Total number of graded 1933 Goudey Ruth #144 Cards

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

My math may be off a tad (did this on my phone)

1922 E120 Ruth: 81 total - 50 PSA, 31 SGC
1922 E121 Ruth Holding Ball: 82 total - 51 PSA, 31 SGC
1922 E122 Ruth: 18 total - 10 PSA, 8 SGC

1921 E121 Ruth (series of 80 all variations): 129 Total- 82 PSA, SGC 49
1921 E220 Ruth: 42 total - 20 PSA, 22 SGC
1921 E253 Ruth Oxford Confectionery: 55 Total - 31 PSA, SGC 24
1921 Exhibits Ruth: 204 Total - 112 PSA, SGC 92

All combined - 611 Total

#144 1933 Goudey Ruth: 2,154 Total-1549 PSA, 607 PSA

Great Information and interesting comparisons and as we discussed from a previous thread the 1921/22 Series is a great series but the Goudey's have the demand that meets the supply. And always easily sellable and desirable. But the upside on the 1921/1922 is probably greater.

All Great Cards

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Great Information and interesting comparisons and as we discussed from a previous thread the 1921/22 Series is a great series but the Goudey's have the demand that meets the supply. And always easily sellable and desirable. But the upside on the 1921/1922 is probably greater.

All Great Cards

How much of that demand for the '33 Goudeys does anyone reckon may still be at least partially due to the old concept that those Goudeys were considered as Ruth's rookie cards? I still remember seeing in some old Beckett price guides that they listed them as his first card issue in a nationally recognized and distributed set, and thus his true rookie card. Despite him already being in his 19th season playing in the majors, and all the different card issues he had been in before then. Used to laugh and roll my eyes whenever I would see that.

[rhettyeakley]

The American Caramel Co was one of the biggest candy manufacturers in the country in the early 1920’s. I have no idea where the idea that Goudey was his first Nationally distributed set came from. Also the M101-5/4 sets were literally for sale (with Sporting News or Blank backs) via mail order to anyone that wanted them.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The American Caramel Co was one of the biggest candy manufacturers in the country in the early 1920’s. I have no idea where the idea that Goudey was his first Nationally distributed set came from. Also the M101-5/4 sets were literally for sale (with Sporting News or Blank backs) via mail order to anyone that wanted them.

Don't disagree at all. But as I said, I thought I remember it was Beckett that at one time characterized Ruth's Goudey card(s) as his rookie card(s). And if memory serves, I thought Beckett's definition of a rookie card had something to do with it being a player's first card issued as a major leaguer in a nationally recognized and distributed set. Here's an online quote I quickly found of Beckett's at least one-time definition for a rookie card.

Quote "Beckett’s official definition of the rookie card (“RC”) states that a “rookie card” must come from a fully-licensed, nationally distributed set that is primarily focused on current professional players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel or redemption card, and players can only have one RC per set." Unquote

https://www.bing.com/search?q=becket...ANNTA1&PC=HCTS

And in fact, as I am typing this, I'm looking at an old April 2012 Beckett Baseball guide I still have, and in the price guide section showing the 1933 Goudey set, every one of the Ruth cards listed has the "RC" designation following the card number and his name. So at least through 2012, Beckett was still listing and claiming Ruth's 1933 Goudey cards were his rookie cards.

So I'll ask once again, how much of that demand for '33 Goudey cards of Ruth may be due to mistaken identification of them as his supposed rookie card(s)?

[FrankWakefield]

I have a raw one, better than Brian's (apology), but not as nice as James'.

[Rhotchkiss]

Bob, I don’t know the answer to your query. But for a long time, the e102 was considered Cobb’s rookie; the hobby no longer considers it as such. I think that mid-designation has given the e102 Cobb a little extra cache

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bob, I don’t know the answer to your query. But for a long time, the e102 was considered Cobb’s rookie; the hobby no longer considers it as such. I think that mid-designation has given the e102 Cobb a little extra cache

Oh, I agree 100% Ryan. It's just that assuming a card of Cobb, only a few years into his career, is his rookie card, is waaaayyyyy less absurd than anyone ever assuming a card of Ruth's in his 19th season in the big leagues, is really his rookie card. Yet Beckett touted that it was his rookie card in their price guide publications for years. And let's face it, those Beckett price guides were a huge factor in the sudden growth and expansion of the baseball card hobby and industry in the 80's-90's, and still through today. I remember that for a lot of people, those Beckett guides were like their Bible, and they believed, followed, and worshipped everything in them. I wouldn't be too surprised to find out there are quite a few people that still to today think the Goudeys are Ruth's rookie cards because of Beckett.

And even though many people eventually learned, discovered, realized that the '33 Goudeys were truly not Ruth's rookie cards, I have to believe a lot of the impact and demand for them from once being considered his rookies still continues and carries over till today. Despite us now knowing better, that perceived value for his Goudey cards has continued and carried on, as illogical as it otherwise really may be.

[refz]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree at all. But as I said, I thought I remember it was Beckett that at one time characterized Ruth's Goudey card(s) as his rookie card(s). And if memory serves, I thought Beckett's definition of a rookie card had something to do with it being a player's first card issued as a major leaguer in a nationally recognized and distributed set. Here's an online quote I quickly found of Beckett's at least one-time definition for a rookie card.

Quote "Beckett’s official definition of the rookie card (“RC”) states that a “rookie card” must come from a fully-licensed, nationally distributed set that is primarily focused on current professional players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel or redemption card, and players can only have one RC per set." Unquote

https://www.bing.com/search?q=becket...ANNTA1&PC=HCTS

And in fact, as I am typing this, I'm looking at an old April 2012 Beckett Baseball guide I still have, and in the price guide section showing the 1933 Goudey set, every one of the Ruth cards listed has the "RC" designation following the card number and his name. So at least through 2012, Beckett was still listing and claiming Ruth's 1933 Goudey cards were his rookie cards.

So I'll ask once again, how much of that demand for '33 Goudey cards of Ruth may be due to mistaken identification of them as his supposed rookie card(s)?

In my honest opinion, I don’t think it’s the rc tag… it’s that damn popular. Take an average joe collector for instance. They will recognize the Goudey over any other issue Ruth period.

[Casey2296]

I don't think any prewar collector worth his/her salt thinks the 33 Ruth is his rookie.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by BobC

So I'll ask once again, how much of that demand for '33 Goudey cards of Ruth may be due to mistaken identification of them as his supposed rookie card(s)?

I think it's very little if any. I'm not sure how much importance anyone who collects pre-war puts on a silly RC next to a name in a guide. Half the '33 Goudey set (or more) is designated as RC in some guides, as you all know, so it's meaningless. I think the colors and artwork are what draw everyone in. They look like what many people imagine when they think of baseball cards. M101's don't to many.

[Leon]

I never get tired of looking at this card and ones like it. As has been said, when I think of a Ruth baseball card, this is what I think of. And let me say again too, the '21 Exhibit is on my short list of cards I am looking to pick up. But another Ruth #144 needs to be had too, to go along with my other 2 favorite (attainable) cards I have 2 of. And the next 144 has to be better than this one. Demand far exceeds supply, whatever that supply number is.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Leon

I never get tired of looking at this card and ones like it. As has been said, when I think of a Ruth baseball card, this is what I think of. And let me say again too, the '21 Exhibit is on my short list of cards I am looking to pick up. But another Ruth #144 needs to be had too, to go along with my other 2 favorite (attainable) cards I have 2 of. And the next 144 has to be better than this one. Demand far exceeds supply, whatever that supply number is.

Beautiful Leon! Why have one when you can have two for twice the price I'll take this opportunity to once again post my 2 (due to stamp on back), which I am very happy with. Color (a.k.a. lack of fading) is #1 for me on this set, above centering, corners, and everything else.

FYI, I crossed this from a PSA 3(MK) last year, so that's at least one less out there than the pop report would suggest, among surely hundreds of others.

[PhillyFan1883]

“”” I think the colors and artwork are what draw everyone in. They look like what many people imagine when they think of baseball cards. M101's don't to many.[/QUOTE]”””


I agree with this point. That said for the life of me I can’t figure out why. All I can attribute to people liking color and more familiar looking cards is just that- They are familiar.. For me I prefer rarity—- and I take the opposite viewpoint that real action poses of a m101s are more of a real “baseball card” than some main stream issues. Mind you I collect goudeys and m101s, so I like both, but I also like to be challenged when building a set. M101s were challenging, Goudeys were not except being patient for a decent looking Lajoie.

[Leon]

I think black and white cards are great and I have plenty but, for me, the colors and classic pose of 144 just can't be beat. When I envision a classic vintage card it hits the ball squarely.

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

“”” I think the colors and artwork are what draw everyone in. They look like what many people imagine when they think of baseball cards. M101's don't to many.


I agree with this point. That said for the life of me I can’t figure out why. All I can attribute to people liking color and more familiar looking cards is just that- They are familiar.. For me I prefer rarity—- and I take the opposite viewpoint that real action poses of a m101s are more of a real “baseball card” than some main stream issues. Mind you I collect goudeys and m101s, so I like both, but I also like to be challenged when building a set. M101s were challenging, Goudeys were not except being patient for a decent looking Lajoie.