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

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

while I agree with your other examples being mislabeled...this particular image of Ruth is well documented.

It is of course based on a photo of Ruth and that can be easily documented, but was it ever meant to be a Ruth card is the question. The Shonen is a colorized photo of the play and has a full description of Ruth in text and is an unquestionable Ruth card.

The Churchman card has a baseball depiction and historical description of the game of baseball. It took a very popular photo of the time likely seen worldwide of a baseball game, and in a somewhat neutering fashion modified the depiction slightly changing the field and features. Was the intent ever to be a Ruth card, or to utilize a common current photo and use it cost free to fill your sport set? Was the reasoning lack of knowledge, avoiding permission of use or fees? It is impossible to dig into these questions now as anyone involved is well gone. Unfortunately, it falls into conjecture for every side.

When things are completely unknown as to reason, generality is a safe bet and the interpretation can be in the purchasers eye. I know that every owner of this card wants Ruth on the flip for value or to maintain investment. A Churchman set collector may just call this a card depicting baseball and see it only as such. The market can easily decide the value flip or not, much like the T202 which as mentioned prior is most often advertised as having a middle panel of Jackson.

I want to add again, that these are my thoughts and opinions and not meant to undermine anyone else's. I am biased because I have never considered this a true Ruth card, and simply a card depicting the game of Baseball to a foreign audience that may not fully understand the game with a common photo and speak as such. Others will certainly have differing opinions just or more valuable.

[brianp-beme]

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[Leon]

Well said! (I think)

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[D. Bergin]

I understand where Justin is coming from, and of course many collectors and the grading companies have been duped with false narratives and information in the past, so the prevailing opinion is "better safe then sorry" I guess.

If there is overwhelming consensus, I don't think it should hurt adding an addendum as has already been suggested and has prior precedence such as "shows Ruth".

It's funny, it wasn't that long ago when most collectors didn't give two hoots about this card. In the late 90's this was considered a fairly common set overseas, and you could pick up the whole set in top condition for a fraction of what a VG Ruth goes for nowadays. I even ordered a few of the "Ruth" cards from the London Cigarette Card Company for the price of a common.

I thought I was super clever and would unleash it on to the collecting public as an affordable and rare "Ruth" card. Joke was on me. I probably sold them for less then what a Joey Gallo Xfractor card goes for nowadays.

[D. Bergin]

Now, here's an example from PSA I wish somebody could explain to me.

I have a whole set of these graded by PSA. All the exact same way. They only identify the guy on the back of the cards (the subject the playing card set was named for)...but the front of the cards are identified by their playing card designation only.

If you look at the cards closely, each subject is identified pretty clearly. This ain't no guessing game here.

I don't know if PSA has changed their policy on this set since...but it is pretty annoying either way.

In the PSA registry, the Tom Sharkey card is simply identified as "King Of Spades".

If PSA can't put names to these cards...I don't see how they could possibly put a name on the Churchman Ruth card.

[Beercan collector]

Can someone post the actual photograph for the 1929 Churchman ,
I don’t think I’m finding it
Thanks

[GasHouseGang]

Not quite a photo, but another example where they used that photo. Maybe they say his name in Japanese so PSA labels it that way?