1933 Goudey Ruth #144 or 1921 Exhibit Ruth?

[jingram058]

I like them both, but I have the 144. It wasn't an investment when I bought it, and it isn't now either. I bought it because I liked it. That hasn't changed either.

[oldjudge]

I think the Goudey Ruth’s are ugly and overpriced and I love that exhibit

[Leon]

I have always thought it's the classic vintage baseball card. Since I got back into the hobby, as an adult, it's probably been my favorite (attainable) card.

[Rhotchkiss]

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

[Aaron Seefeldt]

1921 Exhibit. Not. Even. Close.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

Kind of dramatic today, Ryan? LOL

I generally gravitate to rarity .... But to me, if we are talking aesthetics (maybe we aren't) then the Goudey is light years ahead. Remember black and white tv?
.

[tkd]

For those choosing the 21 exhibit I get what you mean. It has a lot going for it. If the op mentioned green or red Goudey Ruth I would absolutely go with the 21 exhibit. I look at the Goudey Ruth #144 as Ruth's single most recognized, iconic card. Kinda like the 52 topps Mantle.

[JeremyW]

I would bet that, to the untrained eye, the Goudey is more popular.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by tkd

I look at the Goudey Ruth #144 as Ruth's single most recognized, iconic card. Kinda like the 52 topps Mantle.

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Absent an unusual find or someone letting go of a hoard, the relative quantities of these cards is going to remain the same in the future. So why is it that in the future, rarity is going to dictate value more than it already does?

It reminds me of those endless posts about how Musial and Eddie Collins and Spahn are undervalued, and SOMEDAY, the market is going to value them correctly. Why?

[tkd]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

1917 Ruth all the way in a 1.5
Red Sox Ruth cards are awesome and extremely low quantity compared to Yankees Ruth's
As for the 21 exhibit I truly think it could pop in value kinda like 21 American Caramel did.

[Leon]

I was 3rd under bidder, I believe, in the MH auction on a really nice Goudey 144 in a 7. I think it went for around 165k after BP.

I think the '21 Exhibit is a great card too. I will have one someday and have bid on many. Classic also...

The 1917 Ruth cards are awesome. I wish I could afford one.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Agreed! As you mention, that is the exact reason the 52 Topps Mantle, 2nd year, is more valuable than the 51 Mantle. As far as which card and pose is more iconic (1921 Exhibits vs #144), #144 wins all day every day. But if I had to choose which to buy with $X right now, I am taking the Exhibits Ruth, no question.

Here is an interesting question: #144 Goudey Ruth is likely more iconic a card and pose than the 1917 Ruth throwing cards. Would you rather spend $100k on a 1933 #144 Goudey Ruth (probably in a 7) or $100k on a 1917 Ruth (probably in a 1.5)?

Leon, its been a long day.... (long week actually)!

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Without question I would go with the 1921 Exhibit over the 1933Goudey. First, the Exhibit is much earlier in Ruth's career and one of Ruth's first Yankee cards. Second, the Exhibit is much more rare. Third, the pose is very unique, as I cannot think of many (if any) other Ruth cards of him fielding. Fourth, I think the jump in Goudey prices has outsized growth in the Exhibits (which has certainly done well). That, together with rarity means (I think) there is more upside potential in Exhibits and less downside risk.

Ruth is the gold standard in cards and I don't think either is incorrect. But if I hade $X and the chance to buy either the 1921 Exhibits or the 1933 Goudey, I would, without hesitation and with full conviction, walk away with the 1921 Exhibits

There is a fielding pose of Ruth in the Fro Joy series. Not as nice as the '21 Exhibit, which is my choice, but interesting and different.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Yoda

There is a fielding pose of Ruth in the Fro Joy series. Not as nice as the '21 Exhibit, which is my choice, but interesting and different.

wow different fielding pose and i never knew or realized that card.

Interesting 1928 Fro-Joy

[RCMcKenzie]

I had to look up the Ruth postcard to see what it was. When I saw the two for sale on ebay, I recognized the image, but I hadn't known what it was called until yesterday. I've known about the Goudey since about 1974. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Jstottlemire1]

Bump for more feedback and opinions. This is a great thread.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Jstottlemire1

Bump for more feedback and opinions. This is a great thread.

I never shared my opinion on the original thread, but was firmly in the Goudey camp. While I still think you'll never go wrong with a Babe Ruth Goudey card, I've really come a long way to appreciate the 1921 Exhibits. It's a spectacular image that I haven't seen on another card (if I'm wrong about this, someone will correct me).

In my humble opinion, Exhibits are one of the few great buying opportunities in the current vintage market. There are some fantastic photos, at a fraction of the price of other contemporary cards, and a fraction of the population. All I need to do is find one...