What would a 1914 Baltimore Ruth sell for today?
 

The last recorded sale (that I'm aware of) was $450,000 for a PSA 1 in 2013. Given the lunacy that is today's card market, I'm thinking the next one could break a million. Or is that crazy?

Andrew, I think it could easily be a $2M+ card

Now, how much of the Babe Ruth BN market is further constrained because (multiple) owners of the card own multiple examples each. I know at least one or two own both a red and blue. Do any of the current owners own two of one color?

At this point, Andrew, money is unlikely to be a motivator for any of the current owners I think.

That is, unless it's a trade for a LeBron James patch card auto!

Marc, I agree with all of your statements except one - I think it is a $5mm+ card.

I agree. That card should go for well over a million. Interesting fact I don't think any Babe Ruth card has publicly sold for over a million dollars yet.

Yea , when every day it seems there's new basketball cards of current or recent players passing a million with ease...

Who knows?

In my opinion, the Baltimore News Ruth SHOULD be the most valuable card in existence.

To me it's many many multiples more valuable than a 4 million dollar Trout 1/1 RC.

I agree with Ryan. I think a PSA 1 could sell for $5 million. The higher grade copies might approach $10 million. It is the number one card in the hobby, but we probably will never know. I don’t see any copies voluntarily coming out any time soon.

It is so hard to figure the value on a rare card that only goes for sale once once in a blue moon. If had to guess, The 1914 B.News Ruth doubt less than $5.Million - in todays market which is bonkers. Could go $10.M wouldn't surprise me.

Many of us here have 1 of 1, and 1 of less than 10 of some pretty decent stuff. How do we determine value in todays market? You could list it at first impression an obscene amount, might sell very quickly, could be leaving money on the table. Who knows. I guess consigning to a big auction (REA/Heritage) would be best bet, let the market decide.

That is crazy, but the highest of the high end Ruth stuff hasn't been up for sale it seems. Likely already held by the strongest hands, high grade rookies haven't changed hands all that much in recent years it seems. As far as I know I wanna say around 2013 was the last time a Baltimore News publicly sold.

The owners of these cards aren't hurting for money and don't have interest in flipping it seems.

I agree The BN Ruth is the #2 card in the hobby after the t206 Wagner.

[QUOTE=100backstroke;2070769]It is so hard to figure the value on a rare card that only goes for sale once once in a blue moon. If had to guess, The 1914 B.News Ruth doubt less than $5.Million - in todays market which is bonkers. Could go $10.M wouldn't surprise me.

Many of us here have 1 of 1, and 1 of less than 10 of some pretty decent stuff. How do we determine value in todays market? You could list it at first impression an obscene amount, might sell very quickly, could be leaving money on the table. Who knows. I guess consigning to a big auction (REA/Heritage) would be best bet, let the market decide.

================================================== ================================================== ===============

Yes...valuations have become very difficult for cards rarely selling. It's comical to see price fluctuations of some cards on ebay...$5K this week...50K a week later asking prices. Prices change exponentially on any given day for no apparent reason. Always best to start high...you can't go back up!!!!!

Considering churchmans...shonens...and even sanellas are commanding decent coin these days and are starting to disappear into collections...soon there will be no available playing day ruth cards on ebay at any given time...kinda like once plentiful t206 cobbs and goudey ruths were a dime a dozen.

Balt news ruth would sell 5-10 mill imo.

BN Ruth
 

Does anyone know - or care to hazard a guess as to - the number of examples that exist?

I agree that it's the #1 card in the hobby. I'd take one over a Wagner any day, all day.

Some more info about the card in this writeup...

https://robertedwardauctions.com/auc...th-rookie-card

There are 10 copies known. Best card in the hobby IMO. 2million to priceless. Go find another one and its the babe as a slender babe. 5 plus million would not surprise me if it was without major defect.

Are the owners known? Are there reports of them changing hands privately? I agree one of these could sell for much more than expected. Especially if it could be 10 years or more before another surfaces. Although I'm not sure those buying $4M Trout or Lebrom cards even know about this one.

Best way to see one is to go to the babe ruth museum in baltimore...I saw theirs when I used to live there. I believe it's on loan...technically.

I actually remember bidding on this card as a kid - sitting next to my dad of course. He gave me the paddle and said “keep it up until it reaches $5k and then give it to me”. It was a live auction - maybe Sotheby’s or Christie’s. We were the only remaining bidder in the room ...but someone was on the phone topping anything we came up with. We were the underbidder - but it wouldn’t have mattered - the winner was going to pay whatever he needed to ... and dad and I just couldn’t compete with that. Also multiple thousands for a card at a time where mid-grade Cobb portraits could be purchased under $100 sure seemed like a ton of money. Pretty surreal to be an underbidder at one point.

That’s amazing, thanks for sharing.

Wow Scott! To be that close! How amazing...I’m sure you and pops wished you had raised that paddle a few more times (just in case the other bidder backed down)...

I know 10 different examples. About 15 years ago, it seemed like REA had one in every auction. I think that they had 4 different examples within a fairly short time span. REA noted that they are aware of an 11th example, but it was supposedly lost by its owner. Can you imagine?

It is my favorite card in the hobby.

Scott, awesome story...thankfully I know that you and your dad raised the paddle higher on other gems. ;)

I also remember in the early 2000's, it did seem like REA had one every year (and T210 Jacksons).

I think a BN Ruth would easily be in the $3-5M range today.

Scott, I always love reading your stories. Thanks for sharing. I hope all is well.
Steve

I think Tatis, Jr. could afford it now.

The shares from the Collectible Ruth is being bought back for a equivalent value of $8.83 million.

I know someone who sold two BN Ruths, one for $1,000 and one for $8,000. And his dad came across another one in a retail shop, passed on it for $1,000, then went back the next day to snag it and of course it was gone. So they let THREE of them slip through their fingers! But all that was in a different time, like Scott's story of being the underbidder in an auction. What if that one other bidder wasn't after it?

While it may be worth that much, that fractional collectable crap is just that…crap.

They sold 1% of “ownership” for $60k. Owner bought it out for $88.2k.

Apparently that magically makes the card worth $8.83m.

I’m going to do this to all my cards now.

I also hate the fractional ownership and I do not believe that it gives a true valuation since a buyer would have full ownership of their card for their collection or investment

I think it would be higher over by millions.

Ruth
 

Spot on accurate Ryan. There are a bunch of white whales “chomping at the bit” to buy a Baltimore News Ruth. Problem is, none of the 10 known copies are available. I also believe a “1” would fetch at least $5mm….maybe a bit more in an intense bidding war.

When I saw this thread I had open it and read the comments.
Scott, you were referring to the auction of the Copeland Collection held at Sotheby's on March 23, 1991. It was certainly a day we will never forget.
Even though the main focus of the auction was the day prior when THE Wagner card was bought by Gretzky, in the most electrifying bidding war anyone in the room that day was privileged to see, you know that I only had my eyes on the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth.
You told part two of our involvement with that particular excellent condition blue version of that very card. Here is the beginning of the story.
In October 1988 Mr. Mint ran an auction in SCD and the same Ruth card was one of his featured items. In his description he wrote: "1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News Minor league Rookie card. I've checked with so many old timers on this one, nobody has ever seen it!" He then described the card and said he recently discovered the card in Baltimore in a collection from a gentleman that worked for the Baltimore News. Rosen ended with, "What is it worth? How many are there? The true Ruth collector will set the precedent on this one!"
I saw this card listed and I wanted it. I too had never heard about the Baltimore News Ruth but in my gut I knew it had to be the most valuable and prized baseball card in the hobby.
Mr. Mint's auctions always ended precisely at 10pm. On the evening of October 24th I called in to the auction line just before 10pm. I asked what the high bid was and was told it $4500. I promptly gave the next bid of $5000. I stayed on the line and asked about a few other items and as 10 pm approached confirmed that I was the high bid. I was told that I was. The auction ended and I asked for confirmation that I had the winning bid and was told that I did.
There is that moment of exhilaration of winning prized collectible accompanied by that inner voice that says, "Are you nuts spending $5000 on a card you never heard of before just because Mr. Mint said it was rare?" But overall I was thrilled.
The next day when I called Alan Rosen's company to find out about payment, I was told that the card sold for $5500. I said that wasn't possible because I was on the line with Rosen's rep when the auction ended and was told that my bid of $5000 was the winning bid. That is the day that I first heard the term, "Top all bids". It was explained to me that one of the bidders put in a number of "Top all" bids and one of them was for the Baltimore News Ruth.
That meant that whatever amount anyone bid on a particular lot, the "Top all" bidder would end up winning that lot. There was no amount one could bid that could ever win that lot.
That "Top all" bidder was James Copeland.

Great story, Henry. Just one question--what if instead of bidding $5000 you had entered a "top all" bid? This is why auction houses today don't allow those and why it is hard to believe that Alan allowed those. Could it have just been a case of special treatment for a preferred client?

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there Jay with your last statement. And what is even more surprising is that if someone did put in a "Top All Bids" bid, wouldn't you think the people answering the phones would/should have known about it as well? Just like when bidders today put in a max bid on something, another bidder immediately gets told their bid is not the high bid, which then prompts them to bid again, pushing the price up even higher.

Had the rep on the phone simply told hank_jp he was not the high bidder at $5,000, sounds like there was a good chance that he would have bid even higher, thus making even more money for the item's owner. And from everything I've ever heard and read about the main party involved, they were definitely all about the money. So, doesn't it seem especially strange that someone would voluntarily give up money by having this somewhat weird "Tops All Bids" option in their auctions? And I assume this "Tops All Bids" option was only available for items the auction seller themself owned and was putting up for sale/auction, because if I were a consignor and found out someone I had consigned an item to was doing that kind of crap and potentially costing me money on an item I was selling through them, well......................

I had never heard about this "Tops All Bids" thing in regards to anyone's auctions before. But just now reading this, something clearly does not smell right. It would appear to indicate that someone doing this may have already had some pre-arranged sales agreement with another party, which would have made the actual auction/sale nothing more than a farce as certain items were never intended to be sold to those honestly bidding. I do not know if the party in question was an actual licensed auctioneer, or other type of licensed selling, but had they been, it would seem to me that there might be some question as to the legitimacy of such a practice. Also, they may have been extremely lucky that no one ever took them to court over something like this, where they'd have to explain how they could publicly advertise something for sale, that was in actuality, never really for sale to the bidders. Seems like they may have been using people just to set the price they then got from someone else they had already effectively sold the item(s) to. Not sure but, sounds to me like there might have been an element of fraud in what they were doing then as well. Maybe one of the attorneys on here will chime in.

AMAZING story Hank. And knowing how Rosen operated what you write does not surprise me in the least. I think you'll find the following interesting.

I too called the auction just before (literally seconds) the 10 PM closing time and topped the then high bid for the BN Ruth, a card I agree at that time most collectors knew little about and that I regarded as the most unappreciated/undervalued card in the hobby. I thought I was told the bidding was at $5,000, which I then raised to $5,500, though it is possible I am misremembering. I then hung up and immediately redialed, only to learn the auction had closed. Like you I too went to bed believing I won the card. The next day I learned I did not, though the explanation was not the "top all bid" explanation. The explanation was the more mundane one that magically someone had called in a nanosecond after me and topped my bid.

This same thing happened to me on the other lot I bid on in that auction, a Mort Rogers scorecard of Cal McVey. My bid on that one was also topped. I knew at that point that as unlikely as it was that lightning would strike once, it did not strike twice and the auction was rigged, a suspicion reinforced the next day after calling around to find who won the McVey, learning who did along with also learning the person could not tell me the price he won it for. I then called another collector I knew who was close to Rosen, and he confirmed how Rosen operated -- which was to allow favored customers to submit a top all bid after the auction closed.

In addition to obviously reeking in dishonesty, closing the auction PRECISELY at 10 PM cost Rosen's consignors tremendous sums of money. It was no small feat to get through to the auction just before closing time.

Oct. 1988 was the height of Rosen's popularity. There was no internet in those days and the following day the auction would be the talk of the hobby. It seemed everybody would be calling everybody else to learn what prices went for and how people did.

Crazy story Corey, especially since part of it involves the exact same card Henry was talking about, but you getting a completely different answer. My earlier comment about a possible element of fraud being involved seems even more on the money now.

Probably lucky someone doing/acting like this had their heyday way back then, before the internet, Ebay and such. That kind of crap would certainly not fly far or long today.

Rosen was one of the early pioneers of auctions becoming the preferred way to sell material, especially the top material. Before then you could read trade journals and go to shows and actually buy the stuff you were looking for, as opposed to now simply viewing them in advance of being auctioned. As time went on, Rosen's auctions went from being THE event in the hobby to just another run-in-the-mill auction, a far distance removed from the top AHs. I always regarded that as a certain poetic justice for his crooked ways.

Hank, pretty much the same thing happened to me in an Alan Rosen phone auction. It occurred in the same auction that hit you or the one after. I was told by Alan's assistant that I won the auction item I was bidding on---a NM-MT complete set of the 1960 Home Run Derby cards. Since I was verbally told I'd won, I wasted no time, and sent Rosen a certified check. I got my check back, with a letter of apology, saying someone else had won it. What could I do? That opportunity was my one chance to get the set. Needless to say, I was very upset me; that one really hurt. --- Brian Powell

These are great (albeit sad) stories. Thanks posting them.

How about a guess at this BN Ruth in today's market. A PSA 4 that sold for $243,000 in 2005.
https://i.postimg.cc/nVy7Zqhm/1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Vk1C01ML/2.jpg

Tomi, that PSA4 Ruth is sure nice, but how did it get a 4 with all that chipping?

I'm sure PSA is just doing their usual generous grading on a hobby grail.

It would be interesting to start a thread of similar auction stories and see what pops up. It wouldn't be at all surprising to find out that Rosen, and perhaps other of the few auctioneers in those days, had "side" deals with big collectors to guarantee they got the cards they wanted after the auctions closed. Something along the lines of "I'll top the high bid by 10% and pay you another 10% for the privilege."

That's pretty optimistic...

I don't know, I think he was probably perfectly happy sitting at the entrance to shows, dealing out $100 bills to the poor saps who walked in with boxes of stuff and fell prey to his siren song, then walking around the room flipping his acquisitions to other dealers. That, and the notoriety from his books and media appearances to keep his ego stoked. Say what you will about the clownish and churlish "Mr. Mint," the guy did it his way all the way to the bank, and I doubt if trying to turn his act into an actual organization to compete with the likes of Mastro, Leland's, Robert Edwards, etc., would have done anything but unnecessarily complicate his existence, and he was smart enough to realize it.

I know, I know, LOL!

But with the internet, cell phones, social media, sites like Net54, and everything else, it would be much harder to hide and get away with crap like that without everyone finding out about it pretty quickly. And I think if enough people started hearing those kind of stories, including consignors, there'd be some questions to answer to a lot of people.

But you do have a good point in how it seems like no matter what bad things some people do, it ends up getting forgotten. But in this case, the "stuff trumps everything" thinking wouldn't necessarily work. Because all the people that want the stuff and would be bidding on things still aren't getting it because of some back door deals between the auctioneer/seller and their "Special Customer". That would eventually get out and then you'd end up having all the other hobby whales wanting to get in on the "special deals" themselves. Enough other people, not afforded the same sweetheart deal, with enough money and influence like that, could end up creating an interesting situation for the auctioneer/seller, and the hobby in general. And you know with things like they are today, this would leak out there pretty quickly for everyone to know. And since modern auctions are all pretty much run online over the internet with software and all, how many people do you think would continue bidding if they found out they won, and then kept getting cancelled for some special inside deal after the fact. And an auctioneer trying to run auctions in another manner not along the way modern things are done would raise some serious questions among bidders, and especially consignors, if they were both getting screwed. They system will still work if just one side is getting continually screwed, but not if both of them are getting screwed for the sole benefit of just the auctioneer and his "special friend".

What would most likely happen today is that someone that had such a "special deal" in the past, like it is alleged that Copeland may have had with Rosen, would be required to put in outrageous max bids as opposed to being able to put in a "Tops All Bids" bid. And we both know, if people knew or thought there was someone out there doing that, there are those that would then purposely run up the max bidder as high as they could. Just for fun! And then we'll see how far the auctioneer and his friend's friendship really goes should the "special friend" suddenly then decide to say, "I'm not paying that much for that!"

the lack of eye appeal makes this card awesome

1915 Babe Ruth "Rookie Year" Boston Red Sox Ticket Booklet (w/some tickets remaining)
 

Found this on Ebay this week. Probably hasn't seen the light of day in 100 years. (Equally cool, belonged to Forrest Cady one of Ruth's catchers & Red Sox teammate)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...cadyhi01.shtml

Just goes to show there are still rare Ruth items out there waiting to be discovered.

Maybe a BN (an actual real one that is) will show up one day.


"Ya gotta believe!"

-Tug McGraw

Very very cool

Old grade. Brings value down from 22 million to 20 million. :cool:
.

Bob: There's at least one auction house today that will accept "TOP ALL BIDS" bids, and there could be more.

I've never attempted it, but I've always been intrigued by the concept. Like you posited, part of the challenge would be the potential for someone to keep bidding it up to the point where even those of us who are willing to pay outrageous prices would finally decide it just isn't worth it.

Proof: https://memorylaneinc.com/site/terms.pdf

Scroll down about halfway down the first page, to where they have a quick sentence about the Top All Bids feature.

Nic,

There is? Was not aware of that. Not going to ask you to name them, but just out of curiosity, are they headquartered in Texas?

I would hope that the big difference in someone doing/allowing that today is that when someone else bids, they do get immediately told they've been outbid then. If so, it is still pretty much the same thing as putting up a ridiculous max bid.

Silly follow-up question then. Does this auction seller in their bidding rules say what happens if two or more people want to put up a "Tops All Bids" bid then on the same particular item? I imagine that if an item is rare and valuable enough, say like a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth, it wouldn't be too hard to think that two, or maybe even more, people would possibly want to use that "Tops All Bids" option, if it is known to be available. So, am curious then what their rules say if that happens, because they technically, and literally, can't give that option to two different bidders on the same item, can they? And if they end up only allowing one person to put in such a bid on each item, pretty much everyone who knows they even allow the "Tops All Bids" option on items will immediately know someone else beat them to it on a particular item that get told they can't use the "Tops All Bids: option on. And if it were me that got told I couldn't put a "Tops All Bids" bid in because I was too late, I'd have no trouble bidding up that person that beat me to it to the moon and back, and make them pay. The consignor would probably love it, but you'll likely end up with one real pissed off bidder.

Another possible bad result an AH could end up with by allowing "Tops All Bids" bids, would be if I was again too late and got beat out by someone else already using that option on an item. Except in this case, I just didn't waste my time bidding on the item at all then, since I knew I'd never win it. And as a result, the consignor maybe ends up getting screwed because no one else that was bidding would have gone anywhere near as high as I would have. And now the AH has a pissed off consignor. Let us all know what you do know then.

As an auctioneer I think "top all bids" is an horrific idea. For the reasons you mentioned, but also for the simple fact that an auction is supposed to be about determining the market through open competition. It's the same reason I'm not a fan of reserves, or even worse of auctions retaining the right to put "bad faith" bids in to lift items to just below a reserve and a number of other practices that seek to remove all risk from the auction process. If you want to remove the risk of an auction and have only the reward, you don't really want to run an auction.