33 goudey Gehrigs

[tonyo]

Is there a difference in #92 and #160?

I was looking at my 1933 #92 Gehrig and it struck me: "How did PSA know this card is #92 ?" There is paper loss over the number. I've tried to find the difference in the two cards before (other than the number) and can't find any.

Does anyone have any insight on this?

The #92 card is mine, the #160 card I borrowed from any ebay listing.

[Frank A]

The No is centered over the G on the top card and is to the left a little on the bottom card.

[jp1216]

My #92 is just as Frank described. Good observation.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Is there a way to tell the difference if the number and the "No." are completely missing?


.

[cfc1909]

the #92 is a bit darker and the #160 is a more powder blue

[cfc1909]

I used to own this one but sold it about a year ago. You can compare it to the PSA 4 #160

[dabigyankeeman]

I think its ridiculous to have two virtually identical cards in the same set.

I have one of them, and when i get my red-background Ruth one day, i will consider my 1933 goudey Yankees team set to be complete, even though i wont have both of the Gehrig cards.

[conor912]

I was just taking about this with a buddy I saw tonight. I am putting together this set and am peeved I basically have to buy the same (expensive) card twice.

[terjung]

As others have commented, the bird egg blue on #160 is lighter in color.

Originally Posted by conor912

I was just taking about this with a buddy I saw tonight. I am putting together this set and am peeved I basically have to buy the same (expensive) card twice.

Don't forget about the two Jimmy Foxx cards too (#29 and #154). Agreed... very frustrating.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by conor912

I was just taking about this with a buddy I saw tonight. I am putting together this set and am peeved I basically have to buy the same (expensive) card twice.

Exactly..... I was hoping someone would point out some astounding little known fact that would make me want to have this card as part of the set.

Originally Posted by terjung

Don't forget about the two Jimmy Foxx cards too (#29 and #154). Agreed... very frustrating.

Yep, fortunately my versions of the two Foxxes didn't make a huge dent in my budget. The two Gehrigs are both right at the top of the range I will spend on an individual card, but I'm having alot of trouble pulling the trigger on a #160.


Oh well - one of the curses of being a set collector. I can justify to myself that a 518 or 520 t206 is "complete enough" and I can justify to myself that 33 Goudey without a Lajoie is "complete enough". I still have some convincing to do on the two Gehrigs, but I suspect I'll get there!

[dabigyankeeman]

Scan the one Gehrig into your computer, print it on good paper life-size, and put it in your collection to take the place of the second one!!

[conor912]

yup. and is it just me, or are the gehrigs actually harder to come by than the ruths? i feel like i see a lot less of them and when they do come up they seem to pull a significantly larger premium (percentage-wise) than the ruths.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by conor912

yup. and is it just me, or are the gehrigs actually harder to come by than the ruths? i feel like i see a lot less of them and when they do come up they seem to pull a significantly larger premium (percentage-wise) than the ruths.

It depends on the Ruth and the Gehrig. #160 Gehrig is more expensive than #92 and #53 Ruth is the most expensive of the 4. Ruth #144 was double printed, so it is usually the cheapest of the Ruths (along with green).