babe ruth m101-5 blank back $294,000

[rjackson44]

sold at goldins any thoughts ,,blank back ..

[nolemmings]

Too many levels up in the atmosphere for me so I don't study this card intently, but note that it has more than tripled since it sold four years ago ($83,650), and same for another SGC 70 that sold two years ago with somewhat lesser centering ($80,663). Then again, a PSA 5 with decent centering sold for $191K last year.

The trend is definitely moving upward from a couple of years ago, but the price in Goldin seems high to me. My prediction--the next time you see it at auction will be with Goldin also.

[rjackson44]

hi todd insane wow

[uniship]

If a Wagner psa 1 is $400k then a Ruth rookie 5.5 for south of $300k seems low in comparison. Imo.

[pokerplyr80]

It is my understanding the back doesn't really change the value of the card much. And yes the price certainly has gone crazy the last couple of years. My thought is the market is finally catching up to what that card should have been worth all along. A rare rookie card of the greatest player of all time should be the most desirable card in the hobby.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Also when people start to get worried about the cardmarket as a whole they jump onto the 'waterside' cards for safe investments.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

It is my understanding the back doesn't really change the value of the card much. And yes the price certainly has gone crazy the last couple of years. My thought is the market is finally catching up to what that card should have been worth all along. A rare rookie card of the greatest player of all time should be the most desirable card in the hobby.

Baltimore News?

[pcoz]

Thought it went really cheap. A PSA 4 just sold for 288k in Heritage recently. Wait until the REA PSA 5 goes this month!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by rats60

Baltimore News?

Minor league card, right?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pcoz

Thought it went really cheap. A PSA 4 just sold for 288k in Heritage recently. Wait until the REA PSA 5 goes this month!

At some point the card could come back down to earth too. It's not like they are hard to find or rare, they are just expensive .... I thought the price was about right, not that I play in that stratosphere.

[oldjudge]

I agree with Leon. It's just another hyped card. If attitudes change that card could easily halve in value.

[pcoz]

Leon, you could be right that the price was about right. Being objective because I have one, there are only 80-85 with the crossovers, which is not that many. Personally, I think it's been far too undervalued for far too long, and is finally catching up. Maybe a little quickly for sure, and the price will eventually flatten out, but I don't see it going down. The 11k+ Mantle's in circulation maybe, but not a Ruth RC. Just my opinion.

[vintagerookies51]

I feel like anyone could've predicted this card would skyrocket eventually. Card was way undervalued years ago IMO. Probably because it doesn't have a famous story behind it like the Wags. It is "just" a rookie of the most famous baseball player of all time

[Shackmsu]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Also when people start to get worried about the cardmarket as a whole they jump onto the 'waterside' cards for safe investments.

Waterside? Unfamiliar with that term. I'm learning.......

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Shackmsu

Waterside? Unfamiliar with that term. I'm learning.......

Jake likes to compare "big" cards to waterfront property.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

the next time you see it at auction will be with Goldin also.

Well said; I think the underlying logic there is the case with lots of the high-end M101 Ruth sales.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Sean

Jake likes to compare "big" cards to waterfront property.

I am fine with the "across the street" properties but only if they have a nice view.

[Jdoggs]

Ruth PSA 5 at $276k. With total pop of Ruth rookies under 100 and Ruth being the greatest baseball player of all time, this card is undervalued compared to the thousands of 52 topps mantles.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Jdoggs

Ruth PSA 5 at $276k. With total pop of Ruth rookies under 100 and Ruth being the greatest baseball player of all time, this card is undervalued compared to the thousands of 52 topps mantles.

I agree the Ruth is undervalued, especially relative to the Mick. But, there are not too many people left alive who saw Ruth play while there are lots of Baby Boomers left who grew up idolizing Mantle. So while the '52 Topps Mick is far more plentiful, I don't know if any of us ever see an accurate price point comparison of the two. That might not happen while Mantle fans remain alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Jdoggs

Ruth PSA 5 at $276k. With total pop of Ruth rookies under 100 and Ruth being the greatest baseball player of all time, this card is undervalued compared to the thousands of 52 topps mantles.

There are about 105 Ruth rookies slabbed. My guess on the total pop is 150-200.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I agree the Ruth is undervalued, especially relative to the Mick. But, there are not too many people left alive who saw Ruth play while there are lots of Baby Boomers left who grew up idolizing Mantle. So while the '52 Topps Mick is far more plentiful, I don't know if any of us ever see an accurate price point comparison of the two. That might not happen while Mantle fans remain alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mantle is way over priced, so everything is undervalued compared to it. The Mantle has the Topps name attached to it. Topps has been making cards from 1951 to 2017. Pretty much every collector alive grew up collecting Topps cards. Add that the card is from the first regular Topps set and is a scarce high number, even though a dp, and it has everything going for it.

Who made M101 sets? Who even collects them? An early Ruth card from a lightly collected set is only being carried by the Ruth name and the number made. If it was a t206 or a Cracker Jack, then the sky would be the limit. As is, it is only a card for auction houses to hype to investors.

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

There are about 105 Ruth rookies slabbed. My guess on the total pop is 150-200.

Accounting for crossovers the true amount of Ruth rookies slabbed is around 85 most likely.

[uniship]

I agree I think the population is less than 100. That's not much more than the honus Wagner. And it's a tiny fraction of mantle.

And it's widely considered to be THE Babe Ruth rookie card. The card has tons of upside in my opinion.

Owning a Wagner puts you in an elite exclusive collectors fraternity. Same thing for a "babe Ruth rookie".

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by uniship

I agree I think the population is less than 100. That's not much more than the honus Wagner. And it's a tiny fraction of mantle.

And it's widely considered to be THE Babe Ruth rookie card. The card has tons of upside in my opinion.

Owning a Wagner puts you in an elite exclusive collectors fraternity. Same thing for a "babe Ruth rookie".

I totally agree my friend!

[oldjudge]

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

There are about 105 Ruth rookies slabbed. My guess on the total pop is 150-200.

And of those 105 Ruth rookies, you can bet at least 15 (if not more) are double counts due to PSA/SGC crossovers not removed from the pop charts! I know of 5/6 myself.....

Joe T.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

Sorry Jay but rookie card status in this hobby does NOT distinguish between early vs. LATER issued cards within the SAME calendar year. M101-4 s were also issued in 1916... they are likewise Ruth rookies.

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

And of those 105 Ruth rookies, you can bet at least 15 (if not more) are double counts due to PSA/SGC crossovers not removed from the pop charts! I know of 5/6 myself.....

Joe T.

+1

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Sorry Jay but rookie card status in this hobby does NOT distinguish between early vs. LATER issued cards within the SAME calendar year. M101-4 s were also issued in 1916... they are likewise Ruth rookies.

+1

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

Jay, since Ruth is the one of the few players who has the same number in both sets, how do you know if you definitively have an M101-5?

[oldjudge]

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

[Baseball Rarities]

Jay - thanks for the explanation. Which of the backs can only be found in the M101-5 series?

[pokerplyr80]

I'd have to say I agree that a rookie card can be issued any time during the year, especially with how many sets are available today. Otherwise everyone would launch a product Jan 1st to be the one true rc. There are players with cards in both 48 bowman and leaf sets that are considered rookies in each. I doubt they were released the same day. I'm personally trying to obtain one of every of Ken Griffey Jr's rookie cards. I couldn't care less which was issued earlier in the year.

[oldjudge]

Kevin: Holmes to Homes, Successful Farming, and for card numbers post 20 (like the Ruth) Famous and Barr. If you haven't read it, Todd and Tim's seminal article in Old Cardboard it is a must.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card. Point to the 1949 Leaf set. We know the cards have stats from 1948, collectors have said they bought the cards in 1949 and hobby publications from the time say they were released in 1949. That doesn't stop people from calling the 1949 Leaf Stan Musial his rookie. So, how can one know about cards three decades earlier?

As far as calling all cards released in the same calendar year rookies, that is not true. That would mean the 1985 Donruss Don Mattingly is a rc too, as those cards were first released in December 1984. At least there is consensus that it is not. On the Ruth, there is no agreement and probably never will be.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card.

No, there are not a lot of people who believe the m101-4/5 Ruth is not his rookie card. There is you and virtually no one else. I asked you, more than once when you started this nonsense a couple of years ago, to tell us what you believe Ruth's rookie card to be---silence. Crickets. Nada.

Many could at least understand if you chose the Baltimore News card, but we both know you can't/won't go there. Come on, put it out there. I'm waiting for the Peter Chao answer of 1933 Goudey.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No, there are not a lot of people who believe the m101-4/5 Ruth is not his rookie card. There is you and virtually no one else. I asked you, more than once when you started this nonsense a couple of years ago, to tell us what you believe Ruth's rookie card to be---silence. Crickets. Nada.

Many could at least understand if you chose the Baltimore News card, but we both know you can't/won't go there. Come on, put it out there. I'm waiting for the Peter Chao answer of 1933 Goudey.

'33 Goudey? That would be the totally idiotic Beckett answer. The Sporting News cards Jay mentioned are clearly his rookie cards endorsed by most knowledgeable hobbyists ....his Baltimore card is a pre-rookie card.

[yanksfan09]

I'll happily take anyone's m101-4's off them if they're unhappy with them or having doubts...

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

I'll happily take anyone's m101-4's off them if they're unhappy with them or having doubts...

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

Agreed.

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

True dat! Ruth is the GOAT perhaps of all sports!

[nolemmings]

As I have mentioned before, I do not collect rookie cards per se and will never afford a m101-4/5 Ruth, so I don't have a lot invested in the debate as to whether one is the rookie and the other is not. I agree with Jay that there does not appear to be any hard and fast rule.

As I have thought about it more and done more research, I now would argue that either can be considered his rookie. Previously I believed that because m101-5 was printed first, it must be the rookie, and the best way to make sure is to acquire a card that came only associated with that set. Now it seems more logical to accept either of them as rookies, at least to me.

The cards were printed only 6-7 weeks apart max, at least first-run printings. To me the question then begs what would make one the rookie--when it was first printed or first available? Leaving aside the blank-backs for a minute, the answer is pretty murky.

Mendelsohn offered m101-4 in the Sporting News on April 6, 1916. In theory then, one could have ordered and received the m101-4 set in mid April or so, including the Ruth. Successful Farming-- one of the three sets exclusive to the earlier-printed m101-5, was not advertised by its publisher for sale until the May, 1916 issue, so it is likely those who answered that ad would have acquired their Ruth's after the enterprising and eager responder to Mendelsohn's m101-4 promo.

Similarly, Famous and Barr, another m101-5 Ruth producer, started its advertising April 8th, 1916, technically after the m101-4 cards were already available. More importantly, the store released the cards in weekly series of twenty cards, alphabetically, and Ruth would not have been issued to customers until the eighth week--about two months after m101-4 was in circulation.

Holmes to Homes is the only other advertiser of exclusively m101-5 Ruths. Its advertising also began about a week after Mendelsohn's TSN offer. Those cards were available one at a time in loaves of bread, so I suppose someone could have pulled a Ruth the first day or so, but even then, it is at least theoretically possible someone, say a kid in Chicago, already went downtown and paid at Mendelsohn's Peoples Gas Building to receive his set of m101-4. Under all of these circumstances, how should it be determined which came first for rookie purposes?

As for the blanks, we do know that m101-5 was printed first, and presumably would have been available before m101-4. However, since the Ruth card is identical in both sets, you are left with only subtle toning of the card's stock as the sole test of telling whether the card came from m101-5. I doubt the hobby is willing to put much stock in that (pun intended) as a definitive marker, although it would matter to me.

I guess the only way to be sure is to acquire the Chicago Examiner full sheet of M101-5, which issued in March, 1916. Good luck with that.

[oldjudge]

Todd--Thanks for posting, and thank you and Tim for publishing the wonderful research that you did. Personally, I believe that the printing date is the key. Since M101-5s were printed first they get my rookie vote. Looking at issue date is always tough, especially with blank backs. I think many blank backs we see today, not just Ruths but all M101s, were not issued during the period but were from uncut unissued sheets that were cut up later. Why do I think this--compare the average grades for ad back cards and blank back cards. The blank back cards are significantly higher. Since everything else is equal, the lower wear on them probably translates to less time in circulation.
As to that April 6, 1916 TSN ad for M101-4s, was Mendolsohn advertising to potential companies to use his cards for advertisement, or was he marketing the cards to the general public? If the latter,doesn't it seem strange that he is directly competing with the companies that he just sold ad back printing to? I don't have a copy of the ad in front of me--if I did the answer might be apparent.
On a side note, the closeness of the April 6 announcement and the Famous and Barr issue date may explain the mixed nature of the Famous and Barr set. It seems that Mendelssohn already had printed some M101-4s before Famous and Barr got their cards. Perhaps the first shipment to Famous and Barr was an error--they should have been getting the M101-5s and numbers 1-20 came as M101-4s. This was corrected on subsequent shipments, so that the rest of the set is M101-5s. Since this is the mirror image of the Herpolsheimer set, I guess another possibility is that the packages got screwed up and Herpolsheimer first shipment was sent to Famous and Barr and vice versa. Is this what you think?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think many blank backs we see today, not just Ruths but all M101s, were not issued during the period but were from uncut unissued sheets that were cut up later. Why do I think this--compare the average grades for ad back cards and blank back cards. The blank back cards are significantly higher. Since everything else is equal, the lower wear on them probably translates to less time in circulation.

Jay - I also think that blank backed cards are found in better grades due to the fact that they were often issued in factory sets.

[oldjudge]

Good point Kevin, but so were some ad back sets. That may explain part of it though.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Damn this is fascinating. Amazing the work you guys put in to research this. Thank you

[Jdoggs]

Based on recent sales Ruth rookie rapidly overtaking 52 Topps mantle in price.
Now:
Ruth PSA 4 rookie about same value as 52 mantle PSA 7
Ruth PSA 5 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 7.5
Ruth PSA 6 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 8
And Ruth PSA 7 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 8.5.

[nolemmings]

Jay, you pose a few different questions, for which I have only somewhat speculative responses. I can say, however, that Mendelsohn's April 6 ad was to the general public, even though he had recruited company advertisers by that date. His flyer had promised exclusivity to one per city "in one line of business", so maybe he felt that as a publisher he was not competing with any of his "dealers".

I agree that a principal reason so many high-grade blank backs exist is because they were made available later; however, I have not seen enough to conclude that they were not period, nor can I agree that all or most of them were from sheets that were cut up later. Keep in mind that at present I have yet to see any ads for m101-5 blank-backs for sale to the general public. How and when these came into the hobby remains completely unanswered as far as I'm concerned.

Mendelsohn was somewhat of a perfectionist, and corrected several cards that had erroneous photos or caption information in m101-5 when he sought to create m101-4. My working theory is that he had produced and simply elected to stash any m101-5s still on hand when he made the change, rather than continue any misinformation. These somehow found the hobby later, although I would not be surprised if they had been cut already. It seems to me that if they were cut some years later, we would see more better-centered Ruths-- it is often notoriously off-centered--since if he was the prize jewel, great care would have been taken in extracting his cards from the sheets, even at the expense of others. Then again, if the plan was to only sell to advertisers, who likely would want their names on the backs, one would think he would leave them in sheet form to make it easier for printing purposes, so who knows? BTW, we are still only talking about a few high-grade examples as it is- PSA shows 3 graded 7 and 3 graded 8 (assuming no re-submits), with no SGC examples at those levels.

Your Famous & Barr questions have caused me headaches for years. Remember that not only Herpolsheimer, but also Block & Kuhl and to some extent Gimbels are also "mirror images" of Famous & Barr as relates to distribution. I will correct something in my prior post that contributes to the notion a of mixed-up shipment. Famous & Barr actually first advertised on April 14th, not April 8. The smallish ad stated that 20 cards would be available for ten weeks, starting "tomorrow", which was Saturday, April 15. The next Friday's ad was essentially identical. The third Friday ad, on April 28, 1916, stated that "The fourth set in the series" was available the next day--not the third set/series. That is why on my timeline I backdated the first series as having been available on April 8. Maybe it was not available at that time and became so only later, when m101-4 had supplanted its older brother. As I said, I've been struggling with an explanation for these mixed sets for a long time.

[Leon]

Sent over from a lurker...

[Jdoggs]

Cool baseball hall of fame image.