E121 Ruth getting respect

[ullmandds]

E121's are tough and there are numerous poses and variations. The pitching pose in red sox uni seems to be the most popular.

I didn't see the auction ending late july until today...22.88K for an e121 "babe" ruth in vg. This one just ended...a similar vg ended at $14,700. Some strong prices for some tough early ruth cards.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-E121-Am...vip=true&rt=nc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-e121-Ba...p2047675.l2557

[iowadoc77]

Agreed Pete. Glad I snagged mine a few months ago!

[itjclarke]

... and this one, which sold as BIN OBO shortly after that $22K one sold. Strong prices all around. It's a great card, my favorite pose. I'm glad I picked mine up a few years ago, as I can imagine this thing continuing its upward trend.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-Babe-Ru...UAAOSwRoxXmliD

[brianp-beme]

I both snagged and sold my G-Vg E121 Ruth about 20 years ago. Got all of $200 or so for it. I would still have it, but it was the version with Babe holding the bird next to the creepy little guy with the ill-fitting suit. I just couldn't stomach its weirdness. Maybe this version can still be found with a somewhat reasonable price tag.

Brian

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I both snagged and sold my G-Vg E121 Ruth about 20 years ago. Got all of $200 or so for it. I would still have it, but it was the version with Babe holding the bird next to the creepy little guy with the ill-fitting suit. I just couldn't stomach its weirdness. Maybe this version can still be found with a somewhat reasonable price tag.

Brian

The other versions, from a quick look just now, don't seem to have gone up on the wild ride. Kudos to those who have this throwing pose.

Maybe a W575-1 could be a substitute for a Ruth collector?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1922-W575-1-...QAAOSwaB5XqMPC

.

[CharleyBrown]

And then there's this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-19...4AAOSwMNxXbsj7

Someone got a great deal (and it looks like they flipped it via Probstein).

[CharleyBrown]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

... and this one, which sold as BIN OBO shortly after that $22K one sold. Strong prices all around. It's a great card, my favorite pose. I'm glad I picked mine up a few years ago, as I can imagine this thing continuing its upward trend.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-Babe-Ru...UAAOSwRoxXmliD

That one sold for $16,400.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by CharleyBrown

That one sold for $16,400.

Yeah, I know, forgot to mention the $16400 buy price, but it sold shortly after the $22K one. I think it had been listed for $15K, then the asking price increased immediately after the $22K sale.

Can't believe that $2700 BIN price!! That one never hit my saved searches, since it presumably sold right away. I never think those are real when they're so low, but does seem it was immediately consigned, so nice/hefty profit.

I'm still wondering about an $8K BIN on a really nice, raw E135 Ruth a year or two ago. Seemed too good to be true at the time, and can't imagine what that would pull now if it was for real.

[Yoda]

I have a nice E121 Ruth Montage PSA3 which I picked about 2 years ago in an REA auction for about $1,800. To me, it one of the most fascinating cards of Ruth around where you have three images of the Babe on one piece of cardboard. In photographic terms I have always wondered if this something groundbreaking for the time. And, naturally, now wonder with the price surge seen for the throwing pose, how my card might due at auction.

[ullmandds]

for some reason the other poses of e121(standing portrait, montage, holding bird) are not as revered as the pitching pose...likely because the babe is in a red sox uni pitching. I've always liked the standing portrait...followed by the montage(common to some other issues too) and least the holding bird.

does anyone know the story with the babe holding the bird? maybe it was the 4th of july?

[glchen]

I traded away my E121 Ruth pitching pose earlier this year. Obviously shocked and crushed by the price jumps this card has taken this year.

The story behind the Holding Bird card is here: Link

[ullmandds]

may as well see em'!

[pawpawdiv9]

I always loved this one, this is my version

[ls7plus]

Maybe some of our investor types recently infiltrating the hobby are starting to get smart, although the pop report on that card isn't all that low. 'Bout time the Babe got more respect besides his M101-4 & 5!

Best to all,

Larry

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe some of our investor types recently infiltrating the hobby are starting to get smart, although the pop report on that card isn't all that low. 'Bout time the Babe got more respect besides his M101-4 & 5!

Best to all,

Larry

I think some of that may be going on.. Or even just collector driven. Personally, I think the E121 pose, shared with Boston Store, Collins McCarthy, etc, is actually a little better looking than the M101-4&5 (though would love one of those too!!!).

Gotta think some of the other mentioned "e" cards (would like to add the montage), as well as some of the nice pose exhibits (1921, R315, etc) will at least see some bump in price as many searching for early year Ruths will now be priced out of this pitching pose.

Still also gotta wonder about that quick BIN on the E135 too. What a steal that was if real.

[CharleyBrown]

Looks like the buyer left feedback. Not sure if that means much.

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I think some of that may be going on.. Or even just collector driven. Personally, I think the E121 pose, shared with Boston Store, Collins McCarthy, etc, is actually a little better looking than the M101-4&5 (though would love one of those too!!!).

Gotta think some of the other mentioned "e" cards (would like to add the montage), as well as some of the nice pose exhibits (1921, R315, etc) will at least see some bump in price as many searching for early year Ruths will now be priced out of this pitching pose.

Still also gotta wonder about that quick BIN on the E135 too. What a steal that was if real.

[EvilKing00]

Beautiful cards...

Though im a sucker for all ruth cards!

[itjclarke]

Here's mine.. Thought I overpaid at the time, but never a moment of buyer's remorse with this one.

Given the others referenced, looks like I have the ultra scare "OC" variation.

[Zeenut]

Nice cards everyone. I always thought this card was undervalued.

Matt

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by CharleyBrown

And then there's this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-19...4AAOSwMNxXbsj7

Someone got a great deal (and it looks like they flipped it via Probstein).

Also looks like he bid on it.

[swarmee]

That should be enough to get Probstein to not allow his consignments or bids again... did you report it to Rick?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by swarmee

That should be enough to get Probstein to not allow his consignments or bids again... did you report it to Rick?

If I were that guy and just got the deal of the year at $2799... I'd probably be more than happy to buy it back for $5K (less consignment fees) if the sale didn't actually exceed that amount. He'd still be way ahead (maybe now out $3400 for a nice E121 Ruth) , and he would still have the card.

Its not like he entered a bidding war that drove the price.

[swarmee]

There sure are a lot of people who condone shilling on this site...

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by swarmee

There sure are a lot of people who condone shilling on this site...

I'm not interested in getting into the full blown shilling debate, but I know I wouldn't want to sell that card for $3K or $5K, and would be more than happy to buy it back if the price stayed there. I don't think what this guy did manipulated the final price, nor did it appear to hook anyone into an artificial bidding war. Seems more like the hidden reserve thing. IMO, if he wins it back (at a still very low price), and pays for it, it's not that big a deal.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I know I wouldn't want to sell that card for $3K or $5K

Then the guy (or you, in future situations) should not consign the item to PWCC or Probstein, and instead start your own auction at $5000 on eBay or list it Buy It Now/Best Offer. A "hidden reserve" is illegal shilling, and is prohibited on eBay.

[swarmee]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...t=mastro+fraud

Many of the cases where Mastro was charged with shill bidding "didn't affect" the final price but were "just" bumps to get the bid further up the ladder. Doesn't matter; he and his cohort are still in jail because of it.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Then the guy (or you, in future situations) should not consign the item to PWCC or Probstein, and instead start your own auction at $5000 on eBay or list it Buy It Now/Best Offer. A "hidden reserve" is illegal shilling, and is prohibited on eBay.

I've never consigned, so you can omit the "you" in your post, and am not familiar with these rules inside and out. I mostly skipped over the many hundreds long threads on the topic.

Anyway, I don't condone shilling, or think that its ok, but in this case, not all shilling is created equal. What he did hurt no one.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Leon

The other versions, from a quick look just now, don't seem to have gone up on the wild ride. Kudos to those who have this throwing pose.

Maybe a W575-1 could be a substitute for a Ruth collector?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1922-W575-1-...QAAOSwaB5XqMPC

.

The W575-1 is actually a much tougher card than the E-121. There are two versions, both of which are substantailly tougher than the caramel. There is a "L.F George Ruth" version and a R.F. "Babe" version (mine below). There are only three slabbed copies of this one.

[orly57]

Now all my pics are posting sideways. If anyone has any suggestions, a pm would be appreciated.

[itjclarke]

Sweet cards Orlando. I really like the "holding ball" pose. I got a couple lesser cost "subs" for that one.. Will add pics later.

Re- posting horizontal pics, I'm not IT guy, but are your JPGs upright prior to posting?

[Sean]

Can someone who knows more about this set explain why some cards say Babe Ruth and others say "Babe" Ruth? Are they considered different cards, or a variation?


scan0049.jpg

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Sean

Can someone who knows more about this set explain why some cards say Babe Ruth and others say "Babe" Ruth? Are they considered different cards, or a variation?


Attachment 241055

Its a variation. There are Babe, "Babe", and George. Know many others here know more as to why. Think George is most scarce.

There are also, I believe 4 back variations in the series of 80, all of varying scarcity. If others don't do so first, I'll post a link to that thread. Some board members have done a lot of research on this set.

[brianp-beme]

On the board (and maybe the entire planet that we call Earth) Rhett has the best grasp of all the E121 issues, but the Series of 80 is rife with many variations, and I assume the parenthesis and non-parenthesis Ruth versions were due to their being in separate printing runs. However I do not remember reading any specific theories concerning this.

Brian

[Sean]

I notice that all the links to recent eBay sales are for cards that say "Babe". I assume then that this is the most common version?

And thanks guys for the previous answers.

[itjclarke]

Here are some threads, both recent and old, with contributions from the mentioned boardmember (Rhett), and others

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=E121+back

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ack+variations

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ack+variations

[Sean]

Great information, thank you.

[Steve D]

If I remember correctly, the difference in caption is not a true variation. For example, all E121 Ruth pitching poses show his name as Babe Ruth, and all E121 Ruth holding ball cards show his name as "Babe" Ruth.

Also, all pitching poses have a series of eighty back, and all holding ball poses have a series of 120 back.


Steve

[ullmandds]

should be interesting to see where this presentable "beater" ends up.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/172318997725...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Steve D

If I remember correctly, the difference in caption is not a true variation. For example, all E121 Ruth pitching poses show his name as Babe Ruth, and all E121 Ruth holding ball cards show his name as "Babe" Ruth.

Also, all pitching poses have a series of eighty back, and all holding ball poses have a series of 120 back.


Steve

Actually, for the 1921 E121 pitching pose, the difference in the name in the caption is a true variation. There are three ways the name is displayed:

Babe Ruth (w/o quotes)
"Babe" Ruth (w/ quotes)
George Ruth

For the 1922 E121 cards (holding ball, bird, montage), I have only seen the "Babe" Ruth (w/ quotes) as the caption even though PSA shows other variations in the pop report.

For the 1922 W575-1 pitching pose, there are also three ways the caption is displayed, same as the 1921 E121 version.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by glchen

Actually, for the 1921 E121 pitching pose, the difference in the name in the caption is a true variation. There are three ways the name is displayed:

Babe Ruth (w/o quotes)
"Babe" Ruth (w/ quotes)
George Ruth

For the 1922 E121 cards (holding ball, bird, montage), I have only seen the "Babe" Ruth (w/ quotes) as the caption even though PSA shows other variations in the pop report.

For the 1922 W575-1 pitching pose, there are also three ways the caption is displayed, same as the 1921 E121 version.

Also, the Babe and "Babe" variations list him as a right fielder. The George version calls him a left fielder.

Was the George the earlier version of the card?

[Steve D]

Thank you Gary for the correction. I actually just saw the LF caption variation for the card a couple days ago, as one is soon going up for auction.

Sean, I don't know which variation was first, but here's the breakdown for Babe's games played in LF and RF over his career:

Year Tm Pos G GS
1918 BOS LF 47 46
1919 BOS LF 110 106
1920 NYY LF 32 31
1920 NYY RF 86 84
1921 NYY LF 132 132
1922 NYY LF 71 71
1922 NYY RF 39 39
1923 NYY LF 68 68
1923 NYY RF 73 73
1924 NYY LF 50 50
1924 NYY RF 100 98
1925 NYY LF 33 32
1925 NYY RF 66 66
1926 NYY LF 82 82
1926 NYY RF 68 67
1927 NYY LF 56 56
1927 NYY RF 95 95
1928 NYY LF 55 55
1928 NYY RF 99 99
1929 NYY LF 55 55
1929 NYY RF 78 77
1930 NYY LF 53 53
1930 NYY RF 91 91
1931 NYY LF 51 51
1931 NYY RF 91 91
1932 NYY LF 44 43
1932 NYY RF 87 85
1933 NYY LF 54 54
1933 NYY RF 78 77
1934 NYY LF 33 33
1934 NYY RF 77 76
1935 BSN LF 22 22
1935 BSN RF 4 4
15 Seasons RF 1132 1122
18 Seasons LF 1048 1040

If I were to guess, I would say the RF Babe Ruth card was probably issued first. He didn't play RF until 1920, when he played over 2 1/2 times as many games there, as in LF. He did not play RF again until 1922, and then only half the games he played in LF. So, American Caramel probably thought he was being moved to RF due to the games he played there in 1920. Then when he played only in LF in 1921, they printed the cards showing him as a LFer.

Steve

[Baseball Rarities]

Here is a pretty nice example of the GEORGE with L. F. version. You do not seem to see this version nearly as often as the others.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/351822810238...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[rhettyeakley]

The GEORGE version was produced AFTER the BABE and "BABE" versions.

[pawpawdiv9]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Here is a pretty nice example of the George L. F. version. You do not seem to see this version nearly as often as the others.

I was interested in this one, as its my fav pose (as I got a photo like it)
I had intended to bid on it. Even researched that it sold for 8k back in Goodwin in 2013. With that being said..it has almost reached that mark.
Look up Steve Soloway...interesting facts on this person. As I did not know who he was.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

should be interesting to see where this presentable "beater" ends up.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/172318997725...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

the beater sold for $3800 and change...btw.

the george version is tough...it'll be interesting to see how high it goes!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Thank you Gary for the correction. I actually just saw the LF caption variation for the card a couple days ago, as one is soon going up for auction.

Sean, I don't know which variation was first, but here's the breakdown for Babe's games played in LF and RF over his career:

Year Tm Pos G GS
1918 BOS LF 47 46
1919 BOS LF 110 106
1920 NYY LF 32 31
1920 NYY RF 86 84
1921 NYY LF 132 132
1922 NYY LF 71 71
1922 NYY RF 39 39
1923 NYY LF 68 68
1923 NYY RF 73 73
1924 NYY LF 50 50
1924 NYY RF 100 98
1925 NYY LF 33 32
1925 NYY RF 66 66
1926 NYY LF 82 82
1926 NYY RF 68 67
1927 NYY LF 56 56
1927 NYY RF 95 95
1928 NYY LF 55 55
1928 NYY RF 99 99
1929 NYY LF 55 55
1929 NYY RF 78 77
1930 NYY LF 53 53
1930 NYY RF 91 91
1931 NYY LF 51 51
1931 NYY RF 91 91
1932 NYY LF 44 43
1932 NYY RF 87 85
1933 NYY LF 54 54
1933 NYY RF 78 77
1934 NYY LF 33 33
1934 NYY RF 77 76
1935 BSN LF 22 22
1935 BSN RF 4 4
15 Seasons RF 1132 1122
18 Seasons LF 1048 1040

If I were to guess, I would say the RF Babe Ruth card was probably issued first. He didn't play RF until 1920, when he played over 2 1/2 times as many games there, as in LF. He did not play RF again until 1922, and then only half the games he played in LF. So, American Caramel probably thought he was being moved to RF due to the games he played there in 1920. Then when he played only in LF in 1921, they printed the cards showing him as a LFer.

Steve

According to this:

After losing a ball in the sun in the Polo Grounds’ leftfield on July 16, 1922, Ruth refused to ever play the sun field again, and he didn't. His position thereafter was determined by the geographic orientation of the ballpark in which he was playing. For the rest of his career, Ruth played exclusively in rightfield at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium, as well as in Washington and Cleveland but exclusively in leftfield at the other AL cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis).

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to this:

After losing a ball in the sun in the Polo Grounds’ leftfield on July 16, 1922, Ruth refused to ever play the sun field again, and he didn't. His position thereafter was determined by the geographic orientation of the ballpark in which he was playing. For the rest of his career, Ruth played exclusively in rightfield at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium, as well as in Washington and Cleveland but exclusively in leftfield at the other AL cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis).

That is pretty interesting if true !

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to this:

After losing a ball in the sun in the Polo Grounds’ leftfield on July 16, 1922, Ruth refused to ever play the sun field again, and he didn't. His position thereafter was determined by the geographic orientation of the ballpark in which he was playing. For the rest of his career, Ruth played exclusively in rightfield at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium, as well as in Washington and Cleveland but exclusively in leftfield at the other AL cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis).

I was watching the Dodger game on Sept. 5 when Vin Scully said exactly the same thing. Babe Ruth never played in the sunfield.

[Leon]

nice realized prices!! When people ask me about what to collect that probably won't lose value, I tell them if bought correctly, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb.....and a few others...

Originally Posted by ullmandds

E121's are tough and there are numerous poses and variations. The pitching pose in red sox uni seems to be the most popular.

I didn't see the auction ending late july until today...22.88K for an e121 "babe" ruth in vg. This one just ended...a similar vg ended at $14,700. Some strong prices for some tough early ruth cards.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-E121-Am...vip=true&rt=nc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-e121-Ba...p2047675.l2557

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Here is a pretty nice example of the GEORGE with L. F. version. You do not seem to see this version nearly as often as the others.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/351822810238...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Sold for $12,100.

Not bad for a card that off center.