RUTH "ROOKIE" IN MASTRO AUCTION [Archive]

Archive

04-05-2004, 11:26 AM

Posted By: Jay Miller  It may be a rehash of an old issue but how does anyone determine whether a blank back Sporting News card is an M101-4 or M101-5? How can PSA and Mastro claim that this is the M101-5 Ruth rookie and not just a second year M101-4? Both cards have the same number and the same photo. Also, doesn't this look a little overgraded as an 8? <a href="http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=36534&CurrentRow=1" target="_blank">Mastro Ruth "Rookie" M101-5</a> [edited to add link to auction]

Archive

04-05-2004, 11:33 AM

Posted By: HarryJay, I do not believe that there is any way to tell the difference between the M101-4 and M101-5 cards of Babe Ruth if they have blank backs or Sporting News backs. He is one of a few players that have the same number in both sets. I think that this is the same example that they sold two or three years ago.

Archive

04-05-2004, 11:47 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerSo someone is paying a rookie price with only a roughly 50/50 chance of getting one?

Archive

04-05-2004, 12:06 PM

Posted By: fkwIts easy now, Both sets are from the same year 1916 2004 SCD Standard Catalog has them both listed as 1916 now. Frank

Archive

04-05-2004, 12:10 PM

Posted By: Juliecorrect me if I'm wrong. Not that you can tell them apart, of course. Lipset once sold me the non-rooke, and when I asked him how he knew, he said it came with a large collection of M101s of that year. Seems reasonable. Is Jay M becoming a 20th century person? Inquiring minds...(no, I don't read "People" magazine!)

Archive

04-05-2004, 12:11 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerFrank--If that is the case does anyone know the Boston Store/Collins McCarthy issue date as compared to the M101-5 set? Also, even if the M101 sets were both issued in 1916 one would have had to proceeded the other(duh) so wouldn't that set's Ruth have been the rookie and wouldn't you still have the same issue?

Archive

04-05-2004, 01:09 PM

Posted By: leonWhomever submitted the Ruth "rookie" with a blank back got to tell the grader what year it was from. Big surprise why you see so many 1915 blank back Ruths and no 1916's..... Like Frank said, and most likely with Andy B's involvement, both series are re-classified as 1916 now. If I am not mistaking (I'm not at home with the big SCD) the new SCD has the E135's as 1917. Squashes notions of that being the Babe's rookie.....which is a relevant term anyway....it's all so nice and confusing.....nice cabinet too Jay....seems it could have quite the pedigree too.....later

Archive

04-05-2004, 01:26 PM

Posted By: HalleygatorThe way that I know mine is a Babe Ruth rookie card is because he told me when he gave it to me: <img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/751Lg.jpg"> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-05-2004, 02:50 PM

Posted By: BOTNI am curious as to how these dates changed in the "bible". It seems that all of the grading companies are still using the earlier years for each of the issues--not that this means anything. Maybe Bob can let us know how they determined that these cards were issued in 1916 and 1917 respectively. Mr. Lemke...Are you around???? Thanks! Greg

Archive

04-05-2004, 03:06 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranThe dates were updated based on research of the Player/Team combinations in the set. For example, Ed Rousch is listed in both M101 sets with the Giants, and he wasn't traded to the Giants until Feb 1916. Therefore, the set could not have been released in 1915. Also, there are no Federal League players in the set - they are all listed on the team they played for after the Federal League. Mark Macrae did similar research on the Collins McCarthy set, and determined that it had to be from 1917 - a year later than the M101-5 and M101-4 sets. Also, I tend to think that there are more blank back Ruth's from the M101-4 series than the M101-5 series, based on the fact that there are many more blank back Cobbs (M101-4 Only) than Thorpes (M101-5 Only). However, I can't prove this, since the Ruth cards are identical, and odds are that a Cobb card would be more likely to be saved than a Thorpe, since Cobb was such a big star. I'm not even sure if it really matters, since the Ruth cards are identical, and from the same year.

Archive

04-05-2004, 04:33 PM

Posted By: leonAwesome card. And in no way was I trying to demean (?) anyones M101-4/5 Ruth card. They are awesome and could/should still be considered his first major league card.......how can you go wrong with the Babe in a classic pitching pose before he started hitting as many long balls......? regards all

Archive

04-05-2004, 04:44 PM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)I believe that the blank back Ruths are more likely from m101-5 than m101-4, as far more blank back cards are found in the former than the latter set. In fact, having only recently (about a year ago) started collecting m101-5, I do not recall seeing a single m101-5 with Sporting News back, unless it's one of the shared numbers, in which case it's probably a m101-4. Anyway, the blank backs are more prevalent in the m101-5 set, which presumably was released prior to m101-4, although both began in 1916.

Archive

04-05-2004, 06:12 PM

Posted By: HalleygatorI did not consider anyone's post to be demeaning in any way! I love my little "skinny" Herman Ruth card ... and I don't think the "PSA 8" that they have for sale is any better than my little 7. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> But I agree with everyone. There is no way to know whether a Ruth is from M101-5 or M101-4 ... so we mind as well just consider them all to be his rookie card. After all ... it's not like they are growing on trees either way.

Archive

04-05-2004, 06:55 PM

Posted By: HalleygatorI guess I should be CRYSTAL CLEAR with this group of PSA haters.... the BABE is "skinny" ... NOT the card itself!!! It measures up just right. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-05-2004, 07:15 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranWe'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My experience is just the opposite. I have seen MANY more blank back M101-4 cards than M101-5 (based on cards that have different numbers in each set). We'll never know the truth for sure.

Archive

04-05-2004, 08:04 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombHi guys, I agree with Todd inasmuch as I've seen no evidence that M101-5 cards exist with the Sporting News back. I have over 275 M101-4/5 and not a single Sporting News that's clearly an M101-5. If anyone can supply unequivocal evidence to the contrary, please let me know. But otherwise I'm with Andy: the blank backs are by far the most common back in both sets, so a blank back Ruth cannot be assigned to one set or the other with any confidence. Tim

Archive

04-05-2004, 08:53 PM

Posted By: JasonI have a PSA 4 M101-5 RUth rookie available that is centered. Very nice card if anyone is interested. My understanding is that these are slabbed M101-4 or M101-5 according to how you submit them. PSA has graded only 6 1915 Ruth blank backs and I believe 3 1916s.

Archive

04-06-2004, 12:44 AM

Posted By: PaulI know it's a PSA 8, but this card is already approaching the price of the Baltimore Ruth that sold not too long ago, and there's still quite a few days left in the auction. Maybe I'm stupid, but I'd take a Baltimore Ruth in almost any condition over this card.

Archive

04-06-2004, 09:45 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)I would take the Baltimore card in a heartbeat. I don't own the sporting news card, and it may be he envy talking, but I don't find the auction example all that wonderful, at least if it's going to command "8" prices. I don't like the cut--the top almost looks wavy to me, and the left side is a little distracting. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to own the card, or even a far lesser specimen, but that is an awful lot of jack for that card. My 2 cents (about 55K short of the final gavel price)

Archive

04-06-2004, 11:16 AM

Posted By: HalleygatorThe PSA "SMR" says the Ruth PSA 8 is worth $75,000. I don't think it will sell for that much ... but I have been wrong many times before. Actually, I guess I should hope that it sells for $500,000 ... since that might make my PSA 7 worth a little more. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-06-2004, 11:54 AM

Posted By: JasonI predict over $100K.

Archive

04-06-2004, 01:08 PM

Posted By: HalleygatorWhat do yo predict the PSA 1 Honus Wagner T206 card will sell for?? I guess $90,000.

Archive

04-06-2004, 02:14 PM

Posted By: leonthe ruth at $60k and the wagner at $85k.....are my guesses......

Archive

04-06-2004, 10:09 PM

Posted By: Scott Bob Ruth is $82,356.00 now + 15% penalty ~= $95k

Archive

04-07-2004, 07:10 AM

Posted By: leonnow ya'll know why I don't gamble <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I just have to think that for 100k or wherever the Ruth ends up there would have to be something else I would want more...still a great card and Hal's card probably get's a swing upward in value..depending on the other factors of any auction....

Archive

04-07-2004, 08:18 AM

Posted By: JulieI think Halley's predeiction is a bit light--I'd think over 100K before juice--but I NEVER would have guessed the Ruth would go that HIGH, so what do I know?

Archive

04-07-2004, 04:15 PM

Posted By: JerryHalley, you know how much I love my T205's, but I think your Ruth rookie is THE coolest baseball card ever.

Archive

04-07-2004, 04:39 PM

Posted By: JimI think this Wagner is going to be the first PSA 1 to hit the 100k mark. It is only a matter of time. As for the Ruth, who knows. It is already over 90k.

Archive

04-07-2004, 08:15 PM

Posted By: JasonI think Hals PSA 7 is nicer than the 8 in mastro.

Archive

04-07-2004, 11:29 PM

Posted By: MWBased solely on a cursory visual inspection, I'd have to agree. Hal's appears to have both sharper corners and superior centering.

Archive

04-08-2004, 05:21 PM

Posted By: warshawlawSay, every HOFer in the T205, T206, and 1933 Goudey sets in midgrade condition...or maybe a big pile of OJ's.... Must be nice to have that kind of cash to put into one card. Hope it's not another PSA graded reprint...

Archive

04-08-2004, 05:53 PM

Posted By: Juliethe Colgans has the same picture. If I had 100K (hey--I did once! Bought some nice cards, too!), there're a LOT of other things I'd buy with it before the Wagner. Might try to wheedle Lew's Redstocking cigar Radbourne out of him..Hal's FBH Kelly, a rookie Jackson (with the long coat)--one of them things...

Archive

04-09-2004, 06:23 AM

Posted By: HalleygatorI am glad that I am not the only one who looked at the PSA 8 Ruth rookie in the Mastro auction and wondered why mine looked sharper and crisper! I wonder if maybe the corners look sharper in real life (or in the catalog) than they do on the internet??? I would definitely take mine for HALF the price of the PSA 8 and still have cash left over to buy a LOT MORE stuff in this auction! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> After all ... it looks like $45,000 will buy ONE PACK of 1952 Topps cards. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

04-09-2004, 08:36 AM

Posted By: JasonI wouldnt pay $1000 for one of those overrated GAI packs of 52 Topps. Halley......maybe if your last name were Mastro your card would be a PSA 8 too!

Archive

04-09-2004, 10:01 AM

Posted By: HarryThey overall look, especially the color, on Hal's card is fantastic. I would love to see what a nice example of a Baltimore News Ruth would go for today. I would consider mortgaging the house for that one!

Archive

04-09-2004, 11:03 AM

Posted By: Jimmy Scott ElkinsHeck, if I had a T206 Wagner, I would trade it straight up for a T210 Old Mill Joe Jackson in the same or better condition! This outrageous Ruth bidding makes me wish more that I would have been one day quicker calling Sportscards Plus a few years back when they had a nice PSA 6 for only $8k (it was held the day before I called for a customer, needless to say, they bought it, so I didn't get a chance)!