from this poster, who continually claims the m101 is not the rookie for reasons he cannot support, and who then still will not offer an opinion as to what card he believes should be called the rookie and why.

[drcy]

I don't subscribe to the 'nationally distributed' rule. However, even if that is the rule, the Sporting News definitely was a national distributed card and publication. Sporting News was the Sports Illustrated (or ESPN?) of its day.

But I don't collect rookie cards, so I'll let the definitional debate proceed without me.

[h2oya311]

If I (or any other "rookie" card collectors) had to limit ourselves to only nationally distributed issues, there would be quite a few gaps in our collections! I have quite a few gaps due to the astronomical prices of the cards I seek, but that's my problem.

I guess, by that unusual criterion, 1947 Tip Top Bread and 1954 Red Heart and other regionally distributed "items" are simply not cards. Anyone who came up with the idea that national distribution was necessary in order for a card to be considered a "rookie card" simply needed an excuse for not filling certain holes in their collections due to rarity of certain regional or team issues. To me, that's half the fun.

I'm still blown away when I see a 1948 Bowman of Enos Slaughter being called a "rookie" card when he was 32 years old, had already made four All-Star appearances, and had played seven full seasons with the Cardinals DESPITE three years away from the game due to military service. FWIW, he has several pretty high population cards that pre-date the '48 Bowman - (1) 1941 W754 Cardinals Team Issue, (2) 1941 Double Play, and (3) 1947 Tip Top Bread among others. But I've digressed (a little)...

[h2oya311]

BTW, if we are talking about early Ruth "cards", there is also a 1914 Baltimore News team "card" that features Ruth. The only one that I am aware of sold at REA in 2007. Here's the link: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/spring/5/newly-discovered-1914-baltimore-news-team-card-including-babe-ruth/

As I recall shortly after the sale there was an extensive discussion on this forum as to the definition of a baseball card and whether this team photograph qualifies. Regardless how one characterizes it, as is the case with the 1915 team postcard featuring Ruth, it is a great early image of him.

Wow Corey! Thanks for sharing. I hadn't seen that one until today...just added to my spreadsheet.

[ValKehl]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

"Rookie card is defined in the mind of the collector."

[Leon]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

"Rookie card is defined in the mind of the collector."

I think even defining what a card is can become debateable!!

[orly57]

$108,000 for the Sox team Postcard tonight. Rookie or not, it’s definitely getting a ton of respect.

[Vintageclout]

$108,000 for the Sox team Postcard tonight. Rookie or not, it’s definitely getting a ton of respect.

With room to grow! This card’s value will continue to escalate.

[LincolnVT]

I would agree. The 3.5 is a beautiful example of the 1915 Red Sox Team PC with Ruth as a rookie. The same card that sold for 108k last night sold for 66k a year ago. One of, if not the hottest piece in the hobby.

[MattyC]

How is “hottest” measured? It’s thinly traded in terms of population and also the amount of buyers at the 50k-100k+ end. While Balt News can also be characterized as such, it has the distinction of being popularized as his first, and is also a solo image, as opposed to a team image. I for one much prefer solo images to team photos.

[ullmandds]

How is “hottest” measured? It’s thinly traded in terms of population and also the amount of buyers at the 50k-100k+ end. While Balt News can also be characterized as such, it has the distinction of being popularized as his first, and is also a solo image, as opposed to a team image. I for one much prefer solo images to team photos.

"hottest" is measured by ownership/personal interest!

[LincolnVT]

Just pointing out that the same 3.5 sold for 66k last year and 108k last night. 5 years ago you could buy a 3 for 25k. Pretty solid interest for a team image on a postcard.

[orly57]

How is “hottest” measured? It’s thinly traded in terms of population and also the amount of buyers at the 50k-100k+ end. While Balt News can also be characterized as such, it has the distinction of being popularized as his first, and is also a solo image, as opposed to a team image. I for one much prefer solo images to team photos.

I would be surprised if one person, including Ethan, disagreed with you on your points. Everyone prefers a solo image to a team card. And referring to a pop 12 card as “hot” is probably a a stretch since there aren’t enough of them available to get “hot.” I think Ethan is probably excited to see his card gain the respect that he wisely anticipated it would when he bought it years ago. “Hot” isn’t the right word. I would think he meant that it is a previously underrated card that is finally getting attention (like say a 25 Gehrig Exhibits).

[MattyC]

Would certainly agree with that.

[LincolnVT]

I would be surprised if one person, including Ethan, disagreed with you on your points. Everyone prefers a solo image to a team card. And referring to a pop 12 card as “hot” is probably a a stretch since there aren’t enough of them available to get “hot.” I think Ethan is probably excited to see his card gain the respect that he wisely anticipated it would when he bought it years ago. “Hot” isn’t the right word. I would think he meant that it is a previously underrated card that is finally getting attention (like say a 25 Gehrig Exhibits).

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. 😊

[CW]

Care to share a scan of your example, Ethan? Thanks in advance if you can. Such an awesome postcard, and the coolness factor goes up when you consider it has Tris Speaker on it as well.

[LincolnVT]

Sure. Hopefully it comes through. I think that it is a strong SGC 20.

[calvindog]

I think the Ruth "rookie" PC is a pretty damn hot card right now.

[LincolnVT]

Care to share a scan of your example, Ethan? Thanks in advance if you can. Such an awesome postcard, and the coolness factor goes up when you consider it has Tris Speaker on it as well.

And as an aside, it has also been graded 1.5 by PSA...which is the case for more than my PC...bringing the known population report down a notch or two.

❤️ ⚾️ cards!

[Vintageclout]

I think the Ruth "rookie" PC is a pretty damn hot card right now.

Yes sir Jeff...it’s on fire. All early Ruth Red Sox items are extremely hot. Money in the bank!

[steve B]

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league, college or other non MLB card.



Unless it's Jeter, or McGwire, or .....

[Vintageclout]

And as an aside, it has also been graded 1.5 by PSA...which is the case for more than my PC...bringing the known population report down a notch or two.

❤️ ⚾️ cards!

14 Total “Pop” (SGC & PSA combined) with 2 crossovers, bringing the accurate “Pop” down to 12.

[CW]

That is a beauty, Ethan. Thanks again!

[ullmandds]

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show.

[ullmandds]

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show. Perhaps this card is found in many post card collections around the globe just buried not graded or even thought about? Time will tell.

I do have a question...do any of you know how many of these cards are found with a handwritten price on the back in pencil?

[orly57]

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show.

It’s very possible that there are a few raw copies out there. The same can be said about rarities like the t206 Wagner or Baltimore News Ruth. But even assuming that there are twice as many unknown raw cards out there, which is an extremely generous hypothetical, that means there are still only 30 or so on the planet. That is still less than the amount of known t206 Wagners. It would still be extremely rare. My point is that EVERY card has the potential of having undiscovered or raw copies. Look at what happened with Cobb-backs: the pop nearly doubled in one find! They are still coveted and extremely rare and valuable. Heck, sometimes a healthier population takes a card out of the realm of “too rare for its own good” and into mainstream appreciation due to availability.

[rainier2004]

There is definitely a raw one or two still out there...

[LincolnVT]

It’s very possible that there are a few raw copies out there. The same can be said about rarities like the t206 Wagner or Baltimore News Ruth. But even assuming that there are twice as many unknown raw cards out there, which is an extremely generous hypothetical, that means there are still only 30 or so on the planet. That is still less than the amount of known t206 Wagners. It would still be extremely rare. My point is that EVERY card has the potential of having undiscovered or raw copies. Look at what happened with Cobb-backs: the pop nearly doubled in one find! They are still coveted and extremely rare and valuable. Heck, sometimes a healthier population takes a card out of the realm of “too rare for its own good” and into mainstream appreciation due to availability.

This is all true.

[LincolnVT]

It’s very possible that there are a few raw copies out there. The same can be said about rarities like the t206 Wagner or Baltimore News Ruth. But even assuming that there are twice as many unknown raw cards out there, which is an extremely generous hypothetical, that means there are still only 30 or so on the planet. That is still less than the amount of known t206 Wagners. It would still be extremely rare. My point is that EVERY card has the potential of having undiscovered or raw copies. Look at what happened with Cobb-backs: the pop nearly doubled in one find! They are still coveted and extremely rare and valuable. Heck, sometimes a healthier population takes a card out of the realm of “too rare for its own good” and into mainstream appreciation due to availability.

As for Pete's question...I know of 2 examples of the 1915 Team Postcard with rookie Ruth that have been written on, mailed and have a postmark from 1915 with a stamp.

[Vintageclout]

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show. Perhaps this card is found in many post card collections around the globe just buried not graded or even thought about? Time will tell.

I do have a question...do any of you know how many of these cards are found with a handwritten price on the back in pencil?

For the record, regarding virtually ANY card (including the T206 Wagner), there are unreported examples. The “pop” reports are simply a guide for collectors to utilize for some sense of rarity. For example, Heritage just disclosed a hoard of raw 1952 Topps that includes 6 super nice Mantles, one of which graded a PSA 8.5 (it will be in their August Platinum auction). Look at the Lucky 7 find. Who would have ever thought 7 (now 8) additional Ty Cobb “Back” Cards would ever be discovered? Bottom line is the true count of any high end and/or scarce issue will always remain a “black hole”.

[ullmandds]

I think my comments are being taken the wrong way. Of course there are finds out there of all shapes, sizes, and varieties yet to be unearthed. My point is that there are a lot of postcard collectors out there...not just baseball postcards like many of us...but all postcards. It's like a crossover thing...postcards that just happen to be baseball related.

Ruth is definitely an anomaly...the fact his early cards were with boston and super desirable. The dietsche cobb fielding should be a 6 figure too then!!!!!

[oldjudge]

I agree with Pete. Not only are there a lot of postcard collectors out there, they are worldwide, not just in the US. The percentage of post cards that are graded is minuscule. Thus, more-so than for baseball cards, there is the potential for a lot more 1915 BoSox postcards that are not included in pop reports.

[LincolnVT]

My understanding is that the postcards were issued to fans attending an October game in Boston....unlike the 10s of thousands of 1914 Cracker Jack cards that were purchased in candy boxes. So I guess the question is, how many fans attended and actually took the PC home? Yes, a box of them could be in some back room at the ballpark. If someone hears of that being discovered, please PM me. 😊

[Vintageclout]

I agree with Pete. Not only are there a lot of postcard collectors out there, they are worldwide, not just in the US. The percentage of post cards that are graded is minuscule. Thus, more-so than for baseball cards, there is the potential for a lot more 1915 BoSox postcards that are not included in pop reports.

Let’s see them....when they surface, then we will re-evaluate the value. Jay, you know as well as I do that “speculation” is worth nothing more than a nickel in this hobby.

[Baseball Rarities]

My understanding is that the postcards were issued to fans attending an October game in Boston....unlike the 10s of thousands of 1914 Cracker Jack cards that were purchased in candy boxes. So I guess the question is, how many fans attended and actually took the PC home? Yes, a box of them could be in some back room at the ballpark. If someone hears of that being discovered, please PM me. 😊

Where did you get this info from? I have no doubt that these postcards were sold either at the game or local souvenir shops, but I have never heard about them being given out to those in attendance.

[Vintageclout]

Where did you get this info from? I have no doubt that these postcards were sold either at the game or local souvenir shops, but I have never heard about them being given out to those in attendance.

+1

[oldjudge]

Nice story, but I don't believe it. My guess is that they were sold locally, and maybe widely.

[orly57]

I think my comments are being taken the wrong way. Of course there are finds out there of all shapes, sizes, and varieties yet to be unearthed. My point is that there are a lot of postcard collectors out there...not just baseball postcards like many of us...but all postcards. It's like a crossover thing...postcards that just happen to be baseball related.

Ruth is definitely an anomaly...the fact his early cards were with boston and super desirable. The dietsche cobb fielding should be a 6 figure too then!!!!!

The Dietsche Cobb is just now starting to take off. However, there are other 1907 Cobb postcards (some more rare than the fielding dietsche) and the w600, so the dietsche isn’t the only 1907 Cobb. This appears to be the only 1915 Ruth, and the first in a Red Sox uniform. People are a bit irrational when it comes to Ruth. Understandably so. He is the GOAT. Not to mention, as you wrote, there aren’t many cards of Ruth in a Red Sox uniform.

I agree that there are a good amount of postcard collectors. However, most postcard sets were regional and were printed in very small quantities. Even postcard collectors (or their heirs) who are ignorant about baseball know who Babe Ruth and TyCobb were. The internet has been around for over 20 years where they could look up their hidden gem and immediately know what it’s worth. Do you not think that postcard collectors know what they are collecting or what they are worth? Is postcard collecting the one hobby where collectors somehow have no clue of the value or importance of the items they collect? For the most part, a collector isn’t going to be ignorant about the value of an item that HE PURCHASED. And his heirs will most certainly look into the value of his collection once he has passed away.

These things have been around for over 100 years and we know of only 12 of these Ruths. I doubt that more than 10-15 new copies will ever surface. And as I mentioned in a previous post, extreme rarity isn’t always a good thing for a card’s value anyway. When you think about the high-dollar cards in our hobby, they aren’t exactly the pop 5 cards. The Wagner is up over 40 that we know of. The 1914 joe Jackson is up over 50. There are over 100 of the m101 Ruth. On my way home I tripped over a 1952 mantle. I’m just not sure that your concern over the potential discovery of a few more of these is really valid. I don’t think you believe there are hundreds of these floating around. So if another 20 pop up, I don’t think it would crush the value as much as you fear it may.

[Bicem]

Photo was taken 9/30/15 by Sommers by the way.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a type one photo from that session to the postcard having owned them both. Larger, more clear, more detailed, more rare, etc. but again that's just me.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/ruthrookiephoto/large/1915%20Boston%20Red%20Sox%20Photograph.jpg

[Vintageclout]

The Dietsche Cobb is just now starting to take off. However, there are other 1907 Cobb postcards (some more rare than the fielding dietsche) and the w600, so the dietsche isn’t the only 1907 Cobb. This appears to be the only 1915 Ruth, and the first in a Red Sox uniform. People are a bit irrational when it comes to Ruth. Understandably so. He is the GOAT. Not to mention, as you wrote, there aren’t many cards of Ruth in a Red Sox uniform.

I agree that there are a good amount of postcard collectors. However, most postcard sets were regional and were printed in very small quantities. Even postcard collectors (or their heirs) who are ignorant about baseball know who Babe Ruth and TyCobb were. The internet has been around for over 20 years where they could look up their hidden gem and immediately know what it’s worth. Do you not think that postcard collectors know what they are collecting or what they are worth? Is postcard collecting the one hobby where collectors somehow have no clue of the value or importance of the items they collect? For the most part, a collector isn’t going to be ignorant about the value of an item that HE PURCHASED. And his heirs will most certainly look into the value of his collection once he has passed away.

These things have been around for over 100 years and we know of only 12 of these Ruths. I doubt that more than 10-15 new copies will ever surface. And as I mentioned in a previous post, extreme rarity isn’t always a good thing for a card’s value anyway. When you think about the high-dollar cards in our hobby, they aren’t exactly the pop 5 cards. The Wagner is up over 40 that we know of. The 1914 joe Jackson is up over 50. There are over 100 of the m101 Ruth. On my way home I tripped over a 1952 mantle. I’m just not sure that your concern over the potential discovery of a few more of these is really valid. I don’t think you believe there are hundreds of these floating around. So if another 20 pop up, I don’t think it would crush the value as much as you fear it may.

Absolutely correct! In fact, 10+ more surfacing over the next few years might even elevate its exposure. Look at the Lucky 7 find (now 8). There are now 23 known tobacco Ty Cobb as backs and their value is stronger than ever. Over 100 Ruth rookies and their value remains solid with room to grow. There are numerous collectors that seek out Babe Ruth Red Sox cardboard, and a few more on the market will only help this craze.

[Vintageclout]

Photo was taken 9/30/15 by Sommers by the way.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a type one photo from that session to the postcard having owned them both. Larger, more clear, more detailed, more rare, etc. but again that's just me.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/ruthrookiephoto/large/1915%20Boston%20Red%20Sox%20Photograph.jpg

Great photo Jeff....outstanding contrast and clarity!

[Baseball Rarities]

Photo was taken 9/30/15 by Sommers by the way.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a type one photo from that session to the postcard having owned them both.

Awesome photo Jeff. How many different poses are known from this sitting? I think that I have seen four different - all with minor differences. I always thought that it was interesting that Sommers released so many different poses instead of just picking their favorite and going with that one.

[pherbener]

Photo was taken 9/30/15 by Sommers by the way.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a type one photo from that session to the postcard having owned them both. Larger, more clear, more detailed, more rare, etc. but again that's just me.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/ruthrookiephoto/large/1915%20Boston%20Red%20Sox%20Photograph.jpg

Agreed Jeff. I'd take the photo any day!! I'm a photo guy though..

[pherbener]

On my way home I tripped over a 1952 mantle.

+1

[oldjudge]

I agree Jeff. Since I consider neither to be baseball cards I would rather have the larger, sharper image which would be the photo.

[LincolnVT]

I've had the photo...it's wicked nice, but I'm a cardboard guy. Felt like the postcard was a clear upgrade for me.

[nolemmings]

My understanding is that the postcards were issued to fans attending an October game in Boston....unlike the 10s of thousands of 1914 Cracker Jack cards that were purchased in candy boxes. So I guess the question is, how many fans attended and actually took the PC home? Yes, a box of them could be in some back room at the ballpark. If someone hears of that being discovered, please PM me. ��

If they were, it was a World series game--Boston ended its 1915 regular season on the road, with no home games in October. They only played two World Series games at home, drawing more than 40k at each. Although they could have been handed out or sold at those games, I agree with others they would have been available elsewhere and later also. Still, the 1919 Reds issue comes to mind, where the postcards were all issued with NL. Champs first and then World Champions after the Series. Since Boston won it all in 1915, one could argue the caption would or at least could have stated World's Champions if the issuer waited until around the third week in October before releasing them.

[Baseball Rarities]

Since Boston won it all in 1915, one could argue the caption would or at least could have stated World's Champions if the issuer waited until around the third week in October before releasing them.

They were definitely issued before the end of the World Series. There are two postcards known with postmarks - October 11 and 12th 1915 respectively.

[nolemmings]

They were definitely issued before the end of the World Series. There are two postcards known with postmarks - October 11 and 12th 1915 respectively.

That's what I figured. But it makes me wonder why they were not issued again thereafter with an updated caption? By the way, the two dates you referenced are the two days the games were played in Boston--somewhat supporting that they may have been made available for the big event, which by the way was played at brand spanking new Braves Field so as to draw bigger crowds.

[Bicem]

That's what I figured. But it makes me wonder why they were not issued again thereafter with an updated caption? By the way, the two dates you referenced are the two days the games were played in Boston--somewhat supporting that they may have been made available for the big event, which by the way was played at brand spanking new Braves Field so as to draw bigger crowds.

Don't think they did, one would have been discovered by now.

[nolemmings]

I agree Jeff. But that too lends credence to the idea that they were ballpark giveaways/sales or were only available for a very limited time, IMO. Otherwise just update the caption starting October 14th, after the World Series was over, at likely little additional production cost. I thus may have to retract my earlier though that these were available elsewhere and later--certainly could be so, but not by a whole lot, it would seem.

[LincolnVT]

Where did you get this info from? I have no doubt that these postcards were sold either at the game or local souvenir shops, but I have never heard about them being given out to those in attendance.

I gues that I read this to mean that the postcards may have been handed out like a program would be today: https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-cards/singles-pre-1930-/1915-boston-red-sox-real-photo-postcard-psa-vg-35-with-rookie-babe-ruth/a/50004-50192.s

I pictured someone giving them out as people walked in.

[benchod]

Photo was taken 9/30/15 by Sommers by the way.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a type one photo from that session to the postcard having owned them both. Larger, more clear, more detailed, more rare, etc. but again that's just me.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/ruthrookiephoto/large/1915%20Boston%20Red%20Sox%20Photograph.jpg

Amazing photo, Jeff
I'm really in the minority as I love the photo and the postcard equally well!

[benchod]

They were definitely issued before the end of the World Series. There are two postcards known with postmarks - October 11 and 12th 1915 respectively.

Written by player-manager Bill Carrigan's wife, Connie, after game 3 of the World Series played at Fenway on October 11th. Love the baseball content. You already know what the front looks like.
To the left is a Thompson photo of Carrigan I just won this past week to display with the 1915 Red Sox postcard

[LincolnVT]

Nice postcard Craig!