If you had exactly $117,603.60 to spend on a Prewar Ruth/Gehrig item, which one?

[brianp-beme]

The recently closed Memory Lane auction had two items that closed at exactly $117,603.60. A late 1920's game used Babe Ruth bat, and a 1925 Lou Gehrig Exhibit rookie card. If you had to choose between the two, which one would you choose?

Ruth bat:

https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/...e?itemid=83651


Gehrig Exhibit rookie card:

https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/...e?itemid=83652


Being almost exclusively a card collector, I would chose the Gehrig. The Ruth bat would be interesting, but I am pretty sure they don't have a Card Saver sleeve large enough to fit it.

Let us know what your choice would be, and why?


Brian

[BobbyStrawberry]

I would also choose the card, because I'm not a bat collector.

[Lucas00]

The bat, simply for the history and the fact a GU Babe Ruth bat is probably 100x rarer than a Gehrig exhibit. I would not be surprised if somebody found a stack of Gehrig Exhibit rookies in a box tomorrow.

[Steve D]

There are really only five non-SD Padres who I want a game-used bat from:

Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Nolan Ryan, Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth; so.....

I would take the bat!


Steve

[kmac32]

The bat for sure

[3-2-count]

The bat, no question.

[MVSNYC]

The Bat for sure, although the carved letters are a little distracting/unfortunate…and likely kept bidding lower.

[Bigdaddy]

The bat, and it's not even close.

This is a tool of his trade, owned and used by The Babe. Highly likely that sweat from his hands was absorbed into the wood.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

This is a tool of his trade, owned and used by The Babe. Highly likely that sweat from his hands was absorbed into the wood.

Ewww...gross! (but I guess kinda cool as well)


Brian

[GasHouseGang]

The bat, no doubt. There are so many more cards available than actual bats used by "The Babe".

[bnorth]

The bat and it isn't even close. The card is just a picture printed on some paper that the player hasn't even seen or touched. The bat was actually used by the player.

[glchen]

The bat for me also, same reason as everyone else, as Ruth actually used the bat, and the card is just a piece of cardboard.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by glchen

The bat for me also, same reason as everyone else, as Ruth actually used the bat, and the card is just a piece of cardboard.

+1 the bat

[4815162342]

What’s mind boggling is that the final prices of the Ruth bat and Gehrig rookie were only tied for second place. A basketball card from 1980 came in first at $173,389.20.

[piecesofthegame]

For me, my greatest pleasure from my collection is showing off my stuff to family or friends who visit the “museum”…and maybe teaching a novice something about baseball or the hobby. If I show them a black and white Lou Gehrig exhibit, the reaction would be “that’s cool”. If I showed them a bat, put it in their hands, and said “THAT is a game-used bat from Babe Ruth almost 100 years ago”, I think their jaw would fall to the floor. That’s priceless!

[pawpawdiv9]

^agree
I choose the bat as well
But I would entomb for display not wanting people
touching it or fooling around with it
-just my preference

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by glchen

The bat for me also, same reason as everyone else, as Ruth actually used the bat, and the card is just a piece of cardboard.

But both card and bat are manufactured from wood, a renewable resource that cardboard manufacturers like to remind consumers about.

And who knows, perhaps in some alternate universe the Babe touched the Lou Exhibit card. I like to think it possible/almost likely. As an example, I am pretty sure Ruth spent some quality scissor time making the below Exhibit into a die cut.

exhibitgehrig 001 (417x640).jpgexhibitgehrigback 001 (411x640).jpg


Brian

[frankbmd]

$117,603.47 for the bat, but not a penny or nickel higher.

[D. Bergin]

If somebody who knows game used stuff far better then me, can convince me that was an actual Babe Ruth game used bat, and will be considered as such far into the future, no matter what technology or evidence comes along to possibly dispute it......then.....of course.....the bat, for all the reasons already given in this thread.

I feel like it wasn't that long ago, Exhibits were practically being given away, even of stars, at least in comparison to Goudeys, T-Cards and Candy cards.

Exhibits weren't even considered "cards", by the majority of the hobby, and were pretty well looked down upon. I never agreed with this sentiment, but I sure wish I had the foresight back then to sock a few key exhibits away for a rainy day.

[packs]

Bat all the way. A Gehrig rookie is a monster card but I find myself drawn to tangible history as well. Holding Ruth's own bat in your hands puts you closer to the game than any card.

[raulus]

Can I vote for none of the above?

Don't get me wrong, they're both cool.

I just worry about whether the bat turns out to be a fake. Also, I've stayed away from memorabilia simply because it takes up so much space.

And as much as the Iron Horse was an amazing player, for that kind of bread, I'd rather deploy it towards something other than this piece.

[JustinD]

Another vote for the bat here too.

Just like others said, it’s certainly rarer and just is a showstopper for anyone whether they collect or not. I find the carving distracting, but in the same breath it’s a large part of the story and provenance.

[Topnotchsy]

The market for cards and the market for memorabilia are pretty distinct markets. Sure there is some overlap, but not a ton.

For people who like memorabilia, I think it is pretty much a given that the 'value per dollar' in terms of scarcity and history is far higher. There's a reason that when considered side by side but the buying is theoretical, that the bat will be the item selected 90% of the time (or some other high number). But practically, the card sold for as much, and could easily increase in value at a faster rate. Because the audience of people pursuing a Gehrig rookie functions largely independently from the audience who pursues a GU bat, even of Babe Ruth. And the card audience is much, much larger.

I was first clued into this when I bought a Roy Campanella minor league contract from his first Minor League season (the year that he integrated the Minor Leagues for a team in the United States) for much, much less than a high-grade rookie card. Despite him signing the contract in the same offseason as Jackie Robinson and being one of the first 4 black players to sign. Despite it being signed twice.

I would take the Ruth in a heartbeat for my personal collection. But as an investment, I would have to seriously consider the Gehrig rookie card.

[brianp-beme]

I have to admit, the Ruth bat does have the 'Sultan of Swat, all-time great touched and used it' allure. But since I have never have been a memorabilia collector, it would seem out of place with me. I might be tempted to modify it for use as a table lamp.

But that would undoubtedly turn the whole collecting world against me, so probably it is in my best theoretical interest to use that $117,603.60 toward the Gehrig card, as it is likely to continue to rise in value, and my temptation to turn it into a lamp would be dampened by daunting technical design issues.


Brian

[Kutcher55]

Did they really go for the exact same price or is it a misreport? Seems unlikely.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Did they really go for the exact same price or is it a misreport? Seems unlikely.

Assumingely they both sold for the same round dollar amount (say 97.5k or something random) so with bp they would come out to the same weird number.
But I’m not certain.

[mrreality68]

For me that is tough

Even though I am a card board person and that rookie Gehrig is a wow

To have a game used bat by Ruth from almost 100 years ago I would probably lean towards the bat

But either way cannot go wrong from an historical perspective or a wow factor

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Assumingely they both sold for the same round dollar amount (say 97.5k or something random) so with bp they would come out to the same weird number.
But I’m not certain.

This above is correct. Both had $25,000 opening bids, each had 31 incremental bids to end at $98,003. The hammer add-on gave them the extra funky total amount seen in the title (which still does not include shipping/handling/insurance and taxes, mind you).

Brian

[Pat R]

I don't see any documentation from the estate in the auction and from some of his interviews with sports writers it's hard to believe that Ruth gifted the bat to koenig or that it came from his estate.

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't see any documentation from the estate in the auction and from some of his interviews with sports writers it's hard to believe that Ruth gifted the bat to koenig or that it came from his estate.

Nice digging Pat. You would think Koenig would have mentioned that, although he didn't keep any of his memorabilia, that he did keep a bat given to him by Ruth. But he flat out states that he had nothing from his time with the Yankees. And his interactions with Ruth make it seem less likely he would have received a bat from Babe in the first place.

It reminds me why I stay within the safe confines of my card world, and my pick of the Gehrig card has gotten even stronger.

Brian

[Exhibitman]

As a decades-long Exhibit collector and memorabilia non-collector and a Yankees fan too, my head says take the bat but my heart says take the card. So I will take the card. Now if we’re talking Ruth rookie versus Gehrig rookie then I go with the big fella.

[JollyElm]

(Assuming the lumber is legitimate, of course.)

raidersofthelostarkbelloq.jpeg
"Net54 members...we are simply passing through history.
This...(gesturing to the bat)...this IS history."

[Leon]

I am a card guy....but probably the bat. It's not like I have 6 figures to spend anyway, unless I sold some stuff.
.

[darwinbulldog]

I've never bought a bat outside of a sporting goods store, but for that one I'll choose the bat.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I've never bought a bat outside of a sporting goods store, but for that one I'll choose the bat.

But this bat will have sweat embedded in its fibers, and based upon Pat R's research above there is a decent possibility that this bat doesn't have the strongest provenance, and thus that sweat is possibly not from the Babe.

If the embedded sweat is possibly not Ruth's, how many of you would be swayed to hypothetically fork over 117k+ instead to Lou's 'handled by less sweaty hands' rookie card?


Brian

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

But this bat will have sweat embedded in its fibers, and based upon Pat R's research above there is a decent possibility that this bat doesn't have the strongest provenance, and thus that sweat is possibly not from the Babe.

If the embedded sweat is possibly not Ruth's, how many of you would be swayed to hypothetically fork over 117k+ instead to Lou's 'handled by less sweaty hands' rookie card?


Brian

The bat has an 8.5 grade from PSA/Mr Taube so I will stick with the bat.

[Casey2296]

I'm 100% card guy and I would have taken the bat n this particular case, until I read Pats post, thank you for your amazing research Pat (as usual).

Memorabilia provenance can be so suspect it makes me shy away, same reason I don't collect autographs.

[Jobu]

I'm just amazed that PSA carved the qualifier right into the bat like that.