View Full Version : 33Goudey vs 34WWG ?(Babe Ruth)
Archive
11-10-2005, 10:14 AM
Posted By: <b>base2base</b><p>Why is there a differene in price? <br />Is there less 1933goudey's then 1934WWG's. They are bascily the same cards, NO? (Babe Ruth)<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8720712375&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8720712375&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8720712375&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1</a</a>>
Archive
11-10-2005, 10:26 AM
Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Actually, I think the 1933 Goudey is more common, but U.S. collectors (the majority of baseball card collectors) prefer cards from the U.S. WWG cards come from Canada. That said, my opinion is not the most educated one, and you should probably wait for one of the experts to chime in.
Archive
11-10-2005, 10:34 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>WWG cards are much harder to find than Goudeys. I knew a few collectors in the 80s that had complete sets of Goudeys but the Bengough, Ruth and Gehrig cards were all WWG with English only backs. When you looked at the set, unless you looked closely at the back, you thought it was a great looking pure Goudey set.<br />A big chunk of my HOFers in my collection are 33WWG. It was a whole lot cheaper to get them than regular Goudeys and look just as great.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />If you can sue a band for making you want to commit suicide, can I sue Barry Manilow for turning me into a wuss in the 70s?
Archive
11-10-2005, 12:54 PM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>There are many set collectors of the 1933 Goudey set. But very few of any of the World Wide Gum sets. The WWG cards are very tough to come by - my guess is they are 1/50th as common as Goudeys. I think there is a chance the low supply actually hurts the demand somewhat. It is so tough to complete a set - at least compared to the American versions - that almost anyone interested in the issue would gravitate towards the Goudey set.<br /><br />I think the WWG sets are just as nice as the Goudeys, but for those that want to collect the Goudey set, the WWG cards just don't fit in for most of them. Especially for anyone that puts their set on the PSA Registry, having a blank spot in any of the Ruth cards probably doesn't feel right to them, as it looks incomplete. I think the WWG Ruths are a bargain. If you aren't collecting the Goudeys as a complete set, I'd suggest going after the WWG Ruths - the Red Ruth and the batting stance Ruth in the 33 WWG and the Yellow Ruth in the 34 WWG - as they are cheaper and look just as good given the condition. That also includes the 34 WWG Gehrig which looks the same as the 34 Goudey #37 Gehrig. The only tough part is to find it in high condition.
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I think that saying that they are essentially the same card is way off. Backs and issues make all the difference. <br /><br />All red portrait Cobbs look the same on the front. It is when you turn it over that makes all of the difference in the world. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:19 PM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>correct me if I'm wrong since I am not involved in T206s or Cobb cards - but isn't the rarer back the more expensive? <br /><br />It's the exact opposite in the Goudeys / WWG. Collectors dont' look at them as different backs of the same issue, they look at them as completely different issues, even though the front is the same. So although the WWG back is much rarer, there is much less interest in it. This is different than the Cobb with different backs. For this reason, I think the price on the WWGs make them very attractive to the non-set collector.
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I got to agree with cmoking on this one - the back of the card would make very little difference to me in this case.
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I agree with cmoking also about the value of the wwg's - they are much cheaper than the goudeys and provide a good alternative for those financially challenged, such as me. However, the point I was trying to make is that, due to the backs, there is a world of difference. They are not "basically the same card." They are different cards with entirely different price tags.<br /><br />
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:35 PM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>"They are not "basically the same card." They are different cards with entirely different price tags."<br /><br />You're right! I completely agree with those two sentences.
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>I agree with the basic premise that the WWG cards are a good alternative for non-set collecters. However, the fronts although very similiar are not identical between Goudeys and WWG's. Also, WWG's were printed on different paper and at a different printing plant. As a further point, the backs of the '33 WWG's come with in three different variations.
Archive
11-10-2005, 02:57 PM
Posted By: <b>base2base</b><p>Then why do people call it the canadian goudey then?<br />And why would WWG cards be much cheeper than Goudey, it just has French on the back and theres not as many of them???<br /><br />I'm Confused, and it seems like WWG cards are undervalued in a big way.
Archive
11-10-2005, 03:00 PM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Elliot - which cards are different on the fronts? I only know of one off the bat - that's the Earl Combs / Earl Coombs (WWG). Other than that, it seems they are the same. Are any of the Ruths different? I need to spend some time comparing my cards side by side to see if I can spot any differences.<br /><br />base2base - the only answer I have is: DEMAND. There is a ton of demand for Goudeys..and very little for WWGs. Whether its because of the American/Canadian difference, the set collectors, the lack of supply of WWG...etc., I don't know...but it is clear there is much less demand.