1933 Goudey Ruth #144 or 1921 Exhibit Ruth?

[investinrookies]

Interested in thoughts regarding these two cards. Which one is the better buy right now and which one do you think has more long term potential? I like them both but unfortunately can’t have them both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

I prefer the Exhibit as it is an earlier card and much more rare. 172 pop vs 1800 pop for the #141.

[Carter08]

My view is can’t go wrong with either. If one speaks to you more, go for it. I defend Goudeys all day as being works of art from a super popular set. But that 21 exhibit is just an amazing pose. And I think it works well as a card but also gives you a photo for the (hefty) price of one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I much preferr the Exhibit, but the 144 is probably THE classic Ruth card by mainstream standards and if new money keeps flowing into the hobby, my bet would be on 144 purely from an investment perspective.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I prefer the Exhibit as it is an earlier card and much more rare. 172 pop vs 1800 pop for the #141.

Same here, not a fortune teller as to which is better long run but could make an faithful argument either way. Go with your heart and your eyes, this is only a hobby.

[mrreality68]

I prefer the 1921 exhibit it.

However up until recently the 1921 was under appreciated and under valued.

The 1933 Goudy is the Main stream "ICON CARD" so even with the greater quantities it tends to be the go to buy of collectors and investors. New investors/collectors will probably go towards it. As a result the 1933 Goudy probably will be the better "investment card".

Both are great choices and since the 1921 has smaller stock levels the demand should also always be there

[G1911]

As it sounds like you are an investor, I would go with the Goudey 144.

[tkd]

I think both are great but I would go with the Goudey Ruth #144. If I had to choose one card that represents Babe Ruth it would be the Goudey #144
I would also try to find one with nice eye appeal that sets it apart from the others. I also like Goudey Ruth's because they are easy to sell and always in demand.
You gave us 2 great options and it looks like you are on the right track. If you are eventually in the market for a 2nd Ruth I'd absolutely consider the 21 exhibit.

[jingram058]

I like them both, but I have the 144. It wasn't an investment when I bought it, and it isn't now either. I bought it because I liked it. That hasn't changed either.

[oldjudge]

I think the Goudey Ruth’s are ugly and overpriced and I love that exhibit

[Leon]

I have always thought it's the classic vintage baseball card. Since I got back into the hobby, as an adult, it's probably been my favorite (attainable) card.

[Rhotchkiss]

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

[Aaron Seefeldt]

1921 Exhibit. Not. Even. Close.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

Kind of dramatic today, Ryan? LOL

I generally gravitate to rarity .... But to me, if we are talking aesthetics (maybe we aren't) then the Goudey is light years ahead. Remember black and white tv?
.

[tkd]

For those choosing the 21 exhibit I get what you mean. It has a lot going for it. If the op mentioned green or red Goudey Ruth I would absolutely go with the 21 exhibit. I look at the Goudey Ruth #144 as Ruth's single most recognized, iconic card. Kinda like the 52 topps Mantle.

[JeremyW]

I would bet that, to the untrained eye, the Goudey is more popular.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by tkd

I look at the Goudey Ruth #144 as Ruth's single most recognized, iconic card. Kinda like the 52 topps Mantle.

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Absent an unusual find or someone letting go of a hoard, the relative quantities of these cards is going to remain the same in the future. So why is it that in the future, rarity is going to dictate value more than it already does?

It reminds me of those endless posts about how Musial and Eddie Collins and Spahn are undervalued, and SOMEDAY, the market is going to value them correctly. Why?

[tkd]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

1917 Ruth all the way in a 1.5
Red Sox Ruth cards are awesome and extremely low quantity compared to Yankees Ruth's
As for the 21 exhibit I truly think it could pop in value kinda like 21 American Caramel did.

[JeremyW]

Just a guess, but people will realize the scarcity?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

Just a guess, but people will realize the scarcity?

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

[Leon]

I was 3rd under bidder, I believe, in the MH auction on a really nice Goudey 144 in a 7. I think it went for around 165k after BP.

I think the '21 Exhibit is a great card too. I will have one someday and have bid on many. Classic also...

The 1917 Ruth cards are awesome. I wish I could afford one.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

I think that there are new buyers who don't actually know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I think that there are new buyers who don't actually know.

Based on what? And further, why do you assume they care?

[parkplace33]

144. Go with the best and most popular Ruth.

[JeremyW]

I assume that they don't care & are only looking for profits.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I assume that they don't care & are only looking for profits.

In that case, scarcity won't come into it in the future any more than it has already. Perhaps I missed your point. But you started by suggesting people WOULD realize the scarcity.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The information is already out there and has been for years. The market is extremely efficient.

Exhibits and postcards were always second fiddle to gum and candy cards. I can only assume that trend will continue

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by tkd

1917 Ruth all the way in a 1.5
Red Sox Ruth cards are awesome and extremely low quantity compared to Yankees Ruth's

So to me, the arguments for the 1917 Ruth over #144 are exactly the same as the 1921 Exhibits Ruth over the #144, albeit the 1917 arguments are more compelling. At the end of the day, the reasons the 1917 is a no brainer vs #144 are (i) red sox, (ii) super early, and (iii) scarcity. The 1921 Exhibits is not red sox, but it is very very early yankees, its not 1917 but 1921 is much earlier in Ruth's career than 1933, and 1921 Exhibits is not as scarce as 1917 but certainly much more scarce that #144. Anyway, maybe none of that makes sense - I would still take the 1921 Exhibits over the #144.

And, I would take a 1917 PSA (or SGC) 1.5 over a #144 PSA 7. That said, a PSA 7 #144 is one hell of a card to own.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In that case, scarcity won't come into it in the future any more than it has already. Perhaps I missed your point. But you started by suggesting people WOULD realize the scarcity.

People that are new to the hobby will gravitate to the '33 Goudey. That's all I meant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

People that are new to the hobby will gravitate to the '33 Goudey. That's all I meant.

Agreed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Exhibits and postcards were always second fiddle to gum and candy cards. I can only assume that trend will continue

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

Agreed. Cards are king. I think postcards and exhibits have become much much more accepted, but they are nevertheless (usually) second fiddle. That said, I think people now more widely recognize that a PC (Gehrig or Cobb) or a Cabinet (Plank, Wagner, Matty, Cobb) can be a rookie "card". I dont think the hobby is there yet with supplements, advertising pieces, magazines, scorecards, programs, etc. For now, those seem to be "other" whereas post cards and cabinets seems to be more accepted as "cards"(ish)

[Jstottlemire1]

I’d have to say I’d rather own the 21’ I hope to add one soon also. The #144 is crazy in demand and from a huge set like all have stated. The fielding poses are pretty coveted though also I feel along with cards with him pitching and or throwing as well.

[JeremyW]

[QUOTE=Rhotchkiss;2236618]Agreed. Cards are king. I think postcards and exhibits have become much much more accepted, but they are nevertheless (usually) second fiddle. That said, I think people now more widely recognize that a PC (Gehrig or Cobb) or a Cabinet (Plank, Wagner, Matty, Cobb) can be a rookie "card". I dont think the hobby is there yet with supplements, advertising pieces, magazines, scorecards, programs, etc. For now, those seem to be "other" whereas post cards and cabinets seems to be more accepted as "cards"(ish)[/QUO

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by tkd

1917 Ruth all the way in a 1.5
Red Sox Ruth cards are awesome and extremely low quantity compared to Yankees Ruth's
As for the 21 exhibit I truly think it could pop in value kinda like 21 American Caramel did.

+1 Agreed

I would go for the 1917 Red Sox Ruth Over the Goudey Ruth. I am biased since I do have a 1917 Ruth and someday hope to get the 1933 Cards but still working on the early era cards first.

But Ruth of any card or PC is fantastic but the Rarity of the Red Sox Era, both in quantity of cards but also in the low number of types of cards for Ruth(especially since played short time there compared to Yankees)

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are exceptions like the 25 Gehrig, but I tend to agree that while Exhibits and Postcards may have moved off their "oddball" status, they still are not viewed as equal to the more traditional cards.

agreed and I would love to someday own a Rookie 25 Gehrig. They are great looking cards

[ullmandds]

I've owned all the goudey ruths at one time or another...some more than once. They're cool...but I've always favored scarce issues over more common ones...hence my disdain for t206. . Aaaaand...they're kinda cartoony?

The ruth pose (144) is available in a number of other issues too. Blue bird, goudey premium...fro joy premium...I'm sure there are others? I have the blue bird and the goudey premium...I like seeing the background details while I'm not a huge fan of these issues sizes?

The 1921 exhibit is a cool...unique pose...except for the shapira...the strip version of the same pose. I love seeing the babes glove...and he's svelt...and young. And it's early. I used to be size biased only preferring standard sized cards...but over the last 20 years many oversized cards have joined my collection so I now have a whole box of them...so they are more conveniently stored with each other as opposed to being a few oddsized cards with my gobbs of standard sized cards.

There are many important cards...cobb rookies...early ruths...gehrig, foxx rookies...that are postcard sized. I consider oversized cards essential to my collection...and I think many more experienced collectors appreciate their relative rarity.

I prefer the 1921 ruth over any of the goudeys for these reasons.

But boy would I love a pre 1918 ruth card!!!!!

[hcv123]

My opinion - which will likely mirror much of what has already been shared.

From a purely "collector" perspective - I'd give it to the 33 Goudey - as mentioned it is the iconic card which image is conjured when using the words "collecting baseball cards!". It is also part of one of the most collected vintage sets.

From an investment perspective - it gets MUCH tougher. While the Goudey is definitely higher supply (combined PSA and SGC population approaching 2K) currently it also has CONSIDERABLY stronger demand than the 21 exhibit and I agree with the opinions that as long as demand in the hobby grows then the card has strong investment potential.......BUT, as highlighted by Ryan - the 21 Exhibit has started to get some love, but hasn't run like the Goudey's. It would take a much smaller increase in demand to cause a really strong price spike.

That all said, it has puzzled me why the 25 Gehrig seems to be the anomaly amongst the exhibits - getting props as Gehrig's "rookie" and incredible valuation, EVEN THOUGH it is an exhibit. If Gehrig can get that kind of recognition, for all the reasons previously stated the Ruth "should" too!

They are 2 of my favorite cards - the Exhibit being the greater favorite by a lot.

[investinrookies]

A lot of good opinions and advise came out of this posting. While it is just a hobby, I always enjoy reading and gathing information on specific cards.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

agreed and I would love to someday own a Rookie 25 Gehrig. They are great looking cards

I really like the 25 exhibit Gehrig as well, always wondered why the 27 is priced like it is being the same pose and only two years later. Its also a very rare early card and Id think having the same image as the 25 rookie would be huge appeal to many.

[rjackson44]

I like the baltimore news ,,,ok sorry

[BabyRuth]

I like my martinis shaken, not stirred and my #144s blank-backed, not a word

[robertsmithnocure]

Another vote for Ruth’s 1921 Exhibits card.

I am glad to see that Exhibits and Postcards are starting to get their well-deserved recognition.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by investinrookies

I really like the 25 exhibit Gehrig as well, always wondered why the 27 is priced like it is being the same pose and only two years later. Its also a very rare early card and Id think having the same image as the 25 rookie would be huge appeal to many.

Agree! The 1927 is my rookie substitute. Great card.

AS for OP topic, both are great cards. But count me in the team 1921 exhibits camp! The 144 is maybe the best looking of any of his color issues and certainly iconic. I love it! But the 1921 is waaay more scarce and very early and has a great fielding pose. I love the cut sleeves and hole in the pants as well, great image! Being a very early Yankees card from likely his single best statistical season doesn't hurt either!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by investinrookies

I really like the 25 exhibit Gehrig as well, always wondered why the 27 is priced like it is being the same pose and only two years later. Its also a very rare early card and Id think having the same image as the 25 rookie would be huge appeal to many.

What about the 1926 Exhibit of Gehrig? Same pose and very close to the same color.

[Exhibitman]

Both are attractive over the long term. All Exhibit cards except the 1925 Gehrig are undervalued relative to other cards of the era. That said, a $10,000 card going up 100% is still the same profit as a $100,000 card going up 10%. As a collector I prefer the 1921 to #144 (and I like the #181 1933G better anyway), but from a money standpoint, I am agnostic.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Absent an unusual find or someone letting go of a hoard, the relative quantities of these cards is going to remain the same in the future. So why is it that in the future, rarity is going to dictate value more than it already does?

It reminds me of those endless posts about how Musial and Eddie Collins and Spahn are undervalued, and SOMEDAY, the market is going to value them correctly. Why?

For almost every card throughout time, the older the card for a player the more valuable/desirable it tends to be with a few notable exceptions. In time as more modern collectors venture into the pre war era, or new collectors enter, the early Ruth card automatically has that advantage of being an early playing days card.

The fact that it is more rare, if ten new serious buyers venture into the market searching for the 1921 Ruth and 10 new buyers enter searching for the 1933 Goudey...it has greater potential for bidding wars on the scarcer card since there are much less opportunities to buy one.

The same can be said of Ruth's 1920's caramel cards. More rare and early playing days.

As for Spahn, Collins, Musial etc...preferences change. Soon there will be nobody left on earth who actually saw any of them play or formed any personal connection to them to make them want to buy their cards(popularity). So the 'trend' of owning Mickey Mantle above everyone else will lose its luster as some point, especially with the trend toward baseball statistical evaluations that paint a more accurate picture of how good everyone in history actually was(not that Mantle was not elite, just that his card prices above Mays/Aaron don't reflect that Mays and Aaron actually had better careers, not just peak years).

In the year 2050, collectors wanting the best players of a generation may very well look a stat like WAR( which will be mainstream by then), and see that Eddie Collins is the tenth best of all time, and that may hold a lot of weight as to who they should buy.

Or in short, preferences simply change over time, so if you are holding the rarer item and there is any type of increase in demand, then you are holding the lottery ticket.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

There is a fielding pose of Ruth in the Fro Joy series. Not as nice as the '21 Exhibit, which is my choice, but interesting and different.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Yoda

There is a fielding pose of Ruth in the Fro Joy series. Not as nice as the '21 Exhibit, which is my choice, but interesting and different.

wow different fielding pose and i never knew or realized that card.

Interesting 1928 Fro-Joy