[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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.