SGC has stopped putting Babe Ruth's name on the 1929 Churchman
 

FYI in case you were thinking about sending your Churchman's Ruth to SGC. They're now obeying PSA's orders and are no longer putting his name on the flip.

I attempted to upload a picture, but the image settings here are not user friendly enough to allow the jpg file downloaded from SGC or the png file as a screenshot on my phone of the image. So I guess you guys can just imagine it.

Translated means you don't know how, or are too lazy, to reduce an image size to be able to be uploaded here. It's not rocket science. Even a statistician can do it. :)

Back to the topic, that is interesting news. I wonder what it does to their value, if anything?
.

Here is the Churchman's Babe Ruth (and it is indeed Babe Ruth, no matter what a TPG is willing to put on a label or not, and even if the card manufacturer failed to identify him on front or back). It has been sized suitably for Net54 visual consumption. Seen in its natural, non-TPG'd habitat.

Brian (non-TPG Ruth not mine)

ya...this decision is pretty stupid, imho. This photo is well documented and is used atleast on a small handful of ruth issues. TPGing blows!

Welp!

So much for SGC remaining unsullied by new ownership.

I've said this before, but I remain of the opinion that ImageMagick & Xenforo are your friends.

I know I am likely in the minority here, but I agree with PSAs position on this one.

There is no mention of Ruth anywhere, and though I am not denying it is a generic usage of a Ruth photo in the basis for the artwork, it seemed silly to label it as a Babe Ruth card, Adding “Babe Ruth shown” in parentheses may have worked but the labeling as was seemed suspect.

Is the 1929 Shonen Ruth image also suspect in your opinion?

Why would it not be called a Ruth? The text on the Shonen says -

“The moment that Babe Ruth, hailed as the world home run king, swings his bat with all his might. It looks like the ball quickly flew over the fence for a home run, as the catcher and umpire look up and the Babe’s face beams with pleasure. The fans packed in the stands watch awestruck”

My issue with the Churchman is not the image, it’s that is says Ruth nowhere. It would not belong labeled as a Babe Ruth card. It would be the same as labeling any card with another player in the image as that player. It needs to be specified as the player in my mind.

I am positive that the player is Ty Cobb in both the Tom Barker and National Game cards that use this image. I think it is more than acceptable to have "(Cobb)" noted on this TPG label, and in my opinion something similar (but with Ruth's name) should be totally appropriate for the Churchman's baseball card.

Brian (not my sliding Cobb card...mine wears no plasticized sliding gear)

Do they mention Joe Jackson on the flip of the T202 that most people agree he is pictured on even though he is not mentioned anywhere on the card?

Nope. The graders do not. Everyone else does though especially auction houses.

I can basically agree and that is why I said it could be an acceptable option in my original post when identification is rock solid. The catch is that I don't believe that PSA will do that again, nor after the acquisition of SGC will it be done in the future there.

I think the argument both for and against with PSA lies most recently with the 1917 Youth's Companion Stamp. The misidentification has been a pure disaster as sellers still live and die by the Ruth flips on these and will adamantly refuse to change a listing and pointing it out will usually get you blocked. However, instead of taking the road of just generically grading as the stamp series like SGC did for years, PSA now checklists it as Rube Marquard.

While that is most likely the correct identification, it sets a precedent of again adding additional unlabeled identification likely chosen to overcompensate for the previous mistake. This action by PSA creates a six in one hand, half dozen in the other discussion on should they add names to unlabeled items. I think in the future they will likely be taking the safe route to avoid more black eyes.

They also made the same mistake with the 1935-36 Muratti for years which also still surfaces with the same seller nonsense. Ruth has been removed and it is now check listed simply as Dorothy Poynton, but the mistake lives on. That single card accounts for one-third of the graded cards in that set for the reason it was mislabeled for years. I just have to lean toward playing it safe as the best course of action in my mind because some of these rash guesses with other card issues have cost people real money.

I always thought the picture more resembled a left-handed Hack Wilson.

while I agree with your other examples being mislabeled...this particular image of ruth is well documented.

It is of course based on a photo of Ruth and that can be easily documented, but was it ever meant to be a Ruth card is the question. The Shonen is a colorized photo of the play and has a full description of Ruth in text and is an unquestionable Ruth card.

The Churchman card has a baseball depiction and historical description of the game of baseball. It took a very popular photo of the time likely seen worldwide of a baseball game, and in a somewhat neutering fashion modified the depiction slightly changing the field and features. Was the intent ever to be a Ruth card, or to utilize a common current photo and use it cost free to fill your sport set? Was the reasoning lack of knowledge, avoiding permission of use or fees? It is impossible to dig into these questions now as anyone involved is well gone. Unfortunately, it falls into conjecture for every side.

When things are completely unknown as to reason, generality is a safe bet and the interpretation can be in the purchasers eye. I know that every owner of this card wants Ruth on the flip for value or to maintain investment. A Churchman set collector may just call this a card depicting baseball and see it only as such. The market can easily decide the value flip or not, much like the T202 which as mentioned prior is most often advertised as having a middle panel of Jackson.

I want to add again, that these are my thoughts and opinions and not meant to undermine anyone else's. I am biased because I have never considered this a true Ruth card, and simply a card depicting the game of Baseball to a foreign audience that may not fully understand the game with a common photo and speak as such. Others will certainly have differing opinions just or more valuable.

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

Well said! (I think)

I understand where Justin is coming from, and of course many collectors and the grading companies have been duped with false narratives and information in the past, so the prevailing opinion is "better safe then sorry" I guess.

If there is overwhelming consensus, I don't think it should hurt adding an addendum as has already been suggested and has prior precedence such as "shows Ruth".

It's funny, it wasn't that long ago when most collectors didn't give two hoots about this card. In the late 90's this was considered a fairly common set overseas, and you could pick up the whole set in top condition for a fraction of what a VG Ruth goes for nowadays. I even ordered a few of the "Ruth" cards from the London Cigarette Card Company for the price of a common.

I thought I was super clever and would unleash it on to the collecting public as an affordable and rare "Ruth" card. Joke was on me. I probably sold them for less then what a Joey Gallo Xfractor card goes for nowadays. :D:D

Now, here's an example from PSA I wish somebody could explain to me.

I have a whole set of these graded by PSA. All the exact same way. They only identify the guy on the back of the cards (the subject the playing card set was named for)...but the front of the cards are identified by their playing card designation only.

If you look at the cards closely, each subject is identified pretty clearly. This ain't no guessing game here.

I don't know if PSA has changed their policy on this set since...but it is pretty annoying either way.

In the PSA registry, the Tom Sharkey card is simply identified as "King Of Spades".

If PSA can't put names to these cards...I don't see how they could possibly put a name on the Churchman Ruth card. :confused:

Can someone post the actual photograph for the 1929 Churchman ,
I don’t think I’m finding it
Thanks

Not quite a photo, but another example where they used that photo. Maybe they say his name in Japanese so PSA labels it that way?

Do you also take issue with the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"?

Thanks for the great discussion on this one everyone! I love it.

My primary issue with them not putting his name on the flip is that the grading companies provide a service to the hobby, but the hobby belongs to the collectors. They shouldn't be the ones making the rules that govern the hobby. The collectors should be the ones that set the standards, and the grading companies should follow precedent. Every single buyer and seller of this card who knows what it is would expect it to be sold as a Babe Ruth card. It's not as if the image is in question or ambiguous in some way. Identifying it as such simply aligns with the market.

The other issue I have is that when cards like this get passed on to someone's next of kin after passing away, it creates the potential for them to get ripped off by a dishonest buyer.

I think in this case it’s definitively Ruth but I see the wisdom in not naming a player not named on the card. In the past there was confusion over an image of Rube Marquard that had been identified as Ruth for a long time in the hobby. I can’t remember the issue but it was a silhouette of an unnamed lefty. The consensus was Ruth being pictured until the original Marquard photo popped up.

Ah it was the 1917 Youth’s Companion stamp.

probably the goofiest misidentification that made it's way to a slab.

https://thecollectorconnection.com/i...9_1_121105.jpg

God, it's frustrating reading argumentative threads like this. Why hasn't anyone posted the source photo that apparently is so well known????

After digging and digging, I ran across this image which is purportedly from a 1928 Japanese magazine...

Attachment 625335


They made the player much more squat looking and darkened everything, while removing a good amount of his telltale facial features (most notably the eyes) to probably turn him into a more generic 'ballplayer.'

To me, this is another example of:

732. Shtick Figures (also Packsimiles)
The colorful illustrations of baseball players found adorning vintage wrappers, boxes and other packaging which were obviously intended to resemble real major leaguers, but whose facial and/or other features were altered slightly to make them ‘different’ people.

Attachment 625336

I appreciate you doing the legwork on this one and that is the photo that I remember came from Japanese publication.

Shonen magazine?

Aha ! Wonderful thank you

wrong pics
 

OK...so my question is why do they grade all the wrong picture/name combos. For instance, a 1963 Don Landrum, that is actually a picture of Ron Santo, is graded as a "Don Landrum." If they're going to be a stickler on an obvious Ruth, why not on strive for "accuracy" on cards like that? So the take away is that they only grade the printed word, with no regard for the players pictured. Whatever...we all know who the guys are.

Or the flipside....
https://i.ibb.co/0Qzh7PF/Screen-Shot...9-58-53-PM.png

This is not a Jackie Robinson card. This is a Roberto Barbon card. (as labeled on the card, and as intended for the Japanese players at the time). The card manufacturer just used the wrong photo...

Like the inimitable Balko Tuzmon? Make me laugh every time I see it.

https://thecollectorconnection.com/i...8_1_118294.jpg

[QUOTE=Aquarian Sports Cards;2442126]Like the inimitable Balko Tuzmon? Make me laugh every time I see it.

Ha, I always forget about that one! Where are the fantasy card makers when you need them. :D

Another approach
 

No mention of Ruth on back
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...9_1_399913.jpg