very valid point!!!!!

Ruth Rookie
 

Jeff,

I don’t think Ethan is questioning the research as much as he’s simply stating you cannot identify Ruth on the 1914 postcard. The pitcher on the mound presents as an unifentifiable blurry image. I agree with Ethan. If it’s going to take a “war in peace” level of literature to prove it’s Ruth because the Ruth image tells us NOTHING, I prefer to pass as well. That’s just me and my taste, and it certainly doesn’t diminish the potential significance of this find and the great research that was put into it. On that subject, one question for you Jeff. As Ethan stated, the research is awesome and points to it being ruth. However, that appears to be a glove on the left hand of the pitcher. It just seems too large of a haze to be Ruth’s left hand? Your thoughts?

Yes, obviously the image is too blurry to clearly identify Ruth, no one is arguing that. But if you have any doubts that it is actually Ruth that means you have doubts about the research which I can't really understand with all the supporting evidence.

Glove is on the right hand, his left hand is visible. May look a little large due to motion or holding a ball or whatever but again the image is too blurry to really make any kind of credible identification call like that which is why the research is so vital.

I completely understand that this type of item is not for everyone. All I'm saying is that it is 100% definitely Ruth pitching for the Red Sox in 1914.

It’s irrelevant which card is ”the” rookie. The mere fact that they are even in the debate shows that each card is important. The Ruth PC on HA is at 84k with BP right now. Rookie or not, it’s getting a ton of respect as the earliest professional Ruth card. The market will always prefer an individual card to a team card, but that is ok: there are obviously enough collectors who appreciate and will pay big for both.

Pretty simple if you ask me. Baltimore is a minor league rookie and Sporting News is an MLB rookie.

Ruth Rookie
 

Well said!

I'll take the under on that 50K.

Well put, Jeff!

Highest regards,

Larry

+1. IMHO, probably a couple hundred of the 1916 M 101's in total exist. And indeed, good luck finding any example under $20K.

Happy hunting,

Larry

By my recollection, the last time a VG example was under $10K was around 2005 or so.

Good luck in your quest,

Larry

Most of the Ruth rookies are blank back or Sporting News backs(the pop reports don't really differentiate between the two). The total of all other ad backs is under 35. That's pretty scarce.

Ruth Rookie
 

Unless an M101 Ruth Rookie is an “authentic” because it has been chewed apart by the family pet, you cannot find one for less than $50K anymore. Low grade 1’s - 2’s range between $65 - $120K (give or take) with really nice eye appeal ones at that grade level sometimes fetching even higher prices. The VG - EX levels easily jump to the $150K - $275K range, once again with aesthetics driving the prices. FYI, any extremely well centered examples typically realize significant premiums.

I don't consider myself a "professional," but I'm thinking that because it's Babe Ruth, who really is in a pantheon category all his own, the 1914 Baltimore News card is the best of the three, simply because it's the first Babe Ruth card ever issued. In this context it doesn't matter that he's a minor leaguer. And from a personal aesthetic standpoint, it adds a lot that the card has the year of issue on the back. So you have a card of the great Babe Ruth before he was B*A*B*E R*U*T*H, produced possibly back when he was better known as George.

I feel the same way. The BN Ruth is my holy grail card. I don’t give a crap what uniform he’s wearing. Financial considerations aside, I prefer to own the BN Ruth than any other card in the hobby. I would take a low grade BN Ruth over a
high grade M101.

1914 Baltimore News team "card"
 

BTW, if we are talking about early Ruth "cards", there is also a 1914 Baltimore News team "card" that features Ruth. The only one that I am aware of sold at REA in 2007. Here's the link: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...ing-babe-ruth/

As I recall shortly after the sale there was an extensive discussion on this forum as to the definition of a baseball card and whether this team photograph qualifies. Regardless how one characterizes it, as is the case with the 1915 team postcard featuring Ruth, it is a great early image of him.

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league, college or other non MLB card.

Which one is his best or most desirable or most valuable or rarest or sometimes even first is another question.

P.s., rarity is strictly a measure of the number of cards, while scarcity is a measure of supply versus demand. Market value is as good a representation of scarcity as any. Whether or not you think the T206 Honus Wagner is rare, the $$ value indicates the card is very, very scarce (demand far exceed supply).

No, it isn't. The card has to be nationally issued, not a regional. If you are going to ignore that part of the definition, why can't someone else choose his very first card, the Baltimore News or something else?

Explain to us again which of the then 48 states did not allow mailing of The Sporting News to its citizens? Or Successful Farming for that matter? I've asked this of you many times before, and have also asked that you enlighten us with what you assert to be the true Babe Ruth rookie. I get crickets.

The crickets very well might be because I tell members if they are going to get into very much of a debate then the "full name in post rule" is going to apply. Some members don't want to to go there, which is fine, as long as they don't push whatever boundary there is to having your full name have to be in public on this forum. It's a fine line and I try to accommodate all members requests.
Carry on..
..and I happen to agree with you, Todd. I have thought his rookie MLB card is the M101/4&5s. I also don't think you can just say "his rookie card is" unless you qualify it a little bit. To each their own, except for the board policies :).

Thanks Leon. I actually don't have strong feelings about what is or is not a rookie card, since I don't collect them as such--heck; I'd rather that most folks considered the m101 not to be his rookie, as that in theory could drive down the price, making it only two stratospheres beyond my budget :) I just never saw any logic from this poster, who continually claims the m101 is not the rookie for reasons he cannot support, and who then still will not offer an opinion as to what card he believes should be called the rookie and why.

I don't subscribe to the 'nationally distributed' rule. However, even if that is the rule, the Sporting News definitely was a national distributed card and publication. Sporting News was the Sports Illustrated (or ESPN?) of its day.

But I don't collect rookie cards, so I'll let the definitional debate proceed without me.

If I (or any other "rookie" card collectors) had to limit ourselves to only nationally distributed issues, there would be quite a few gaps in our collections! I have quite a few gaps due to the astronomical prices of the cards I seek, but that's my problem.

I guess, by that unusual criterion, 1947 Tip Top Bread and 1954 Red Heart and other regionally distributed "items" are simply not cards. Anyone who came up with the idea that national distribution was necessary in order for a card to be considered a "rookie card" simply needed an excuse for not filling certain holes in their collections due to rarity of certain regional or team issues. To me, that's half the fun.

I'm still blown away when I see a 1948 Bowman of Enos Slaughter being called a "rookie" card when he was 32 years old, had already made four All-Star appearances, and had played seven full seasons with the Cardinals DESPITE three years away from the game due to military service. FWIW, he has several pretty high population cards that pre-date the '48 Bowman - (1) 1941 W754 Cardinals Team Issue, (2) 1941 Double Play, and (3) 1947 Tip Top Bread among others. But I've digressed (a little)...

Wow Corey! Thanks for sharing. I hadn't seen that one until today...just added to my spreadsheet.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

"Rookie card is defined in the mind of the collector."

I think even defining what a card is can become debateable!!

$108,000 for the Sox team Postcard tonight. Rookie or not, it’s definitely getting a ton of respect.

Ruth Rookie
 

With room to grow! This card’s value will continue to escalate.

Red Sox Team Postcard
 

I would agree. The 3.5 is a beautiful example of the 1915 Red Sox Team PC with Ruth as a rookie. The same card that sold for 108k last night sold for 66k a year ago. One of, if not the hottest piece in the hobby.

How is “hottest” measured? It’s thinly traded in terms of population and also the amount of buyers at the 50k-100k+ end. While Balt News can also be characterized as such, it has the distinction of being popularized as his first, and is also a solo image, as opposed to a team image. I for one much prefer solo images to team photos.

"hottest" is measured by ownership/personal interest!

Just pointing out that the same 3.5 sold for 66k last year and 108k last night. 5 years ago you could buy a 3 for 25k. Pretty solid interest for a team image on a postcard.

I would be surprised if one person, including Ethan, disagreed with you on your points. Everyone prefers a solo image to a team card. And referring to a pop 12 card as “hot” is probably a a stretch since there aren’t enough of them available to get “hot.” I think Ethan is probably excited to see his card gain the respect that he wisely anticipated it would when he bought it years ago. “Hot” isn’t the right word. I would think he meant that it is a previously underrated card that is finally getting attention (like say a 25 Gehrig Exhibits).

Would certainly agree with that.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. 😊

Care to share a scan of your example, Ethan? Thanks in advance if you can. Such an awesome postcard, and the coolness factor goes up when you consider it has Tris Speaker on it as well.

Sure. Hopefully it comes through. I think that it is a strong SGC 20.

I think the Ruth "rookie" PC is a pretty damn hot card right now.

And as an aside, it has also been graded 1.5 by PSA...which is the case for more than my PC...bringing the known population report down a notch or two.

❤️ ⚾️ cards!

Ruth Rookie
 

Yes sir Jeff...it’s on fire. All early Ruth Red Sox items are extremely hot. Money in the bank!

Unless it's Jeter, or McGwire, or .....

Ruth Rookie
 

14 Total “Pop” (SGC & PSA combined) with 2 crossovers, bringing the accurate “Pop” down to 12.

That is a beauty, Ethan. Thanks again!

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show.

Great card ethan. Definitely a shrewd pickup on your part. I also have never been a huge fan of team cards especially when ascertaining rookies. It also has been purported by post card collectors that this card is not as rare as people think... despite what the population reports show. Perhaps this card is found in many post card collections around the globe just buried not graded or even thought about? Time will tell.

I do have a question...do any of you know how many of these cards are found with a handwritten price on the back in pencil?

It’s very possible that there are a few raw copies out there. The same can be said about rarities like the t206 Wagner or Baltimore News Ruth. But even assuming that there are twice as many unknown raw cards out there, which is an extremely generous hypothetical, that means there are still only 30 or so on the planet. That is still less than the amount of known t206 Wagners. It would still be extremely rare. My point is that EVERY card has the potential of having undiscovered or raw copies. Look at what happened with Cobb-backs: the pop nearly doubled in one find! They are still coveted and extremely rare and valuable. Heck, sometimes a healthier population takes a card out of the realm of “too rare for its own good” and into mainstream appreciation due to availability.

There is definitely a raw one or two still out there...

This is all true.

As for Pete's question...I know of 2 examples of the 1915 Team Postcard with rookie Ruth that have been written on, mailed and have a postmark from 1915 with a stamp.

Ruth Rookie
 

For the record, regarding virtually ANY card (including the T206 Wagner), there are unreported examples. The “pop” reports are simply a guide for collectors to utilize for some sense of rarity. For example, Heritage just disclosed a hoard of raw 1952 Topps that includes 6 super nice Mantles, one of which graded a PSA 8.5 (it will be in their August Platinum auction). Look at the Lucky 7 find. Who would have ever thought 7 (now 8) additional Ty Cobb “Back” Cards would ever be discovered? Bottom line is the true count of any high end and/or scarce issue will always remain a “black hole”.

I think my comments are being taken the wrong way. Of course there are finds out there of all shapes, sizes, and varieties yet to be unearthed. My point is that there are a lot of postcard collectors out there...not just baseball postcards like many of us...but all postcards. It's like a crossover thing...postcards that just happen to be baseball related.

Ruth is definitely an anomaly...the fact his early cards were with boston and super desirable. The dietsche cobb fielding should be a 6 figure too then!!!!!