SGC has stopped putting Babe Ruth's name on the 1929 Churchman

[brianp-beme]

Here is the Churchman's Babe Ruth (and it is indeed Babe Ruth, no matter what a TPG is willing to put on a label or not, and even if the card manufacturer failed to identify him on front or back). It has been sized suitably for Net54 visual consumption. Seen in its natural, non-TPG'd habitat.

Brian (non-TPG Ruth not mine)

[ullmandds]

ya...this decision is pretty stupid, imho. This photo is well documented and is used atleast on a small handful of ruth issues. TPGing blows!

[raulus]

Welp!

So much for SGC remaining unsullied by new ownership.

[JustinD]

I know I am likely in the minority here, but I agree with PSAs position on this one.

There is no mention of Ruth anywhere, and though I am not denying it is a generic usage of a Ruth photo in the basis for the artwork, it seemed silly to label it as a Babe Ruth card, Adding “Babe Ruth shown” in parentheses may have worked but the labeling as was seemed suspect.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I know I am likely in the minority here, but I agree with PSAs position on this one.

There is no mention of Ruth anywhere, and though I am not denying it is a generic usage of a Ruth photo in the basis for the artwork, it seemed silly to label it as a Babe Ruth card, Adding “Babe Ruth shown” in parentheses may have worked but the labeling as was seemed suspect.

Is the 1929 Shonen Ruth image also suspect in your opinion?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Is the 1929 Shonen Ruth image also suspect in your opinion?

Why would it not be called a Ruth? The text on the Shonen says -

“The moment that Babe Ruth, hailed as the world home run king, swings his bat with all his might. It looks like the ball quickly flew over the fence for a home run, as the catcher and umpire look up and the Babe’s face beams with pleasure. The fans packed in the stands watch awestruck”

My issue with the Churchman is not the image, it’s that is says Ruth nowhere. It would not belong labeled as a Babe Ruth card. It would be the same as labeling any card with another player in the image as that player. It needs to be specified as the player in my mind.

[brianp-beme]

I am positive that the player is Ty Cobb in both the Tom Barker and National Game cards that use this image. I think it is more than acceptable to have "(Cobb)" noted on this TPG label, and in my opinion something similar (but with Ruth's name) should be totally appropriate for the Churchman's baseball card.

Brian (not my sliding Cobb card...mine wears no plasticized sliding gear)

[jayshum]

Do they mention Joe Jackson on the flip of the T202 that most people agree he is pictured on even though he is not mentioned anywhere on the card?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I am positive that the player is Ty Cobb in both the Tom Barker and National Game cards that use this image. I think it is more than acceptable to have "(Cobb)" noted on this TPG label, and in my opinion something similar (but with Ruth's name) should be totally appropriate for the Churchman's baseball card.

Brian (not my sliding Cobb card...mine wears no plasticized sliding gear)

I can basically agree and that is why I said it could be an acceptable option in my original post when identification is rock solid. The catch is that I don't believe that PSA will do that again, nor after the acquisition of SGC will it be done in the future there.

I think the argument both for and against with PSA lies most recently with the 1917 Youth's Companion Stamp. The misidentification has been a pure disaster as sellers still live and die by the Ruth flips on these and will adamantly refuse to change a listing and pointing it out will usually get you blocked. However, instead of taking the road of just generically grading as the stamp series like SGC did for years, PSA now checklists it as Rube Marquard.

While that is most likely the correct identification, it sets a precedent of again adding additional unlabeled identification likely chosen to overcompensate for the previous mistake. This action by PSA creates a six in one hand, half dozen in the other discussion on should they add names to unlabeled items. I think in the future they will likely be taking the safe route to avoid more black eyes.

They also made the same mistake with the 1935-36 Muratti for years which also still surfaces with the same seller nonsense. Ruth has been removed and it is now check listed simply as Dorothy Poynton, but the mistake lives on. That single card accounts for one-third of the graded cards in that set for the reason it was mislabeled for years. I just have to lean toward playing it safe as the best course of action in my mind because some of these rash guesses with other card issues have cost people real money.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Why would it not be called a Ruth? The text on the Shonen says -

“The moment that Babe Ruth, hailed as the world home run king, swings his bat with all his might. It looks like the ball quickly flew over the fence for a home run, as the catcher and umpire look up and the Babe’s face beams with pleasure. The fans packed in the stands watch awestruck”

My issue with the Churchman is not the image, it’s that is says Ruth nowhere. It would not belong labeled as a Babe Ruth card. It would be the same as labeling any card with another player in the image as that player. It needs to be specified as the player in my mind.

Do you also take issue with the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words"?

[Snowman]

My primary issue with them not putting his name on the flip is that the grading companies provide a service to the hobby, but the hobby belongs to the collectors. They shouldn't be the ones making the rules that govern the hobby. The collectors should be the ones that set the standards, and the grading companies should follow precedent. Every single buyer and seller of this card who knows what it is would expect it to be sold as a Babe Ruth card. It's not as if the image is in question or ambiguous in some way. Identifying it as such simply aligns with the market.

The other issue I have is that when cards like this get passed on to someone's next of kin after passing away, it creates the potential for them to get ripped off by a dishonest buyer.