SGC has stopped putting Babe Ruth's name on the 1929 Churchman

[Snowman]

FYI in case you were thinking about sending your Churchman's Ruth to SGC. They're now obeying PSA's orders and are no longer putting his name on the flip.

I attempted to upload a picture, but the image settings here are not user friendly enough to allow the jpg file downloaded from SGC or the png file as a screenshot on my phone of the image. So I guess you guys can just imagine it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snowman

FYI in case you were thinking about sending your Churchman's Ruth to SGC. They're now obeying PSA's orders and are no longer putting his name on the flip.

I attempted to upload a picture, but the image settings here are not user friendly enough to allow the jpg file downloaded from SGC or the png file as a screenshot on my phone of the image. So I guess you guys can just imagine it.

Translated means you don't know how, or are too lazy, to reduce an image size to be able to be uploaded here. It's not rocket science. Even a statistician can do it.

Back to the topic, that is interesting news. I wonder what it does to their value, if anything?
.

[brianp-beme]

Here is the Churchman's Babe Ruth (and it is indeed Babe Ruth, no matter what a TPG is willing to put on a label or not, and even if the card manufacturer failed to identify him on front or back). It has been sized suitably for Net54 visual consumption. Seen in its natural, non-TPG'd habitat.

Brian (non-TPG Ruth not mine)

[ullmandds]

ya...this decision is pretty stupid, imho. This photo is well documented and is used atleast on a small handful of ruth issues. TPGing blows!

[raulus]

Welp!

So much for SGC remaining unsullied by new ownership.

[JustinD]

I know I am likely in the minority here, but I agree with PSAs position on this one.

There is no mention of Ruth anywhere, and though I am not denying it is a generic usage of a Ruth photo in the basis for the artwork, it seemed silly to label it as a Babe Ruth card, Adding “Babe Ruth shown” in parentheses may have worked but the labeling as was seemed suspect.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I know I am likely in the minority here, but I agree with PSAs position on this one.

There is no mention of Ruth anywhere, and though I am not denying it is a generic usage of a Ruth photo in the basis for the artwork, it seemed silly to label it as a Babe Ruth card, Adding “Babe Ruth shown” in parentheses may have worked but the labeling as was seemed suspect.

Is the 1929 Shonen Ruth image also suspect in your opinion?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Translated means you don't know how, or are too lazy, to reduce an image size to be able to be uploaded here. It's not rocket science. Even a statistician can do it.

Back to the topic, that is interesting news. I wonder what it does to their value, if anything?
.

I've said this before, but I remain of the opinion that ImageMagick & Xenforo are your friends.