The 1935 Babe Ruth Goudey card that never was

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bigtrain

Let's say that in 1990, at the time of the SCD article, Julia Ruth Stevens,
then a mere 74 years old was asked about this piece. Why would she
remember anything about the circumstances involving a photo from 56 years earlier? Why would this stick in the memory of Babe's 18 year old daughter?
I have no idea whether this piece is legitimate. However, I don't think Ms. Steven's certificate adds much to the proofs.

I tend to agree with this sentiment on the JRS document...then again if this DID happen and she were highly aware of her dads escapades...it's a story you'd remember.

Obviously when any of us own a piece we want it to be rare...and valuable...because we own it! I think we're all guilty of that phenomenon. Are there any other "proof" 35 goudeys that appear similar to this? I have not been able to find a comparable. It'd be great if you could get a high res scan of it so we could see more of the detail of the alterations.

The crux was to show off your piece...it's a cool piece...and the fact it raises a lot of questions makes it a lot more interesting than "look at my new t206!"

I am not super familiar with the 35 premiums. Are most of the poses shared with 33 goudey poses?

[packs]

I don't think this premium is particularly valuable or desirable regardless of the content of the letters that come with it. The photo was used on previous cards, the premium set isn't widely collected, and the caption is in the wrong color.

Adding to the contradiction is that the photo used on Ruth's 1935 Goudey Four in One card is a photo of Ruth as a Yankee despite saying Braves under his name. Why would they not issue a card of Ruth because he retired from the Yankees for the premium set only? It is also the same exact photo used for the 1934 premium.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think this premium is particularly valuable or desirable regardless of the content of the letters that come with it. The photo was used on previous cards, the premium set isn't widely collected, and the caption is in the wrong color.

Adding to the contradiction is that the photo used on Ruth's 1935 Goudey Four in One card is a photo of Ruth as a Yankee despite saying Braves under his name. Why would they not issue a card of Ruth because he retired from the Yankees for the premium set only? It is also the same exact photo used for the 1934 premium.

This is not a premium, this is a proof photo for the premium that was never made. I disagree that people do not collect premiums and they arent worth anything; popularity has been increasing along with postcards... Check out the auction realizations for 1934/1935 premiums. That's neither here nor there...

The photo was used for previous cards, as this picture was the 1927 year he batted 60 HRs; it was a widely recognized picture of Ruth. But this is not just a picture, the one below the proof is. Per the photography expert opinion letter,. this work was done in the 30's in anticipation of the photo being used for printing procedures. This involves literally hours and hours of painstaking labor....The old world craftmanship is simply not done today and hasnt been done since the 50's...The hours of labor involved leads me to believe that the work was definitely done so the photo could be used for a baseball card or premium card."

Regarding the caption not being the right color; the proof wasnt used. So likely didnt finish. But it's the exact same font used for the premiums, as provided by the other letter.

And on the 4 in one, they did an airbrush over the cap and it was a closeup. The Goudey premiums were action and body shots, as this proof. They could get away with a crammed 4/1 card, not a body shot. And the 1934 Ruth premium had him in Yankee pinstripes when he was a Yankee. Why would they not issue a card, perhaps they didnt have a Braves body shot of him, would would definitely make sense based on the 4 in 1 you refer to. Because, he was in a "painted" braves cap right?

[joshuanip]

Also, attached is an article from the San Francisco Examiner from 5/5/90 providing some backstory.

Why the photo was reused in Goudey's cards, and that this proof went up on Goudey's office walls after the card was shelved.

Any case, its really cool for something that should have been Babe's last card in his playing days.

SFE top.jpg

SFE bottom.jpg

[joshuanip]

And a better post of the sports collectors digest article. I am beating a dead horse, but I find myself defending this really cool piece of history. I guess if the back story, articles, 2 expert letters, a statement from Ruth's daughter is not enough, I don't know what to say.

SCD better.jpg

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I have no dog in this fight, but citing articles where the owner is the primary source is just a feedback loop.

I think it's cool regardless of what it is, but obviously you were hoping for SOME form of validation posting it here, even if it was just to hear that others appreciated it. If you've been on these boards, even as a lurker, for any amount of time you should realize that people are going to ask tough, knowledgeable questions BECAUSE of their interest in a cool piece such as this one.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I have no dog in this fight, but citing articles where the owner is the primary source is just a feedback loop.

I think it's cool regardless of what it is, but obviously you were hoping for SOME form of validation posting it here, even if it was just to hear that others appreciated it. If you've been on these boards, even as a lurker, for any amount of time you should realize that people are going to ask tough, knowledgeable questions BECAUSE of their interest in a cool piece such as this one.

Thanks for your comments. You're right about the circular loop, that's the closest to the source I have on the origin story. But in totality all the pieces "fit". Problem is its a really complicated story with several steps, so its easy to take one piece of it, take it out of context and cascade it into a reason to refute it.

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I tend to agree with this sentiment on the JRS document...then again if this DID happen and she were highly aware of her dads escapades...it's a story you'd remember.

Obviously when any of us own a piece we want it to be rare...and valuable...because we own it! I think we're all guilty of that phenomenon. Are there any other "proof" 35 goudeys that appear similar to this? I have not been able to find a comparable. It'd be great if you could get a high res scan of it so we could see more of the detail of the alterations.

The crux was to show off your piece...it's a cool piece...and the fact it raises a lot of questions makes it a lot more interesting than "look at my new t206!"

I am not super familiar with the 35 premiums. Are most of the poses shared with 33 goudey poses?

Thanks Pete... Google R309-2 if you care, that's the catalog for the 35 premiums.