View Full Version : Ruth card . . . very interesting!
Archive
03-10-2005, 02:41 AM
Posted By: <b>base2base</b><p>Thoughts on this card would be helpful(price)<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=5173696433&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=5173696433&rd=1</a><br /><br />Thanks<br />Brad
Archive
03-10-2005, 03:53 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Could go for $50<br /><br />Could go for $5,000<br /><br />Some people hate things that are not "real" cards...<br /><br />Some people love to own one-of-a-kind things like this.
Archive
03-10-2005, 04:29 AM
Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>last time it was listed it failed to meet its reserve price and bidding topped out somewhere near the starting price. it's a neat item but 1) its a glove tag, not a card and 2) the back is terrible<br /><br />given the high starting price and the fact that it's been listed before, i doubt it'll sell this time either
Archive
03-10-2005, 07:03 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It's a cool item but it's a tag. I really really don't want to get into the whold "what's a card" thing. But this is most definitely a tag, imo.....regards
Archive
03-10-2005, 08:51 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>And Hal's Wagner is just a cigar box liner <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> I'll give ya $50 for it :-p<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.
Archive
03-10-2005, 09:25 AM
Posted By: <b>prewarsports</b><p>So what would this be worth without the back damage? Is it the condition that makes 899.99 too high, or the card itself being a glove tag which makes the price too high?<br /><br />Just curious.<br /><br />Rhys
Archive
03-10-2005, 09:42 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The card isn't going to grade better than a 2 and for that price, you could almost pick up a comperable condition Goudey. And which would you rahter spend your money on?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.
Archive
03-10-2005, 10:23 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As a type collector if it were a card I would love to have it. Since we don't know of anymore it might be Ruth was the only player used. If that's the case then it's not even a set (imo). I have a Goudey Ruth but if this were a real card from a set I would take it over a Goudey. Everyone has their own ideas on this. BTW, I don't think condition is holding the value down as almost all of the back can be read. I can't make that leap of faith to it beig a card though....maybe if other players were found.....but still it's a tag....sort of a never ending circle here...regards
Archive
03-10-2005, 10:31 AM
Posted By: <b>Greenspan</b><p>Irrational exuberance I tell ya!!!
Archive
03-10-2005, 10:47 AM
Posted By: <b>wesley</b><p>Didn't sell the last time it was listed.<br /><br />How can anyone tell the tag is from the 1920s?
Archive
03-10-2005, 12:29 PM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I agree with Leon, that it's not a trading card-- though resembles one. The Standard Catalog does, or did, list some product tags like this (1982 Spot Built George Brett tag). <br /><br />It would be interesting to see if SGC, GAI or PSA would grade this item. I bet one of them would.
Archive
03-17-2005, 06:03 AM
Posted By: <b>mcavoy</b><p>It's a tag because the card reverse states its a tag, right?<br /><br />I like it, but I did not bid.<br /><br />I contacted the seller about the dating; they said it was found with strip cards and t-cards, so "experts" thought mid-to-late 1920s. They did not know the context of the evident back damage. I am more interested in the booklet "Homeruns," mentioned on the card reverse. Anyone know anything about that item?<br /><br />Thanks, Mike