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

[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.

[wondo]

I always thought the picture more resembled a left-handed Hack Wilson.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

while I agree with your other examples being mislabeled...this particular image of ruth is well documented.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

while I agree with your other examples being mislabeled...this particular image of Ruth is well documented.

It is of course based on a photo of Ruth and that can be easily documented, but was it ever meant to be a Ruth card is the question. The Shonen is a colorized photo of the play and has a full description of Ruth in text and is an unquestionable Ruth card.

The Churchman card has a baseball depiction and historical description of the game of baseball. It took a very popular photo of the time likely seen worldwide of a baseball game, and in a somewhat neutering fashion modified the depiction slightly changing the field and features. Was the intent ever to be a Ruth card, or to utilize a common current photo and use it cost free to fill your sport set? Was the reasoning lack of knowledge, avoiding permission of use or fees? It is impossible to dig into these questions now as anyone involved is well gone. Unfortunately, it falls into conjecture for every side.

When things are completely unknown as to reason, generality is a safe bet and the interpretation can be in the purchasers eye. I know that every owner of this card wants Ruth on the flip for value or to maintain investment. A Churchman set collector may just call this a card depicting baseball and see it only as such. The market can easily decide the value flip or not, much like the T202 which as mentioned prior is most often advertised as having a middle panel of Jackson.

I want to add again, that these are my thoughts and opinions and not meant to undermine anyone else's. I am biased because I have never considered this a true Ruth card, and simply a card depicting the game of Baseball to a foreign audience that may not fully understand the game with a common photo and speak as such. Others will certainly have differing opinions just or more valuable.

[brianp-beme]

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[Leon]

Well said! (I think)

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

You make some great points Justin, but I always take the perspective of the tight budget collector that dislikes the sway TPG's have in our hobby. To me, I prefer my cards without that thick plastic casing, but if it has been so enclosed, I don't care what has been put on the label, as long as it is accurate. Putting Ruth in parenthesis for this particular card in my eyes is the perfect solution. For many collectors with narrow, shallow wallets (reminds me, must go out and buy a deeper, more accommodating wallet. Maybe that is why I am so poor...money I have doesn't fit in my existing wallet, so I feel the need to spend what I do have before I lose it), a not identified Ruth that depicts him in a visually accurate manner is just the ticket.

Brian (don't have this card...it is on my long term wishlist. And if you all haven't noticed, I really like parenthesis)

[D. Bergin]

I understand where Justin is coming from, and of course many collectors and the grading companies have been duped with false narratives and information in the past, so the prevailing opinion is "better safe then sorry" I guess.

If there is overwhelming consensus, I don't think it should hurt adding an addendum as has already been suggested and has prior precedence such as "shows Ruth".

It's funny, it wasn't that long ago when most collectors didn't give two hoots about this card. In the late 90's this was considered a fairly common set overseas, and you could pick up the whole set in top condition for a fraction of what a VG Ruth goes for nowadays. I even ordered a few of the "Ruth" cards from the London Cigarette Card Company for the price of a common.

I thought I was super clever and would unleash it on to the collecting public as an affordable and rare "Ruth" card. Joke was on me. I probably sold them for less then what a Joey Gallo Xfractor card goes for nowadays.

[D. Bergin]

Now, here's an example from PSA I wish somebody could explain to me.

I have a whole set of these graded by PSA. All the exact same way. They only identify the guy on the back of the cards (the subject the playing card set was named for)...but the front of the cards are identified by their playing card designation only.

If you look at the cards closely, each subject is identified pretty clearly. This ain't no guessing game here.

I don't know if PSA has changed their policy on this set since...but it is pretty annoying either way.

In the PSA registry, the Tom Sharkey card is simply identified as "King Of Spades".

If PSA can't put names to these cards...I don't see how they could possibly put a name on the Churchman Ruth card.