Ruth in Love of the Game Auction

[ullmandds]

Some say prices have come down a bit since the peaks in the early spring...mostly modern? Seems t206 cobbs and goudey ruths have dipped a little...not a ton. But look at some of these prices at LOTG...and it's got time to run.

I follow Ruth and these prices are higher than I've ever seen!

https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...e?itemid=24255
https://bid.loveofthegameauctions.co...e?itemid=24217

Are we nearing a point where most period ruth cards are 5-10K cards in collector grade?

[mrreality68]

You are right and a lot of auctions on last 30 days have seen similar results on Ruth period cards

Think the trend will continue for a while as new money jumps in and wants in on the Ruth wagon

[oldjudge]

I think a lot depends on eye appeal. The Ruth cards recently, like the Haffner in HA, had eye appeal that far exceeded the grade. The Ball in Hand Ruth in LOTG also has good eye appeal for the grade. On the other hand, the Ruth rookies in HA did not have good eye appeal for the grade and suffered because of it.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

On the other hand, the Ruth rookies in HA did not have good eye appeal for the grade and suffered because of it.

Jay, $313k for that Gimbels Ruth was a great result/high price. I understand the rare back had something to do with it, but that card had some pretty significant flaws. I just think everything Ruth is valuable now.

More money than ever is in the hobby. Some of that money has gravitated to pre war and its blowing up the prices of certain players and sets. Ruth is THE player - no safer “investment” in sports. In fact, I think Ruth cards have a way to go - how can a 1916 Ruth rookie, any grade, sell for less than a 1986 Michael Jordan “rookie” any grade, when there are likely more Jordan 10s than all Ruth rookies, regardless of back?

Pete, I think all Ruths are now expensive and will only get more expensive

[Snowman]

The dips in the market are segmented. Mostly modern and especially with overprinted base cards. A lot of that money hasn't left the broader market though. It's been shifting into higher demand cards with lower populations. That's why we're seeing Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle cards continuing to rise despite other segments in the market declining. I think this trend will continue.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Jay, $313k for that Gimbels Ruth was a great result/high price. I understand the rare back had something to do with it, but that card had some pretty significant flaws. I just think everything Ruth is valuable now.

More money than ever is in the hobby. Some of that money has gravitated to pre war and its blowing up the prices of certain players and sets. Ruth is THE player - no safer “investment” in sports. In fact, I think Ruth cards have a way to go - how can a 1916 Ruth rookie, any grade, sell for less than a 1986 Michael Jordan “rookie” any grade, when there are likely more Jordan 10s than all Ruth rookies, regardless of back?

Pete, I think all Ruths are now expensive and will only get more expensive

Ryan—Look at the Gimbels 2 in HA versus the Herpolsheimer 2 in Clean Sweep. Compared to the Clean Sweep one the Gimbels was a poor result, especially considering the wider audience that HA has. Also, the stained overgraded 6 in HA didn’t open.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The dips in the market are segmented. Mostly modern and especially with overprinted base cards. A lot of that money hasn't left the broader market though. It's been shifting into higher demand cards with lower populations. That's why we're seeing Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle cards continuing to rise despite other segments in the market declining. I think this trend will continue.

I don't follow Ruth but I'd say Mantles are down about 20% from their peak in April. And Mantles have held up pretty well, most 50s/60s cards are down more than that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think a lot depends on eye appeal. The Ruth cards recently, like the Haffner in HA, had eye appeal that far exceeded the grade. The Ball in Hand Ruth in LOTG also has good eye appeal for the grade. On the other hand, the Ruth rookies in HA did not have good eye appeal for the grade and suffered because of it.

dunno...the e121 ball in hand has bunch of creases...and diamond cuts used to be a kiss of death of sorts on values...doesn't seem to be hurting this harrington ruth 1 bit.

[tkd]

Ruth cards from the 20's have been undervalued compared to more common mainstream cards for years. Keep in mind several of Ruth's caramel and ice cream cards are rarer than the t206 wagner and plank. Obviously the t206 set is king and most likely always will be. My point is some of these Ruth cards are not easy to find especially in vg or higher. I think the issue is many collectors just don't know they exist. More and more are becoming aware of them and maybe that helps with price increase but still a lot have no idea. I shopped around at the 2019 National for 1920s Ruth cards and was surprised many dealers didn't know much beyond Goudey Ruth's.

[tkd]

Also a lot of investor/flippers stick to mainstream. T206, Goudey, 1941 Playball etc... I think they hit some of those cards up so much it made the oddball Ruth's look cheap for the longest time.

[Al C.risafulli]

Ruth cards from the 20's have been undervalued compared to more common mainstream cards for years.

I'm with Tom on this. I think the 1920s photographic issues, in general, have been undervalued for a long time - whether it be the caramel, ice cream, or even the W575-1 and -2 issues. I have no idea why. Sooner or later, though, the hobby was going to realize that Babe Ruth cards from early in his career were actually undervalued, and in many cases really difficult to find.


-Al

[Peter_Spaeth]

They're nice cards. Man up, Ullman.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They're nice cards. Man up, Ullman.

well I'm pissed...I should have so many of these 20's ruth cards that used to be dirt cheap...but now r not!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

well I'm pissed...I should have so many of these 20's ruth cards that used to be dirt cheap...but now r not!

As I like to say, short term cheap can equal long term stupid.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

well I'm pissed...I should have so many of these 20's ruth cards that used to be dirt cheap...but now r not!

Agreed waited to long and now we have to pay up if we want them

[Exhibitman]

The blue chip guys are always safe bets over the interim to long term. The beater "A" Goudey Ruth went for $4,200, the 2 Goudey $9600, the 2 Goudey premium $3,900, Kashin 6.5 $9,000, even the A W515 went for $2160. I have to think that any nice looking 3-4-5 1920s Ruth is a $5,000 card now and I would not be surprised to see the nicer ones routinely selling in five figures in the next few years.

Thread needs a Ruth card...

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The blue chip guys are always safe bets over the interim to long term. The beater "A" Goudey Ruth went for $4,200, the 2 Goudey $9600, the 2 Goudey premium $3,900, Kashin 6.5 $9,000, even the A W515 went for $2160. I have to think that any nice looking 3-4-5 1920s Ruth is a $5,000 card now and I would not be surprised to see the nicer ones routinely selling in five figures in the next few years.

Thread needs a Ruth card...

+1 agreed

[Casey2296]

Kashin finally got some love, Gehrig went strong too.

Here is one more my 1928 Harrington's, that I have from the 1980's

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The blue chip guys are always safe bets over the interim to long term. The beater "A" Goudey Ruth went for $4,200, the 2 Goudey $9600, the 2 Goudey premium $3,900, Kashin 6.5 $9,000, even the A W515 went for $2160. I have to think that any nice looking 3-4-5 1920s Ruth is a $5,000 card now and I would not be surprised to see the nicer ones routinely selling in five figures in the next few years.

Thread needs a Ruth card...

Considering what common as dirt Jordan and LBJ and Trout cards sell for, it isn't much money.