1933 Goudey Ruth #144 or 1921 Exhibit Ruth?

[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?

[JeremyW]

Just a guess, but people will realize the scarcity?

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by 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?

For almost every card throughout time, the older the card for a player the more valuable/desirable it tends to be with a few notable exceptions. In time as more modern collectors venture into the pre war era, or new collectors enter, the early Ruth card automatically has that advantage of being an early playing days card.

The fact that it is more rare, if ten new serious buyers venture into the market searching for the 1921 Ruth and 10 new buyers enter searching for the 1933 Goudey...it has greater potential for bidding wars on the scarcer card since there are much less opportunities to buy one.

The same can be said of Ruth's 1920's caramel cards. More rare and early playing days.

As for Spahn, Collins, Musial etc...preferences change. Soon there will be nobody left on earth who actually saw any of them play or formed any personal connection to them to make them want to buy their cards(popularity). So the 'trend' of owning Mickey Mantle above everyone else will lose its luster as some point, especially with the trend toward baseball statistical evaluations that paint a more accurate picture of how good everyone in history actually was(not that Mantle was not elite, just that his card prices above Mays/Aaron don't reflect that Mays and Aaron actually had better careers, not just peak years).

In the year 2050, collectors wanting the best players of a generation may very well look a stat like WAR( which will be mainstream by then), and see that Eddie Collins is the tenth best of all time, and that may hold a lot of weight as to who they should buy.

Or in short, preferences simply change over time, so if you are holding the rarer item and there is any type of increase in demand, then you are holding the lottery ticket.

[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.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by tkd

1917 Ruth all the way in a 1.5
Red Sox Ruth cards are awesome and extremely low quantity compared to Yankees Ruth's

So to me, the arguments for the 1917 Ruth over #144 are exactly the same as the 1921 Exhibits Ruth over the #144, albeit the 1917 arguments are more compelling. At the end of the day, the reasons the 1917 is a no brainer vs #144 are (i) red sox, (ii) super early, and (iii) scarcity. The 1921 Exhibits is not red sox, but it is very very early yankees, its not 1917 but 1921 is much earlier in Ruth's career than 1933, and 1921 Exhibits is not as scarce as 1917 but certainly much more scarce that #144. Anyway, maybe none of that makes sense - I would still take the 1921 Exhibits over the #144.

And, I would take a 1917 PSA (or SGC) 1.5 over a #144 PSA 7. That said, a PSA 7 #144 is one hell of a card to own.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by tkd

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.

+1 Agreed

I would go for the 1917 Red Sox Ruth Over the Goudey Ruth. I am biased since I do have a 1917 Ruth and someday hope to get the 1933 Cards but still working on the early era cards first.

But Ruth of any card or PC is fantastic but the Rarity of the Red Sox Era, both in quantity of cards but also in the low number of types of cards for Ruth(especially since played short time there compared to Yankees)

[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...