Most overrated pre-war card?

[ethicsprof]

T206 Titus

best,
barry

[oldjudge]

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

Originally Posted by rats60

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Yeah, but gold is soft and lustrous and beautiful - unlike any other rock.

I would go more with tulip bulbs. Perhaps this Ruth card will eventually follow suit.

[MattyC]

One can dream.

[Runscott]

Yeah, I don't know why I keep following Ruth 'rookie card' auctions. I keep hoping one will slip through the cracks. At least I can still buy tulip bulbs.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

Uniform fashions of the era notwithstanding, I love that intense, competitive glare in his eye.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

Agreed. I know it's not the point of this thread, but I don't have a problem with the value of any card - they are commodities to an extent, so if you really want any particular one, you can always wait for a price that will allow you to relinquish it if you ever need to.

[packs]

I think every common E107 is grossly overrated. I understand the rarity of the set and the important place it occupies in the baseball card timeline. But come on. $500 to $1,000 for a poor conditioned common? Not to mention a lot of the cards have guys who aren't even in uniform.

[atx840]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

+1

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by rats60

The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

[Econteachert205]

I mainly collect and love the t205 set. I have no interest in shelling out for a hoblitzell no stats. There's four versions of the same card and it's a back variation. My opinion.

[packs]

The thing about the Wagner is that in the grand scheme of things it is a circus card. The public at large is aware of the Wagner and that it is the most valuable card. But they aren't interested in the card itself, or Wagner, or T206. They are interested because it's expensive. So to me, it is overrated because it has become something more than a baseball card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MattyC

We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

[ullmandds]

this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

1. There is much subjectivity.
2. N172 was the first largely distributed baseball card set.
3. "Scrapps" are the first bubble gum baseball cards.

Anyone care to fact-check paragraphs 2 and 3?

[nolemmings]

The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards.

1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

[MattyC]

It is the definition of overhyped.

By definition, it is the first card depicting the most famous name in the game of baseball in a major league uniform. It is thus the rookie card of the most famous player in the game's history. Ruth is a name that simply dwarfs the likes of Doyle, in terms their comparative places in both the game and American cultural history (not intended as a knock on the Doyle card, but in a comparative analysis, he just can't touch Babe Ruth-- not many can, though some are right there with him). It is also one of very few cards depicting Ruth pitching in a Sox uniform, which is a very important part of baseball lore and history, considering the eventual deal to the Yankees, conversion to full-time hitter, and how his homeruns took the popularity of the game we all love to new levels. End of the day, no one has to like every card, but a Babe Ruth rookie card is patently significant, no matter when the financial side of things recognized it as such.

[familytoad]

Goudey 1933 Bengough is well over-rated.

1940 play ball high numbers of long retired HoFers .

T206 Titus
T206 Shag

T201 Dougherty/Lord

Some 1914 CJ are riding the wave now, but they are pretty great cards so I'm not ready to call them over-rated , really.

Underrated= All T3 and T202.

[sporteq]

T206 & 1933 Goudey cards ample amount available.. I don't see that attraction when they can be easily obtained.

Albert

[Jeffrompa]

I also never got the big deal over the Sanella Ruth but maybe someone can explain that one to me .

[glynparson]

The more recent run up on price with freaks and miscuts particularly as related to T206.

[DixieBaseball]

Anything T206 is way overated. The market is abundant with examples. I see Cobb's like fireflies in the sky. Same goes for all the other HOFer's.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Magee may not be famous but he does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If that injustice were ever corrected it would actually make the card underrated.

Tom C

I agree he should be in.

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I have to agree the Wagner card.. Especially since a lot of it's notariety is based on a fraud.. Mastro!

No, the Gretzky Wagner's notoriety is based off of fraud. The demand, and the price the T206 Wagner commands, is based off of rarity, lore, and the fact that the toughest card to acquire from maybe the most famous set ever made is one of the very greatest players to ever step on a baseball field.

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

You can feel whatever you want as far as who you feel is the most important player in the hobby. Jackie Robinson was a tremendous player, and man. I don't think he's the most important, or popular player in the hobby, though.

And missed potential? Mickey Mantle?

Since 1901, 169 players have amassed a WAR (Wins Above Replacement) metric of over 50. Mickey Mantle has the 16th highest WAR of all players in the last 113 years.

I'm not sure how he missed his potential. He had 15 broken bones during his career. He tore up his knee as a rookie (and this was in 1951, long before they had the kind of minimally invasive procedures they can do today). Well, I've torn up my left knee. I've had about 30 broken bones. And I can't get out of bed some days. Mantle not only got out of bed, he hit balls onto the roof of old Yankee Stadium. He won a Triple Crown, and three MVPs. He hit 18 home runs in the World Series, still a record.

The guy didn't miss any of his potential. Could he have 600 home runs if he'd taken a little better care of himself? Maybe. But to say he's the player with the most potential that didn't live up to it is just wrong. I'm sorry. Three MVPs. Three MVP second place finishes. A third place finish. Two fifth place finishes. He played 18 seasons, two of which he played fewer than 100 games. Of those remaining sixteen seasons, nine of them he placed no lower than fifth place in the MVP. He had a .994 OPS for the decade of the 50s. The guy was a megastar.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill James rates Mantle 6th of all time. He points out among other things that he walked a phenomenal amount, and had a career on base percentage of .421.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set View Post
I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.




You can feel whatever you want as far as who you feel is the most important player in the hobby. Jackie Robinson was a tremendous player, and man. I don't think he's the most important, or popular player in the hobby, though.

And missed potential? Mickey Mantle?

Since 1901, 169 players have amassed a WAR (Wins Above Replacement) metric of over 50. Mickey Mantle has the 16th highest WAR of all players in the last 113 years.

I'm not sure how he missed his potential. He had 15 broken bones during his career. He tore up his knee as a rookie (and this was in 1951, long before they had the kind of minimally invasive procedures they can do today). Well, I've torn up my left knee. I've had about 30 broken bones. And I can't get out of bed some days. Mantle not only got out of bed, he hit balls onto the roof of old Yankee Stadium. He won a Triple Crown, and three MVPs. He hit 18 home runs in the World Series, still a record.

The guy didn't miss any of his potential. Could he have 600 home runs if he'd taken a little better care of himself? Maybe. But to say he's the player with the most potential that didn't live up to it is just wrong. I'm sorry. Three MVPs. Three MVP second place finishes. A third place finish. Two fifth place finishes. He played 18 seasons, two of which he played fewer than 100 games. Of those remaining sixteen seasons, nine of them he placed no lower than fifth place in the MVP. He had a .994 OPS for the decade of the 50s. The guy was a megastar.

I just want to add that I never liked Mantle growing up, I wasn't old enough to see his prime, just his last 5 years or so and I thought he was overrated. Looking back, I really think his place in the hobby is deserved. From 1955-64, he should have won 8 MVPs in my opinion. He was the best player in the AL over that period and the Yankees won the pennant every year except 59. Those 10 years stack up against any player in baseball history. Injuries cut his career short by a few years, so his counting stats are lower than they could have been.

As far as Jackie Robinson, I think he (and Aaron) are vastly overrated in regards to baseball and the hobby. Jackie Robinson is one of the most important people in American history for what he did to integrate the game and for civil rights. However, there are only ~8% of players that are black compared to ~28% latin, so to me Roberto Clemente was more important to the game, enduring "double racism."

As far as overrated cards, to me no cards from T206, 33 Goudey or 52 Topps are overrated. Those are the 3 iconic sets in the hobby that any serious collector should collect. As the backbone of the hobby, the demand for those cards justifies the prices.

[Steve D]

Any Denton (Cy) Young card that pictures Irv Young instead of Denton Young.


Steve

[rainier2004]

1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

[iowadoc77]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

[rats60]

Originally Posted by iowadoc77

This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

Just treat it as a 1934 Goudey. It wasn't printed until 1934 and was never issued in packs. 1933 Goudey set contains 239 cards.