1915 Red Sox PC with Ruth vs 1906 W601 Tigers PC with Cobb

[Rhotchkiss]

The 1915 Red Sox PC is widely regarded as Ruth's first image on a "card" as a professional ball player. Similarly, the 1906 W601 Tigers PC is regarded as Cobb's first image on a "card" as a professional ball player.

The 1915 Red Sox PC has a combined graded population of 14+ (PSA 11 and SGC 3+ (SGC is unclear). The 1906 W601 Tigers PC is has a combined graded population of 10 (PSA 4 and SGC 6). Thus, the W601 is rarer, although both are super tough.

Yet, despite the similarities, the value of the 1915 Ruth/Red Sox PC is 10x+/- that of the W601 Cobb PC.

For example, a PSA A, 1915 Red Sox PC recently sold for $114k, while a PSA W601 Tigers PC recently sold for $11.1k. A PSA 6 1915 Red Sox PC recently sold for $564k, while there is an SGC 4,5 currently on the BST with a $50k asking price.

Why do you think that 1915 Red Sox PC with Ruth is valued at 10X(ish) that of the rarer 1906 W601 Tigers PC with Cobb? I understand that Ruth beats Cobb, but 10x?!?!

[sportscardpete]

There might be an extra premium due to it being a Red Sox card, given that there are so few Red Sox cards of Ruth out there. If he had stayed with them for longer (say through the early 1920s), maybe it would be a lower multiplier? Also - Cobb has a lot more early year postcards than Ruth.

Still, it just seems like way too big of a discrepancy. I get Ruth being more collectible, but not at a 10x rate.

[packs]

The Cobb image on the PC is a little weird too. I know it's Cobb, but it doesn't really look like him and doesn't scream Ty Cobb when you see him down there. Whereas Ruth is unquestionably Ruth.

[calvindog]

He was 19 in that image.

[Bicem]

Think part of it is the other options available. Lots of Cobb postcards from a year later (that most people consider his rookie card) to choose from whereas if you want a Ruth rookie you have the postcard or m101-4/5 to choose from.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Think part of it is the other options available. Lots of Cobb postcards from a year later (that most people consider his rookie card) to choose from whereas if you want a Ruth rookie you have the postcard or m101-4/5 to choose from.

I think this is in large part a reason for the price disparity but the W601 also just goes not have the eye appeal of the Red Sox postcard. IMO, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. When you factor in scarcity of the W601 however the price gap does not seem justified.

[the-illini]

The Ruth shows more of him and it is a real-photo postcard, both of which probably helps the value.

That said, I am surprised that the Cobb doesn't sell for more than it does.

[Bicem]

The early Ruth explosion of the past 6-8 years has certainly helped too, these postcards used to be much more closer in value.

[tkd]

Not a ton of cards produced from 1915-1919 with Ruth on the Red Sox.
The 1915 Ruth is sandwiched between 2 extremely valuable Ruth cards. The 1914 Baltimore Ruth sells for millions and the 1916 Ruth's also sell for big money these days. When looking at it that way maybe the 1915 Ruth is undervalued.
IMO the main reason the 1906 Sporting Life Team Cobb isn't selling for more is because it doesn't get enough attention. I rarely hear people talking about it and I don't think a lot collectors/investors know about it. I also think it gets overshadowed by the larger numbers of 1907-1909 Cobbs.
IMO the 1906 Cobb mentioned is extremely undervalued. Good chance this does take off once it gets more public spotlight, attention, and appreciation.

[BeanTown]

[QUOTE=tkd;
IMO the main reason the 1906 Sporting Life Team Cobb isn't selling for more is because it doesn't get enough attention. I rarely hear people talking about it and I don't think a lot collectors/investors know about it. I also think it gets overshadowed by the larger numbers of 1907-1909 Cobbs.
IMO the 1906 Cobb mentioned is extremely undervalued. Good chance this does take off once it gets more public spotlight, attention, and appreciation.[/QUOTE]

Many times collectors don’t discuss or share thoughts about these kind of cards is they want to buy them all, when they come to market. My believe is it’s a 1905 (possibly 1906) image.

I posted elsewhere, that I’d like to see the pop report on every team from this Sporting Life series of postcards. Detroit has to be the rarest.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The 1915 Red Sox PC is widely regarded as Ruth's first image on a "card" as a professional ball player. Similarly, the 1906 W601 Tigers PC is regarded as Cobb's first image on a "card" as a professional ball player.

The 1915 Red Sox PC has a combined graded population of 14+ (PSA 11 and SGC 3+ (SGC is unclear). The 1906 W601 Tigers PC is has a combined graded population of 10 (PSA 4 and SGC 6). Thus, the W601 is rarer, although both are super tough.

Yet, despite the similarities, the value of the 1915 Ruth/Red Sox PC is 10x+/- that of the W601 Cobb PC.

For example, a PSA A, 1915 Red Sox PC recently sold for $114k, while a PSA W601 Tigers PC recently sold for $11.1k. A PSA 6 1915 Red Sox PC recently sold for $564k, while there is an SGC 4,5 currently on the BST with a $50k asking price.

Why do you think that 1915 Red Sox PC with Ruth is valued at 10X(ish) that of the rarer 1906 W601 Tigers PC with Cobb? I understand that Ruth beats Cobb, but 10x?!?!

Well, if you like that, then this one i just picked up for $3500 in Heritage is supreme! 1905, same kind of image. :-)

I think the W601’s have never really taken off to higher prices, both the larger prints and the postcards of the same images. But could still happen. Happy to collect them regardless.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The earliest Ruth “card” in an MLB uniform is this one from Spring Training in Hot Springs, AK from 1915:

https://memorylaneinc.com/lot1-2-win24/Lot1a.jpg

Used to be mine.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

The earliest Ruth “card” in an MLB uniform is this one from Spring Training in Hot Springs, AK from 1915:

https://memorylaneinc.com/lot1-2-win24/Lot1a.jpg

Used to be mine.

Wowzers

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

The earliest Ruth “card” in an MLB uniform is this one from Spring Training in Hot Springs, AK from 1915:

https://memorylaneinc.com/lot1-2-win24/Lot1a.jpg

Used to be mine.

Wonder if/how they were able to distinguish from 1916 Spring Training.

[Bicem]

I believe I've seen a September 1907 postmark on the more common 1907 Tigers real photo team postcard.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

The earliest Ruth “card” in an MLB uniform is this one from Spring Training in Hot Springs, AK from 1915:

https://memorylaneinc.com/lot1-2-win24/Lot1a.jpg

Used to be mine.

I own that now. Love it!

Jeff, the flip says 1906, so it’s 1906!!

Regardless, totally underpriced and under appreciated

[bigfanNY]

I have a few W601's and agree they are vastly undervalued. The Cobb is an excellent example of this. The other is the Philadelphia Athletics with Rookie Joe Jackson.
W601's were issued first as singles then at the end of the year in booklet form that contained all the teams. Of interest to a few here was the discovery that player variations exist on some W601's. I know of a Highlander variation with both the Early single version and The postcard differing from the team composite in the end of year portfolio. So at least some of the teams were
updated during the season. Given how scarce they are research is difficult.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

I have a few W601's and agree they are vastly undervalued. The Cobb is an excellent example of this. The other is the Philadelphia Athletics with Rookie Joe Jackson.
W601's were issued first as singles then at the end of the year in booklet form that contained all the teams. Of interest to a few here was the discovery that player variations exist on some W601's. I know of a Highlander variation with both the Early single version and The postcard differing from the team composite in the end of year portfolio. So at least some of the teams were
updated during the season. Given how scarce they are research is difficult.

Yes and as Lipset said years ago when he sold his off that they could be found two ways which were with and without the punch holes in them.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

The earliest Ruth “card” in an MLB uniform is this one from Spring Training in Hot Springs, AK from 1915:

https://memorylaneinc.com/lot1-2-win24/Lot1a.jpg

Used to be mine.

Pop is 2 if I’m not mistaken. I have also seen a “hands on hips” and “Ruth on Bench” c. 1915 RPPC. Cool stuff.

[mrreality68]

Great conversation and some really good learnings on history of some cards.

Cannot go wrong with either one but I like the team photo postcard with Ruth(and I am biased)

[oldjudge]

In general, people prefer team shots to composites. Also, it's Ruth--everyone will look bad relative to him. Finally, Ruth cards with Boston are very scarce; obviously not so for Cobb with Detroit.