babe ruth m101-5 blank back $294,000

[uniship]

I agree I think the population is less than 100. That's not much more than the honus Wagner. And it's a tiny fraction of mantle.

And it's widely considered to be THE Babe Ruth rookie card. The card has tons of upside in my opinion.

Owning a Wagner puts you in an elite exclusive collectors fraternity. Same thing for a "babe Ruth rookie".

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by uniship

I agree I think the population is less than 100. That's not much more than the honus Wagner. And it's a tiny fraction of mantle.

And it's widely considered to be THE Babe Ruth rookie card. The card has tons of upside in my opinion.

Owning a Wagner puts you in an elite exclusive collectors fraternity. Same thing for a "babe Ruth rookie".

I totally agree my friend!

[oldjudge]

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

Sorry Jay but rookie card status in this hobby does NOT distinguish between early vs. LATER issued cards within the SAME calendar year. M101-4 s were also issued in 1916... they are likewise Ruth rookies.

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Sorry Jay but rookie card status in this hobby does NOT distinguish between early vs. LATER issued cards within the SAME calendar year. M101-4 s were also issued in 1916... they are likewise Ruth rookies.

+1

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

And by the way, the only Ruth rookie is the M101-5s. M101-4s were issued after.

Jay, since Ruth is the one of the few players who has the same number in both sets, how do you know if you definitively have an M101-5?

[oldjudge]

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

[Baseball Rarities]

Jay - thanks for the explanation. Which of the backs can only be found in the M101-5 series?

[pokerplyr80]

I'd have to say I agree that a rookie card can be issued any time during the year, especially with how many sets are available today. Otherwise everyone would launch a product Jan 1st to be the one true rc. There are players with cards in both 48 bowman and leaf sets that are considered rookies in each. I doubt they were released the same day. I'm personally trying to obtain one of every of Ken Griffey Jr's rookie cards. I couldn't care less which was issued earlier in the year.

[oldjudge]

Kevin: Holmes to Homes, Successful Farming, and for card numbers post 20 (like the Ruth) Famous and Barr. If you haven't read it, Todd and Tim's seminal article in Old Cardboard it is a must.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card. Point to the 1949 Leaf set. We know the cards have stats from 1948, collectors have said they bought the cards in 1949 and hobby publications from the time say they were released in 1949. That doesn't stop people from calling the 1949 Leaf Stan Musial his rookie. So, how can one know about cards three decades earlier?

As far as calling all cards released in the same calendar year rookies, that is not true. That would mean the 1985 Donruss Don Mattingly is a rc too, as those cards were first released in December 1984. At least there is consensus that it is not. On the Ruth, there is no agreement and probably never will be.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card.

No, there are not a lot of people who believe the m101-4/5 Ruth is not his rookie card. There is you and virtually no one else. I asked you, more than once when you started this nonsense a couple of years ago, to tell us what you believe Ruth's rookie card to be---silence. Crickets. Nada.

Many could at least understand if you chose the Baltimore News card, but we both know you can't/won't go there. Come on, put it out there. I'm waiting for the Peter Chao answer of 1933 Goudey.