Is the 1935 Goudey wrapper a "Babe Ruth item"?

[ValKehl]

The image on this wrapper somewhat physically resembles Ruth, but the image appears to me to be a right-handed batter.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

The image on this wrapper somewhat physically resembles Ruth, but the image appears to me to be a right-handed batter.

+1

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

The image on this wrapper somewhat physically resembles Ruth, but the image appears to me to be a right-handed batter.

Well, now that you mention it, it appears you are correct...the hands appear to be in the position of a right handed batter. However, that pose appears to be a left handed batting follow through (right leg forward, gaze is UP at the ball in flilght). And that is a classic Ruth left handed follow through.

For the record, I voted for the third choice myself. I do think it's supposed to be Ruth....but at the same time it doesn't quite hit me as a Ruth collectible.

[Bobbycee]

I'd love to see that Premiums poster that the storekeeper had to promote the set, as described on the side panel of the wrapper. That must be amazing. Wonder how many still exist?

[steve B]

Other than the wrapper artist swapping hands and the odd forward lean, it looks a lot like this pic.

[egri]

I think it's Paul Waner. The earlobes are a match.

Could be it was intended to suggest Ruth without actually depicting him, otherwise Goudey might have had to pay him a royalty.

I went with the third option, though if you wanted to call it a Babe Ruth item, I wouldn't argue.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by egri

I think it's Paul Waner. The earlobes are a match.

Could be it was intended to suggest Ruth without actually depicting him, otherwise Goudey might have had to pay him a royalty.

I went with the third option, though if you wanted to call it a Babe Ruth item, I wouldn't argue.

I agree with this.

Many items were produced around this time that obviously implied or depicted Ruth, but were not ever labeled as such.