REA -- What Did you Get?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by griffon512

I can confirm that Peter is a very reasonable buyer on the BST board and will pay strong if the card warrants it. However, using a Spaceballs analogy, he will not go up to "ludicrous speed!" I can not say the same for whoever spent $50k more on a Mantle Dice Game card than a decent Ruth rookie, but maybe I just don't get it.

Hundreds of Ruth rookies (with different backs, of course), and ONE Topps Dice Game Mantle graded. And Mantle has been keeping close company with Ruth, a phenomena which those of us who also study sabermetric analysis (primarily under Professor Bill James, though not excluding other authors) will not disagree with.

Highest regards,

Larry

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hundreds of Ruth rookies (with different backs, of course), and ONE Topps Dice Game Mantle graded. And Mantle has been keeping close company with Ruth, a phenomena which those of us who also study sabermetric analysis (primarily under Professor Bill James, though not excluding other authors) will not disagree with.

Highest regards,

Larry

I don’t think there are hundreds of Ruth’s rookies. 71 graded by PSA and 41 graded by SGC. There are probably as much if not more resubmission than there are raw. Not exactly hundreds. There are 1235 52 Topps mantles graded by PSA alone, which is 10x the amount of total graded Ruth rookies (all backs).

[CW]

Wow, super nice proof, Michael. I didn't even see that one in the auction.

[tlwise12]

I won the 1923-24 Thomas Gutierrez album and could not be happier! These usually got for quite a bit more. Condition is not the best, but who really cares when you have something this awesome.

[oldjudge]

Great pick up Travis. Congratulations!

[aljurgela]

Originally Posted by tlwise12

I won the 1923-24 Thomas Gutierrez album and could not be happier! These usually got for quite a bit more. Condition is not the best, but who really cares when you have something this awesome.

Well done Travis! Well Done! I think that you will love that when it is in hand!

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Hundreds of Ruth rookies (with different backs, of course), and ONE Topps Dice Game Mantle graded. And Mantle has been keeping close company with Ruth, a phenomena which those of us who also study sabermetric analysis (primarily under Professor Bill James, though not excluding other authors) will not disagree with.

Highest regards,

Larry

Larry-Time to recount. If you ignore Sporting News ad backs(they are not broken out from blank backs), there have been 35 Ruth rookies graded, across all ad backs.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Larry-Time to recount. If you ignore Sporting News ad backs(they are not broken out from blank backs), there have been 35 Ruth rookies graded, across all ad backs.

oldjudge - Can you explain a little more? I know that the Sporting Life backs only come in the latter M101-4 series, but do you only consider the blank back Ruths rookie cards, or are there other backs?

The peculiarities of the different backs is very confusing to me.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

oldjudge - Can you explain a little more? I know that the Sporting Life backs only come in the latter M101-4 series, but do you only consider the blank back Ruths rookie cards, or are there other backs?

The peculiarities of the different backs is very confusing to me.

FYI, while the timing of their release during the 1916 Calendar Year varies and remains somewhat ambiguous, all 1916 Ruth cards (blank or ad back) are considered his rookie card. Also, many collectors believe the M101-5 related issues (e.g., Famous & Barr/M101-5 blank backs) to be among the earliest released issues. A moot point because a “Rookie card” designation is typically ANY cardboard issue released during the entire calendar year (not predicated on which month during the year the card was issued).

[Rhotchkiss]

Michael, seems the Board is happy with your decision to ignore my advice to pick up that Magie error SGC 30, instead of the proof. So if you cant beat'em, join'em. Great proof!! I guess I gotta get me a proof one of these days.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I understand Larry's point about relative scarcity, but to me even if it's 100 or more a Ruth rookie card is still a much bigger deal than a 1/1 60s Mantle issue. Mantle -- great player, all the more so because of the perfect storm that made him an icon. But Ruth is on another level, and it's prewar. It's all a subjective judgment though.

[GregMitch34]

Happy that members here got my Ruth Premium and my beloved Allegeny.

[MVSNYC]

Thanks guys.

Ryan- ha, was easy to choose the proof over the Magie, since it was less than half the price!

(Jay/T206Kid)- nice pick up on the SGC 10 Magie, that was in my crosshairs too. Glad you got it.

[conor912]

If whoever won the Diamond Stars set would like to sell any Hi #s, please let me know.

[Nonsensename1]

I have no confidence the pictures will work - but I also didn't think I'd win either of these so who knows....

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

FYI, while the timing of their release during the 1916 Calendar Year varies and remains somewhat ambiguous, all 1916 Ruth cards (blank or ad back) are considered his rookie card. Also, many collectors believe the M101-5 related issues (e.g., Famous & Barr/M101-5 blank backs) to be among the earliest released issues. A moot point because a “Rookie card” designation is typically ANY cardboard issue released during the entire calendar year (not predicated on which month during the year the card was issued).

Vintageclout: Thanks for that info. All things being equal though, I would prefer to have the M101-5 version of Ruth over the M101-4 just for the simple fact that it was produced earlier in the year.

So, besides the blank back, Famous & Barr and Standard Biscuit versions, are there any other Ruths that are generally considered to be from the earlier "M101-5" series?

[pgconboy]

I just got my cards from the last REA auction and unfortunately got shorted like I feared.

I won this auction: https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...=MyBids-101116

It said 14 cards, and listed 14 cards in the description. However the photo only showed 13. On the paperwork with the check I mailed I wrote and circled/underlined for them to verify that they are sending 14 cards.

Sure enough, 13 showed up in the mail today. Missing the Lord, PSA 6.

[oldjudge]

That was a Heritage auction, not REA

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Vintageclout - Thanks for that info. All things being equal though, I would prefer to have the M101-5 version of Ruth over the M101-4 just for the simple fact that it was produced earlier in the year. I understand that they may both be considered his "Rookie card," but I would still prefer to have the earlier one, especially because they seem to be more scarce.

So, besides the blank back, Famous & Barr and Standard Biscuit versions, are there any other Ruths that are generally considered to be from the earlier "M101-5" series?

Hobby research has revealed that the extremely scarce “Holmes to Homes” and “Morehouse Baking” issues can also be M101-5. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no 1916 Ruth rookies are currently known with these ad backs.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hobby research has revealed that the extremely scarce “Holmes to Homes” and “Morehouse Baking” issues can also be M101-5. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no 1916 Ruth rookies are currently known with these ad backs.

Successful Farming is also m101-5, although no Ruths have been confirmed. Be careful with either Standard Biscuit and Morehouse if you insist on trying to land an m101-5, as those advertisers also issued cards parallel to m101-4.