Babe Ruth Rookie
 

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

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).

Ruth Rookie
 

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?

Ruthian prices....
 

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.

There are two in the current Heritage Auction.

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7135-80965.s

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...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.

obtainable...
 

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

Peace, Mike

Board members who own
 

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.

Balt News - minor league rookie

1915 RPPC - team rookie

1916 m101-4/5 - traditional rookie

hey... Seattle!

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!

+1

just figured i would start at top
 

:) 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.

Lore
 

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!

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.

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

This is Adrian all over again...

totally!

.

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

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

http://goodwinandco.com/1916_M101_5_...-LOT29651.aspx

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), 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.

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/.../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

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.

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

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

is it really impossible?
 

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.

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

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.
[IMG]http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/...pszxpf23vm.jpg[/IMG]

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.

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! ;) )

crossovers
 

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Highest regards,

Larry

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

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!

Anyone on this board have any?
 

would love to see some board members centerpiece

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

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images...m101-babe-ruth

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

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.

What are promotional cards?

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!

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.

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)

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.

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.

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. (If you click on the player's name on the list, you can see some of the different options.)

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."

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"a product of the auction house era of the hobby"
 

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

This is obviously Ruth's rookie card.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Rookie
 

Book it. :)

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

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

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

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?

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

Ruth Rookie Card
 

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