Gehrig 1925 Exhibit

[MattyC]

So I am a huge fan of the man and player. Was wondering how his 1925 Exhibit is viewed within the larger collecting community-- in terms of it being his RC.

Edited to say that it seems clear to me now that it is indeed his RC. This card seems tragically undervalued to me, considering the man's character, the legacy of his famous speech, the incredible stats, the hallowed record held for so long, and of course the sadness at how he was struck down in his prime. The salient thing for me is the grace with which he conducted himself in the face of that; to consider yourself lucky in that circumstance...amazing.

I have to believe that in time, once Ruth's cards are done skyrocketing lol, perhaps another film, widespread doc on MLB channel, or a special on ESPN will help bring Gehrig (and in turn his cards) the props they deserve.

[familytoad]

Hi Matt
I am one who consider the 1927 York Caramel (type2) as the Lou Gehrig RC.
I do have some bias because it's my latest pickup. (posted in the July thread)
This card was on my list of "dreams" for many many years, and I sometimes still pinch myself when looking at it...
Anyway I think The exhibit folks have a legitimate argument as well, but this is just my opinion, I think the York fits better by some of the common designated "rules".
US Caramel wouldn't qualify in my mind.

You can't go wrong with either, but I think you should have both just in case...

[Exhibitman]

If exhibit cards are cards then yes. We have a nationally-distributed card of Lou Gehrig from 1925. It isn't a postcard [not that there's anything wrong with postcards, if that's what you collect]. It isn't a photograph. It wasn't cut from something else or turned into a card from something else. It isn't outlandishly sized [if so, then are Topps Supers from 1964-70-71 also not cards?]. It is ACC-listed. About the only knock on it is that it wasn't sold with something else or to promote something else, which I find to be a facile distinction, frankly, since that would also boot most "W" cards from the list of cards. But I could be wrong, so all of you with 1925 Gehrigs, please discard them immediately by sending them to me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Like Adam said, the '25 Exhibit of Gehrig certainly makes sense to me as his Rookie Card. Gehrig also appears in the W590 strip card series which is most often dated 1925-31 although most would probably agree that the Gehrig card was most likely produced after 1925.

[Leon]

I have always thought his '25 Exhibit is his rookie. I bought a raw one in a Mastro auction, about 12-14 yrs ago raw, and it came back a 70 which eventually got bumped to an 80. Great looking pose. If you don't count Exhibits then I would go with his York Caramel also...

[MattyC]

I'm personally of the mind that the 1925 Exhibit is the way to go. Now the big question is who will sell me one?

[HRBAKER]

If there such a thing as a Rookie Card then the 1925 Exhibit would surely qualify. You have to make up rules for the things to even exist, I don't see how you disqualify the Exhibit.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Not interested in selling it but here's mine................

[HRBAKER]

Nice Phil!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, Jeff.

One piece of advice, if you are buying one of these raw, look very closely at the color tint, there exists the exact same image in a blue-gray tint which was produced in 1926 as opposed to the gray tint from 1925. Sometimes, it is not that easy to tell the two apart if you don't have another example available for a side-by-side comparison. I think that, from time to time, even the grading companies have gotten them wrong.