Ruth or Jordan?
 

...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=226223

This may help, but it depends on how bad you need the money?

The Ruth item, in all likely hood, will have to be verified for authenticity (as will the Jordan) but once it is, I can't imagine it not getting big bucks from an A/H? (Of course, depending how desirable it is as well?)

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Ruth or Jordan?
 

I know this is the last answer you want to hear given the nature of your question, but I think it's entirely dependent on what the Ruth item is. And given that you've only let a few people see it or even know of its existence, my concern for you is that you are overestimating its desirability and it won't be worth what you think it is.

Or that what you think is a solid connection and provenance to Ruth and the Yankees won't be considered the same by the market and it'll end up going for less than you personally value it (unless you put a reserve on it). I would think based on your description that the Jordan jersey is a little bit more of a known entity in all those areas (provenance, value, etc.).

So although I would certainly seek out an alternative which doesn't force me to sell either, if you have to sell, I would sell the Jordan and keep the Ruth.

Curious though, I don't understand your concern with sharing what the item is if you're considering selling? Wouldn't gauging and building anticipatory interest be a good thing from a sale standpoint, and indeed help you answer this very question? I'm not following the perceived value gained by being "fresh to market?" Unless you think duplicates of the item may exist and the value lies in being the first to sell?

Regardless, good luck with your decision!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't understand why you wouldn't share what the Ruth item is.....

Without knowing what the Ruth item is, but assuming it is completely irreplaceable, I would suggest selling the Jordan rookie jersey and replacing it with a lesser valued game worn autographed Jordan jersey so that you still have the Ruth piece and an authentic Jordan jersey.

I have to agree with what has been said already.
There is really no way to give any sort of specific advice without knowing what the Ruth items is. I also share their curiosity as to why you think posting it here would make it lose value. I have been collecting sports memorabilia since the late 70s and have never heard the theory that keeping something secret increases it's value.

The only advice I can give come in the form of a few questions I would tell anyone to ask themselves in this situation regardless of the items.
1) Which item will likely net you closest to the money you need for your situation? If it's a big difference, sell the one closest.
2) Which item do you personally enjoy more? Keep that one.
3) Which could/would you be likely able to replace easiest? Sell that one

Ruth or Jordan?
 

Solid advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...

Ruth or Jordan?
 

If that's what an auction house is telling you, I'd run away from that auction house.

Simple logic would tell you that the biggest impact on the price of an item up for auction is the amount of action/bids on that item. You should want information about this item to be spread far and wide even before it goes up for sale so that you have as many eyeballs/wallets involved as possible. Lower knowledge/public awareness = fewer bids = lower sale price. Would you agree with that? Doesn't that seem strange to you that an auction house would give you advice that runs counterproductive to the very thing you're trying to accomplish (the highest sale price possible)?

This whole story sounds a little fishy to be completely honest with you, but if all you say is true, I fear you're being told to keep it a secret because either:

1) the auction house is worried about the item's legitimacy and they're assuming that the less time potential buyers have to research/scrutinize, the better, OR

2) the auction house wants to buy it from you for resale, and they're going to try to convince you to sell it to them at a price they say is fair, as opposed to you listing it somewhere and possibly getting much more from the market.

So again, I would run away. Good luck with whatever direction you go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this market, I would sell both items

IN my opinion, shock value means nothing when it comes to price. The more people know about, the more interest there will be. I have no idea why an auction house would tell you that. The downside to the secrecy is, in my mind, it raises suspicion about the item being somehow not what it appears to be.

There are many very big collectors on this board. It doesn't have to be a Yankee collector. People spending that type of money buy stuff they like period.

I hope you get the money you need out of it.

A- any auction house who tells you less information to the public is better is not to be trusted

B- If your stuff is not authenticated by one of the major companies out there now, for better or worse, it may not bring as much $$$ as you hoped

C- IMO, Jordan stuff has gotten way higher in price than availability can support. There are probably 50 times more signed Jordan relics than Ruth in the market, but with his price at an all time high i tend to think NOW is the time to sell Jordan stuff. Scarcity on Ruth stuff (and the fact that you can't have any more signed Ruth stuff, but you can Jordan) means it will probably not drop as much should there be another collector bubble.

D- If I were you, I would look into the big baseball/sports related auction houses (and they pretty much all advertise on this forum) they not only will give you the widest audience for your wares, they will be much more accurate on the present state of the market when giving you an estimate of the item's value.

I agree with mattjc. What the hell is the Ruth item??? A personal item is in no way gonna bring money equal to a game used bat (IMHO).

This whole thing is fishy...

Couldn't agree more!

Excuse me if I am wrong, but haven't all the greatest baseball card finds been exposed/told to the public long before any have gone to auction?

I think of the latest "Cobb Lucky 7" was, and I am sure many others as well, all before ever hitting an auction or coming for sale privately.

This story does sound fishy and imo, is just fabricated in order to draw the OP some attention that he seeks. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but everything you have told us about these items goes against the grain in the collectibles world. :confused:

I just talked with the original poster, and it's Babe Ruth's toe nail clippings.

I knew my Uncle should have picked up that Kleenex that Mickey Mantle used just after this pic was taken!! :mad:

To me...the hype...the buildup of an item directly influences the hammer price. The more people know about the item...the better it will do...so counter to your theory?

Personally...as a very rich dentist and die hard yankees fan...:p...well atleast a die hard yankees fan. I'd keep the ruth.

BUT...as far as long term investment potential...I'd sell the ruth now...as there will be many many rich jordan lovers down the road!!!!

That may have been a joke, but is that really your uncle with the Mick?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ruth or Jordan?
 

This is an interesting point. Do you see extremely limited edition game-used items of Jordan's passing Ruth's in say 30 years when all the kids that grew up watching Jordan play are in their peak earning years and loaded, and anyone that saw Ruth play or even saw him when he was alive is long gone?

Or will Ruth always be iconic enough to surpass just about any other athlete?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Serious request for the OP: since we were all nice enough to give you our opinions on this thread, would you be nice enough to give us the name of the auction house that none of us should ever, ever use to sell any of our stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no one knows for sure...but YES...I think a rare early jordan item has more earning potential over time than a rare ruth item.

Yes, he is the one closest to us in the picture. The man closest to Mickey Mantle is my Uncle Sam's friend, Norm.

Dizzy Trout is between, Norm and my Uncle Sam.

The pic was taken at the 1958 World Series, 6 yrs before I was born.

So cool, very cool photo to have!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think so too!

Thanks! :)

I'm amused that the OP just straight up disappeared...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have liked to seen pictures of the 2 Mickey Mantle World Series home run balls he was trying to sell in the BST section.:)

...

...

What auction house? I could not afford a real Mantle WS home run ball but would like to see one.

...

I would agree with the others. Stay far far away from anyplace that tells you to keep it secret. The more people that know the more bidders and the more bidders the more $ you will get.

Once you pick one you should post who it is here.

Ruth or Jordan?
 

I think people were pretty nice to you actually, on both threads. On this thread, we all expressed concern that you were either being taken by the auction house, or they simply don't know what they're doing. That's valuable advice from a lot of people that know what they're talking about. And on the other thread, you got legitimate questions about the balls' provenance.

Yes, some of us stated that both threads seemed fishy, but that's to be expected with the dollar amounts that you were throwing out as a brand new poster, the vague details you gave in both threads, and the fact that you ignored both the request to tell us the name of the Ruth auction house (not sure why) and the question asking how you got the Mantle balls.

I haven't been here that long either, but I've noticed that for the most part people won't be jerks just to be jerks. But when the original post sounds shady, and your responses or lack of responses to questions just add to that, it can't be shocking that the level of skepticism rises to thread-trashing levels right?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So whats the babe ruth 1921 piece?