Poll: Final Hammer Price - 1914 BN Babe Ruth vs the 1952 Rosen Topps Mantle

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

This card was purchased for about $5mm less than two years ago. Last night it sells for $7.2mm - a $2.2mm (44%) increase in two years, which is 22% per year. How on god’s green earth is that result a “failure”? It isn’t. Instead, there was a ton of hype and the result did not meet the hype. But the result was very good. The hype was BS. The BN Ruth was worth $5mm two years ago. Now it’s worth $7.2mm. Seems to me, that is pretty darn positive

I’m not familiar with the terms of the private sale, but some of the other posts around here are quoting $6M for that private sale. Not sure which one is accurate or if any of us know for sure. But it seems like it would make a big difference in the gain to the seller, particularly if it was really $6M.

Second, some part of the $7.2M is going to the AH, and not to the seller. Even if it’s only 5% of the hammer, that’s $300K, which reduces the seller’s take a bit. Again, especially if the purchase price was $6M.

Third, $7.2M is only a disappointment when most of the talk in the press was for $10M+. Whether the consignor really expected to get that much is anyone’s guess. But if he bought into the National hype and publicity machine, then I’m guessing he feels like $7.2M is on the low end.

Finally, compared to everyone else who has been banking 100% to 300%+ gains over the last few years, 44% (or possibly less) probably feels like losing money.

[molenick]

I just realized that the Dunn also did not meet its reserve. The high bid was $24.6K (with the premium) and (as others pointed out about the 13-card lot) the only thing special about this card was the association with Ruth, so the best way to sell it was at the same time. It will be interesting to see if the 14 unsold cards show up soon in another auction or if they just disappear for awhile.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by raulus

I’m not familiar with the terms of the private sale, but some of the other posts around here are quoting $6M for that private sale. Not sure which one is accurate or if any of us know for sure. But it seems like it would make a big difference in the gain to the seller, particularly if it was really $6M.

Second, some part of the $7.2M is going to the AH, and not to the seller. Even if it’s only 5% of the hammer, that’s $300K, which reduces the seller’s take a bit. Again, especially if the purchase price was $6M.

Third, $7.2M is only a disappointment when most of the talk in the press was for $10M+. Whether the consignor really expected to get that much is anyone’s guess. But if he bought into the National hype and publicity machine, then I’m guessing he feels like $7.2M is on the low end.

Finally, compared to everyone else who has been banking 100% to 300%+ gains over the last few years, 44% (or possibly less) probably feels like losing money.

Which part of the $7.2M is going to the auction house? The $0 part?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Which part of the $7.2M is going to the auction house? The $0 part?

HA.

Typically an AH is not operated on an eleemosynary basis. My assumption is that they would get at least 5% of the $6M hammer. Said another way, the AH might only keep 5% of the 20% BP. But I guess you never know on a piece like this precisely what the parties negotiated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why say charitable when you can say eleemosynary?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why say charitable when you can say eleemosynary?

Originally Posted by calvindog

REA received more publicity than it’s ever gotten in its entire existence with this Ruth card - and Brian was fantastic with it. REA made huge strides in reaching areas of the marketplace that no other AH besides Christie’s and Sotheby’s ever have seen. I’m pretty sure the fee on this card was 0.

I saw a quick story about the Ruth card on my local news outlet, so yes, lots of free advertising for REA. The story was post auction and indicated the Ruth card sold for the 3rd highest price for a baseball card behind the 52T Mantle (at $12M+) and the T206 Wags at $7.25M.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Fred

The story was post auction and indicated the Ruth card sold for the 3rd highest price for a baseball card behind the 52T Mantle (at $12M+) and the T206 Wags at $7.25M.

Exactly!! I feel this is what most people are missing bc of the hype, which created very unrealistic expectations. This is the 3rd best price ever, and it’s not a t206 Wagner nor a 1952 Topps mantle - the two most iconic cards of all time that have common-man appeal well beyond your typical collector. This is a great result and REA should be shouting this fact from the rooftop, not to mention they have now sold two of the top 3 most expensive cards/sales ever

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by raulus

HA.

Typically an AH is not operated on an eleemosynary basis. My assumption is that they would get at least 5% of the $6M hammer. Said another way, the AH might only keep 5% of the 20% BP. But I guess you never know on a piece like this precisely what the parties negotiated.

REA received more publicity than it’s ever gotten in its entire existence with this Ruth card - and Brian was fantastic with it. REA made huge strides in reaching areas of the marketplace that no other AH besides Christie’s and Sotheby’s ever have seen. I’m pretty sure the fee on this card was 0.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by calvindog

REA received more publicity than it’s ever gotten in its entire existence with this Ruth card - and Brian was fantastic with it. REA made huge strides in reaching areas of the marketplace that no other AH besides Christie’s and Sotheby’s ever have seen. I’m pretty sure the fee on this card was 0.

Awesome. If so, then that's a great deal to the consignor.

[brianp-beme]

As a reminder, this card was graded as a '3', while most of us, including myself, thought this looked like a '1' or '1-1/2'. I think a true Vg card would have attracted even more high rollers and go for quite a few more McMillions.

Brian

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agreed, the card was overgraded. However, it might still be the second best example extant. I cannot speak to that as I am not familiar with the other nine known except that one was graded a 4 and a few were either 1's or 1.5's.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

As a reminder, this card was graded as a '3', while most of us, including myself, thought this looked like a '1' or '1-1/2'. I think a true Vg card would have attracted even more high rollers and go for quite a few more McMillions.

Brian

^ THIS. As I studied the photo of the Ruth with the other Baltimore News cards from the same collection of the family, the red of the Ruth looked decidedly tired. I shan't jump on the grenade about why this is so, but I would think the bidders / potential bidders weren't blind to the card's appearance in contrast to its brothers, either

I was among the individuals who voted the BN Ruth would not sell for as much as the SGC 9.5 Gem Mint '52 Topps Mickey Mantle. No big deal there, but just a reminder the Mantle is a gem, whereas the recent REA BN Ruth looked the worse for wear, AND over-graded. It is a great card, and sold for well over 15 times the previous example sold. Further, that sale was the prime condition Baltimore News Ruth. Just as Mr. Mint Alan Rosen pounded the table in one of his 2 books-----in home buying, the key is "LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION". In card collecting, Alan stressed, the key is "CONDITION, CONDITION, CONDITION".

Yes, the Baltimore News Babe Ruth is rare, regally rare, all day and all night. Nevertheless, a lesser condition example may not get the bucks Ruth fans think. It didn't.

That BN Ruth is by all means a great card---just as it is. It's obviously just not a $12.7 million card. Don't let it ruin your day, or year. Besides, just around the corner might come a better Baltimore News Babe, and the sparks will fly. I hope. --- Brian Powell (I was not an underbidder.)