The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was
 

Thought I would like to share this cool piece, given we all try to get cards of the Babe at the beginning of his career as a Sox.

This was the photographic proof that Goudey was going to use for his 1935 premium, R309-2. Unfortunately, he was traded that year to the Braves from the Yanks, so Goudey never released the card and ended up hanging this proof on their walls until they shuttered.

Cool little piece of history of the card that never was, at the end of his career.

Attachment 305357

Attachment 305358

Mmmmmmmm...really??

another Milestone Auction special?

Not sure what this is
 

I remember when this was at auction but didn’t sell. The image itself is from 1927 by Charles Conlon and used for 3 of his 1933 Goudey cards so I am not sure what the Red Sox connection is here.
These are not original photos. Below is the auction listing with more info. Hard to say what it is for sure by info given. If it could be proven a prototype, it is a cool conversation piece i guess.

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/bids...e?itemid=43369

I am skeptical. For one thing, his name is in white, and all the others I've seen from that set have black lettering. Also, Goudey used the photo the previously year for a premium, and they removed the player in the background. Why would they put him back?

Yup, that was the same one, didn't sell because it did not meet the reserve price. I sold off 90% of my collection last year when I needed funds to buy a new house. This was part in that auction. Hence its hanging on my walls.

Provenance of the piece
 

Posting this at the request of another member from PM. Wasnt meant to create controversy, thought it was a cool piece to share and wanted to show it off more than just something on my office.

Here is a certificate signed by Ruth's daughter that a Yankee card was being made in 1935 but was pulled when he was traded.

Attachment 305410

Here is the expert opinion on the photograph that it was extensively worked on for a proof and why it wasnt used after he was traded.

Attachment 305411

Here is the type confirmation that the Ruth was of the same font type as the Goudey premiums

Attachment 305412

And article from Sports Collector's Digest (500th issue) about the piece. Its truncated, will try to get a better picture of it along with other articles after work.

Attachment 305413

I get the comments on the board, its unique.

I don't believe the story one bit...the photo is from the 20's and was already used on 33' goudey...how could this be a "proof" for a 1935 card that never was. doesn't make any sense.

now having seen the certificate...I still don't believe it!

Well that's your opinion and you are right to it. Explain me the extensive markup on the piece; you kind of see it on the picture, but it is really apparent in person. And please read the letters before reserving judgement.

Its certainly nothing personal...but i am skeptical. I cannot see any marks you mention...the “coa” signed by ruths daughter doesn’t mean anyrhing to me. Opinions of 2 photographers...meh. I hope you are right and it is a “proof” but i dont think anyone can prove it.

where are these "other" similar proofs? seeing those could change my mind?

ruth
 

hmm.. don't sound cricket

Pete, I dont think you are getting what each point references to. Ruth daughter's statement was not on the proof, it was that there was to be a card by Goudey with Ruth as a Yankee in 1935. That was all it was meant for, was not a COA on the proof. The other letters serves to support the provenance of the piece. One was from a industry expert, which is extraneous, but the Peltz letter was more important on the credibility on the proof.


I think there is a lot of proof here, not sure what else you need.

I did read all the documentation...and I understand the significance or lack thereof of each. If you don't mind me asking what the reserve was when sale was attempted recently?

Not really a fair request to put on a message board as to what my reserve price was.

fair enough...my point being if this was a one of a kind, ruth "proof" and the evidence to support this was a "slam dunk"...as hot as ruth items are these days...I'd assume it would sell rather briskly.

exactly. The fact that it didn’t sell at auction tells me all I need to know.

Red, it didnt sell because it didnt reach my reserve.

And by the way, its fun to be skeptical (and hueristic) on something you dont own. So you look at shortcuts and make quick judgments. But if you are calling a piece out, provide evidence that refutes the piece, not opinion please. Otherwise, I think this piece has a lot of support on it's provenance.

All this is not related to why I was sharing the piece initially...

Let's say that in 1990, at the time of the SCD article, Julia Ruth Stevens,
then a mere 74 years old was asked about this piece. Why would she
remember anything about the circumstances involving a photo from 56 years earlier? Why would this stick in the memory of Babe's 18 year old daughter?
I have no idea whether this piece is legitimate. However, I don't think Ms. Steven's certificate adds much to the proofs.

Hi Tom,

The statement from Ruth's daughter has nothing to do with the proof. All she says was that Goudey was going to do a premium card for her father but was not made because he left the Yankees.

Does not prove the piece and remembering a very disappointing point in her father's life was plausible, as he was hoping for the manager job with the yankees. It does prove that there was to be a Goudey premium with Ruth as Yankee in 1935.

I can’t see any of the images in this thread.

I tend to agree with this sentiment on the JRS document...then again if this DID happen and she were highly aware of her dads escapades...it's a story you'd remember.

Obviously when any of us own a piece we want it to be rare...and valuable...because we own it! I think we're all guilty of that phenomenon. Are there any other "proof" 35 goudeys that appear similar to this? I have not been able to find a comparable. It'd be great if you could get a high res scan of it so we could see more of the detail of the alterations.

The crux was to show off your piece...it's a cool piece...and the fact it raises a lot of questions makes it a lot more interesting than "look at my new t206!"

I am not super familiar with the 35 premiums. Are most of the poses shared with 33 goudey poses?

I don't think this premium is particularly valuable or desirable regardless of the content of the letters that come with it. The photo was used on previous cards, the premium set isn't widely collected, and the caption is in the wrong color.

Adding to the contradiction is that the photo used on Ruth's 1935 Goudey Four in One card is a photo of Ruth as a Yankee despite saying Braves under his name. Why would they not issue a card of Ruth because he retired from the Yankees for the premium set only? It is also the same exact photo used for the 1934 premium.

A traumatic event in her father's life, and what she recalls many decades later was that Goudey had to cancel a specific premium card of the Babe. The same Babe that licensed his name and image to tons and tons of products. That's really odd. His daughter has this particular memory. Damm that strains credulity.

I am not her, but she signed it stating that the course of events happened and didn't happen. Not like he had a lot of baseball cards that year... and the course of events was a big point in Ruth's career, so there is a chance you would remember that and anything surrounding that.

But it's the same photo used in the 1934 premium. And Goudey used a photo from it's 1933 set which featured Ruth as a Yankee for it's 1935 Four in One set.

Oh yeah, this proof was also used in the 90's to create a 1935 replica of what the card should have looked like. There is one for sale on ebay.

http://vi.raptor.ebaydesc.com/ws/eBa...=1518642562659

https://www.ebay.com/i/322928620879?chn=ps

There were 714 of these produced and each came with an LOA signed by Ruth's daugher.

Thanks Pete... Google R309-2 if you care, that's the catalog for the 35 premiums.

This is not a premium, this is a proof photo for the premium that was never made. I disagree that people do not collect premiums and they arent worth anything; popularity has been increasing along with postcards... Check out the auction realizations for 1934/1935 premiums. That's neither here nor there...

The photo was used for previous cards, as this picture was the 1927 year he batted 60 HRs; it was a widely recognized picture of Ruth. But this is not just a picture, the one below the proof is. Per the photography expert opinion letter,. this work was done in the 30's in anticipation of the photo being used for printing procedures. This involves literally hours and hours of painstaking labor....The old world craftmanship is simply not done today and hasnt been done since the 50's...The hours of labor involved leads me to believe that the work was definitely done so the photo could be used for a baseball card or premium card."

Regarding the caption not being the right color; the proof wasnt used. So likely didnt finish. But it's the exact same font used for the premiums, as provided by the other letter.

And on the 4 in one, they did an airbrush over the cap and it was a closeup. The Goudey premiums were action and body shots, as this proof. They could get away with a crammed 4/1 card, not a body shot. And the 1934 Ruth premium had him in Yankee pinstripes when he was a Yankee. Why would they not issue a card, perhaps they didnt have a Braves body shot of him, would would definitely make sense based on the 4 in 1 you refer to. Because, he was in a "painted" braves cap right?

Also, attached is an article from the San Francisco Examiner from 5/5/90 providing some backstory.

Why the photo was reused in Goudey's cards, and that this proof went up on Goudey's office walls after the card was shelved.

Any case, its really cool for something that should have been Babe's last card in his playing days.

Attachment 305456

Attachment 305457

And a better post of the sports collectors digest article. I am beating a dead horse, but I find myself defending this really cool piece of history. I guess if the back story, articles, 2 expert letters, a statement from Ruth's daughter is not enough, I don't know what to say.

Attachment 305458

I have no dog in this fight, but citing articles where the owner is the primary source is just a feedback loop.

I think it's cool regardless of what it is, but obviously you were hoping for SOME form of validation posting it here, even if it was just to hear that others appreciated it. If you've been on these boards, even as a lurker, for any amount of time you should realize that people are going to ask tough, knowledgeable questions BECAUSE of their interest in a cool piece such as this one.

Why were you sharing the piece originally then? I am confused by the Red Sox comment/comparison. Was it to get feedback or to find a buyer?
Whatever the reason, i am glad you did as it is certainly a convo piece regardless of origin.

Were you able to get better scans of the artwork copy? Would be interesting to see.

I was sharing the piece because I was bored. Not looking to sell it, just a cool thing to discuss on a board like this. So I guess feedback. If anything, it reinforces what I know about the piece.

Yeah, I wasn't too clear on the Red Sox comment, I meant that everything with Ruth in the beginning of his career is hot, wanted to show something with a story at the back end of his career. Has nothing to do with Red Sox and everything to do with I suck as a writer when using this board as escapism when having a rough day at work.

Sure, I post a closer scan, only thing is its in a room with little lighting. I will see what I can do.

Thanks for your comments. You're right about the circular loop, that's the closest to the source I have on the origin story. But in totality all the pieces "fit". Problem is its a really complicated story with several steps, so its easy to take one piece of it, take it out of context and cascade it into a reason to refute it.

Picture A was retouch work throughout the photo, including the uniform, bat, feet and hands.

Picture A - Proof
Attachment 305485
Picture B - Original Photo
Attachment 305486