1923 Ruth Exhibit - Lipset Auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

In Lew's latest auction he is selling what he has dated a 1923 Babe Ruth Exhibit card. He further states that the card is identical in all respects to the 1921 Exhibit except that the 1923 exhibit has a border. Finally Lew states that there are only 3 (I believe) known copies of this particular exhibit card. I have asked Lew about this as both the standard catalog and old cardboard note that 1921 exhibits come both with and without a border. Lew is essentially claiming that the 1921 ruth did not come with a border even if others did. He has not provided (despite my requests) any information to support his belief.

Finally, I have also seen at least two other ruth exhibits with borders listed as being from 1921. One was sold in a vintage authentics auction and one was on ebay. If these cards are not actually from 1921, at a minimum, this leads me to believe that they are not as rare as Lew indicates.

Any information would be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

That is a really interesting question. No one really knows since no one has an uncut sheet, but I tend to believe that the Ruth in question is a 1921 issue that was short-printed in the bordered variety:

1. There are other cards with borders and borderless cards with the same 1921 format. Rogers Hornsby is one I can confirm. Without an uncut sheet I am dubious of an assertion that the bordered and borderless cards are from different years.

2. Earlier hobby references list the Ruth border and borderless card at the same price as part of the same set. If they were that rare I would not have expected equivalent treatment in early references.

3. In order to make a bordered card, the company would have had to reshoot the raw image and create a new printing plate (halftone processing requires a new printing plate every time you want to make a change, including the size of the image on the plate). I find it hard to believe that the company redid the Ruth plate in 1923 with the exact same image solely to add a border. They could have, I guess, but it would be contrary to their known practices. The 1921 and 1923 boxing sets contain a number of reused fronts (Jack Dempsey and Benny Leonard, who were Ruth's equivalents in boxing, are the most prominent). These cards are great references for ESCO practices because the boxing card backs have copyright dates and biographies and we can definitively date them. The 1923 cards of Leonard and Dempsey with 1921 images reuse the old fronts. It does not make sense that for the baseball set ESCO would redo the issue rather than reuse yet for boxing they would only reuse images.

I think the bordered and borderless cards are both 1921s, although the card with borders clearly is harder to find. It is not, however, as rare as any of a number of other ESCO baseball cards, including any PCL issue.

Now let's see what everyone else thinks....

[Archive]

Posted By: RayB

Warshaw - I would tend to concur. Second hand chat on this subject has produced indicators to me that your theories about the existance of two Ruth's with a 21' issue date make sense.
I have not physically seen one of these to examine myself and it has been a long time since I even remember seeing the image.
Does anyone have a scan they can post of a Ruth with border?
RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Here is the one from the auction:

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Here is how they were offered in 1921:

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

OK, now we are getting somewhere. The image with borders shows less of the picture than the one without, meaning that the borders were imposed over the image rather than around it before the new plate was created. The next question is whether the two cards were made from the same photo or from two separate prints of the same image. I downloaded both photos and superimposed one over the other using photo editing software. I was particularly concerned with lining up the legends because they are handwritten. If a second picture was used, there is no way that the legends will correspond precisely. What I found was that the legends match exactly. This tells me that the same hand-annotated photo was used to create both versions of the card. ESCO apparently did go back and revise the original photo by adding a border to it. When this was done is what we do not know, but 1923 is certainly a stronger possibility than I thought earlier. I would still point out that a revision of the Ruth for 1923 would not be consonant with the boxing card experience. My boxing research proves that the company issued a set of 64 cards of boxers and wrestlers in 1921, issued a supplemental set in 1922, then reissued some of the 1921s with some new cards in 1923 (remember, all boxing cards are actually copyrighted and dated so there is no ambiguity as to when they were issued). There are two Jack Dempseys for 1923 but the second card is a new pose. I have yet to see ESCO crop or border a 1921 boxing card to create a 1923, but I will keep looking. Ruth is Ruth, though, and who knows what marketing decision was made or when.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

We have actually seen quite a few the White Border Exhibits Babe Ruths in the past twelve months. In addition to the ones auctioned in the Lipset auction, there have been a few others for sale recently:

Vintage Authentics auctions had a white border Ruth for sale last year and it sold for approximately $1000.

On eBay, Lawrence Block sold a PSA 4 Exhibit Ruth with white border for $2850 on 9/26/05. It was labeled by PSA as 1921, but definitely had white borders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

In addition to the 4 that Wesley points out, I seem to also recall a PSA 3 mk that sold on ebay as well in the 1000-1200 area. If around 5 of them have been on the market in the last 12 months, I would say that there are quite a few out there. I am sure that they are rare for 1921 Exhibit standards, but how many other Ruth exhibits have been made available in the same timeframe?

I have seen around 10 of the borderless 1921 exhibits
I have seen 2 1925 exhibits
I don't think I have seen a 1926
I have seen 3 or 4 1927 exhibits
I have seen 3 or 4 1928 exhibits
I have seen around 5 of the 1926-29 exhibits swinging pose
I have seen 2 of the 1926-29 exhibits facing forward pose
I have seen maybe 8-10 combined for all of the 4-in-1 exhibits from the 30's.

Maybe the 1921 bordered exhibit is rare compared to other 1921's, but I don't see it being any rarer than any of his other exhibits out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I do not think that the bordered card is as rare as it is made out to be. I have seen more of them than of any single 1928 PCL Exhibit.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Over the last few years Ive only seen about 4-5 (different) of the Ruth w/borders (I think some are the same cards being sold over and over). I have seen dozens of the normal borderless cards (at least 1-3 a month on eBay). I didnt even know the border one existed until about 5 years ago. Everytime I see a 1921 Ruth I look for the borders, and very few have it. I agree with Adam though, the individual PCL cards are far scarcer, I see maybe 5 a year total on eBay. And if your looking for a specific PCL player it may take years.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Chanin

You are talking about the card that I have up for auction with Lew Lipset.

I have been following exhibit cards for many years including nearly every ebay listing since 1999. I have complete sets for 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1928, and Sets 81-83 issued between 1927 and 1929. I look for exhbit cards almost every day on ebay and have for years.

I have never seen any other type of card that purports to be a 1923 Ruth Exhibit card other than the one listed for auction with Lew Lipset. I have read all the arguments that this is not a 1923 card. All of them fail to account for the fact that no other card has been issued that ANYONE claims is a 1923 Ruth Exhibit card and experts back for over 30 years claim this is in fact that card.

As for the frequent sightings of this card, I would challenge anyone to show me who in fact bought the card and who in fact owns it. Where are the owners of all these 1923 Ruth Exhibit Cards???? The fact is they do not exist because the card is very rare. I have seen exactly three of these cards up for auction--2 with Lew Lipset and 1 with ebay. It is very likely that two of these cards are the same card.

Even if there were 10 1923 Ruth Exhibit cards (which is extremely optomistic and unproven), that is only a fraction of the number of Honus Wagner cards, Ty Cobb backs etc. Moreover, how do you account for the fact that lifelong exhibit card collectors like McPherson, Lerner, Scharf and others have never owned this card?

You are all entitled to your free speech rights and I respect that. However,
several of the comments here have unfairly characterized this card and probably all this gossip has cost me unfairly. I have 100% approval rating on over 1000 different ebay transactions and would never sell a card that I believed was not fairly represented.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Nobody is trying to hurt your auction. The problem is that there is no proof that the Ruth card is from 1923 because it looks identical to a 1921 exhibit - in other words, if there is no way to distinguish the two years, how do you know your's is from 1923?

Before you state it is the white border, please recall that 1921 exhibits come both with and without the white border. So unless there is some sort of evidence tending to show that 1921 Ruth's only came w/o the border, then there is no way to prove yours is from 1923.

Frankly, its a great looking card - one that Ive been trying to acquire - but I wouldnt even consider paying a premium for the card even if it could conclusively be dated to 1923 if I could pick up a 1921 at a fraction of the cost.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Jim Chanin:

I know what you are experiencing, as I have had to defend my Reccius Wagner card during the course of that auction as well. It comes with the territory, and I think actually HELPS the value of a card to have the owner answer any questions about it that may linger. Thus, I appreciate your input on the cool Ruth Exhibit.

Can you please answer my questions:

The set of 1923-24 Exhibits listed in the big book has a #46 by Ruth's name. Does that number actually appear on the card anywhere, or is that numbering system just in the book for cataloging purposes?

Is there also a DIFFERENT pose of Ruth in the 1923-24 Exhibit set... or is yours the only one?

THANKS!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Jim -

I appologize if my comments have a negative effect on your auction. However, I am just simply stating my experiences - what I have observed over the last year. I am not bending the numbers. I have no hidden agenda. Just providing information that hopefully is useful to other collectors out there.

As for the Ruth exhibit being issued in 1923, I also do not understand how this has been determined. From what I have heard, most of the longtime exhibit collectors do not believe that exhibits from 1921, 1922 and 1923 were distributed as individual and distinct sets, but rather as one whole grouping distributed over a period from 1921-23. Therefore, couldn't it be possible that the bordered Ruth exhibit was issued in 1921, and just simply not reproduced in mass quantities over the next 3 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

No one here has an agenda. The card is priced highly enough in the auction that no one here is trying to lowball it to snag it on the cheap. The questions raised here have been raised by other long-time Exhibit collectors who do not believe that the card is conclusively a 1923 issue. I will not rehash the points already discussed. With respect to certain of your comments, I would suggest the following:

1. Old-time data are often no more than assumptions by collectors based on partial information. A nonexistent T206 back in the ACC is the most glaring example of this sort of thing. I believe that we are better informed now than we were years ago, with the consequence being that some issues are treated as being rarer than before and others are questioned. This card happens to be one where the "orthodox" view as enshrined by the authorities you cite is being challenged. Absent an advertisement, a sheet or something from the era from ESCO, no one really knows how the cards were issued.

2. We can pick and choose old references if we like to support either view. For example, the 1982 Beckett book lists the Ruth as with and without the borders as part of a 1921-23 continuum with no price premium for either. Where did Denny Eckes get that from? He's dead so I don't think we can ask.

3. No one except the old collectors you referenced can say why they did not have the card. Maybe they could not find it; maybe they did not try. Since most are dead, that information is likewise dead.

4. No one is saying that the card is not desirable. It is. However, even assuming it is a 1923 card, why it is rarer than any other 1923 and should command such a titanic price premium has not been established or even discussed. Granted, 1923's are definitely tougher than any other year except perhaps 1926, but to pay a massive premium for the Ruth with borders over the one without is in my view unmerited because the 1923 cards are not massively rarer or more valuable than the 1921-1922 cards. Would I pay 2x-3x what I felt a borderless card is worth? Sure. But 10x or even more? No way. And I think a lot of other Exhibit collectors feel the same, which is why you perhaps are not seeing the auction action you wished for. I share your pain on that score--I have some other Exhibit cards that are unbelievably rare but not unbelievably in demand commensurate with their rarity. Are there more 1930 Jim Thorpe's, 1920s Red Grange's, Ruth and Baby Snookums, Ruth movie portraits, Dempsey and Valentino, etc., than T206 Wagners? Probably not, but no one is beating down my door to make the trade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Chanin

In answer to one question, I do not know any numbering system on any of the Ruth exhibit cards including this one. The number (I think it was #46) is a numerical listing by the book that the number appears in--the cards are not numbered.

The 1923 set is exceedingly rare with the Sand and Ruth cards being the rarest. I really do not know of anyone who has a complete set except for me and perhaps one other person. Obviously, I could be wrong but that is what I know.

Therefore, in order to complete a 1923 set, you must have a Ruth card. This is the only card that is reasonably likely to be the 1923 Ruth card. Even if, as someone said, all the cards were issued randomly between 1921 and 1923 (which I doubt), the fact remains you would still need this card to complete a set of all the cards that were issued during that time. The fact that a Ruth card is the rare card makes this card all the more desirable.

The argument that there is no real 1923 Exhibit set may be true since no one has a time machine. But it is consistently listed as a set in catalogs such as the 2006 Standard Catalog of Baseball cards (SCD)and a host of other publications.
No publication whatsoever (that I know of) has ever made the argument that there is no 1923 set.

While it may be true that it is irrational to value a card with a border much higher than one without one, this "irrational behavior" is also found with T206 backs, 1952 Topps backs, and a host of other exceptions where minor variations in a card cause great change in value.

If you do not like these arguments, please do not buy the card. But I have seen no explanation for this card that makes more sense than the one Lew Lipset gave.
That is what I believe unless proven otherwise.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Unfortunately Jim, you have not answered the basic question on everyone's mind - what makes you so sure that a Ruth card with a border is from 1923 rather than 1921. I will repeat what I said earlier - according to Lemke 1921 exhibits are found both WITH AND WITHOUT A BORDER.

To me, this means that a white border on the Ruth card does not conclusively date it to 1923. Unless you can explain this, I doubt you get many bidders willing to pay 3k for a card that normally sells in the 1k range (even with a border - such as the one in the vintage authentics auction late last year).