Posted By:
Jim ChaninIn answer to one question, I do not know any numbering system on any of the Ruth exhibit cards including this one. The number (I think it was #46) is a numerical listing by the book that the number appears in--the cards are not numbered.
The 1923 set is exceedingly rare with the Sand and Ruth cards being the rarest. I really do not know of anyone who has a complete set except for me and perhaps one other person. Obviously, I could be wrong but that is what I know.
Therefore, in order to complete a 1923 set, you must have a Ruth card. This is the only card that is reasonably likely to be the 1923 Ruth card. Even if, as someone said, all the cards were issued randomly between 1921 and 1923 (which I doubt), the fact remains you would still need this card to complete a set of all the cards that were issued during that time. The fact that a Ruth card is the rare card makes this card all the more desirable.
The argument that there is no real 1923 Exhibit set may be true since no one has a time machine. But it is consistently listed as a set in catalogs such as the 2006 Standard Catalog of Baseball cards (SCD)and a host of other publications.
No publication whatsoever (that I know of) has ever made the argument that there is no 1923 set.
While it may be true that it is irrational to value a card with a border much higher than one without one, this "irrational behavior" is also found with T206 backs, 1952 Topps backs, and a host of other exceptions where minor variations in a card cause great change in value.
If you do not like these arguments, please do not buy the card. But I have seen no explanation for this card that makes more sense than the one Lew Lipset gave.
That is what I believe unless proven otherwise.