Legendary Auction Preview

[oldjudge]

Circa 1910 means that the exact date is unknown but that the best guess is 1910. The probability of it being X years later than 1910 is the same as the probability of it being X years earlier than 1910. As Doug acknowledged, the text was incorrect and it was/will be corrected. The person who said that it pertains to the period from 1910-19 is just plain wrong. Also, there is no dealer convention in the English language, possibly only one in the "self-serving bad English" language.

[sayhey24]

Here's an attempt to straighten out this argument about "circa" -- both sides are right because you are talking about two different things.
Early on in the thread the quote is "circa 1910s" -- notice the "s" on the end. Yes, circa 1910s would refer to anything from that decade, just like circa 1960s would pertain to something from 1960 or 1968.

In the last couple of posts, somehow the "s" was dropped and it was changed to circa 1910. Yes, that would pertain to something within a couple of years plus or minus of 1910.

Greg

[drc]

I received my Legendary catalogs and the lot title does indeed says circa 1910s and not circa 1910.

My points about circa 1910 were not relevant to the auction title. As already noted, c. 1910 and c. 1910s are two different things.

I had the correct answer, but to the wrong question

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Circa 1910 means that the exact date is unknown but that the best guess is 1910. The probability of it being X years later than 1910 is the same as the probability of it being X years earlier than 1910.

The person who said that it pertains to the period from 1910-19 is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Here's an attempt to straighten out this argument about "circa" -- both sides are right because you are talking about two different things.
Early on in the thread the quote is "circa 1910s" -- notice the "s" on the end. Yes, circa 1910s would refer to anything from that decade, just like circa 1960s would pertain to something from 1960 or 1968.

In the last couple of posts, somehow the "s" was dropped and it was changed to circa 1910. Yes, that would pertain to something within a couple of years plus or minus of 1910.

Greg

Thanks for making this clear for everyone, Greg. As always, my very best regards, Jimmy

[e107collector]

Awesome auction!

I was planning on bidding up to around $10-$12k on the Babe Ruth rookie. By the time I went to enter my inital bid, it's already at $18k.

I can't believe how much demand there is for this card, even in a lower grade.

Oh well, there are some other great cards I have my eye on.

Tony

[Rob D.]

Good luck to everyone who'll be bidding tonight and tomorrow night. (And please don't bid on the lots I'm chasing. )

[glchen]

Besides the usual answer of 2-3 people w/ too much money and trying to buy the same card, any reason why the Famous and Barr Ruth Rookie is going for so much? It's currently at 37.5K before BP. M101-5/4 Ruth's have been going up and this one has decent eye appeal for a 10/1 Poor, but no way it deserves this kind of premium. Is the Famous and Barr back that much in demand?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Gary:

I think it's more the fact that all of the Ruth rookies are going crazy these days. BTW check the current Goodwin auction, the Ruth postcard that you got from me (not the exact one but a second example) is well over $12K with another week of bidding still to go.........

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Good luck to everyone who'll be bidding tonight and tomorrow night. (And please don't bid on the lots I'm chasing. )

Okay Rob, I'll bow out on the Cobb/Cobb back, AND the Ruth rookie.

Good luck!