Babe Ruth Rookie

[DennyH]

Hello everyone I am new to board but a collector from the 80's before the market crashed and slowly working on a pre war collection.

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I would love to purchase his true rookie and Beckett claims the Goudey is his rookie and just wanted the thoughts of this board.

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

[CW]

In my opinion, this is debatable and you won't get 100% consensus in the hobby any time soon. An argument can be made for Baltimore News, but some think it's more of a schedule than a "baseball card". These days it seems like many collectors are leaning towards the M101 as Ruth's "rookie card".

Much like Cobb, nobody is in 100% agreement for that player's rookie card, and I'm not sure we all have to agree, necessarily (especially with prewar players).

[DennyH]

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by DennyH

I feel the Baltimore news is out of reach for the ordinary person but the Sporting news is still obtainable. Does anyone know where to find a low grade Sporting news Ruth even an Authentic grade. I have been watching ebay and other auctions and it seems like the Goudey is readily available but the other two are much harder to find especially the Baltimore news.

Thoughts?

Denny,
When you say that the Sporting News is obtainable.........that is simply untrue unless of course by obtainable you mean "incredibly rare and unaffordable".
Back in 2011, the worst conditioned PSA graded Sporting News Ruth sold for $15,275. It was a PSA 1. There are only 2 PSA 1s in existence (to date) and there are only 2 slabbed PSA Authentic examples. If those 2 Authentic examples came to light, my guess is they would bring north of $10,000 each but do not hold your breath. If you want an "affordable" Ruth, I'd stick with the 1933 Goudeys where the unwritten rule is about a grand for each PSA grade (for the lower grades under 5) so if you find a PSA 3 (1933 Goudey Ruth) you might expect to pay around $3000 for that copy. For a PSA 2, 2 grand, etc....

The early Ruth cards are like Gold right now so unless you make the find of the century, you will need a LARGE bankroll to obtain one.

Peace, Mike

PS I did not check the SGC pop report for Ruth Sporting News but I think my point is pretty self explanatory.

[kailes2872]

There are two in the current Heritage Auction.

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7135-80965.s

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/19...a/7135-80966.s

70 grand for the 5 (+ BP), 34 grand for the 4 (+BP) with 2 weeks left. I guess attainable is a relative term - much more attainable than a Wagner, but well outside of my pay grade.

[vthobby]

Kevin,
We must have been typing at the same time with the same "obtainable" word kicking around in our heads!

Peace, Mike

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74

There is some debate over his true RC but I can assure you his 1933 Goudey is not it.

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in. The 1916 M101-4 and 101-5 are his actual major league rookies, while his 1914 Blatimore News is considered his first card. The latter is actually a schedule card for the then minor league Baltimore Orioles, used to promote both the Orioles and circulation of the local Baltimore paper. By 1933, the Babe was 38 years old, most certainly not a rookie, and beginning to fade quite quickly (34 homers; .301, purely by recollection, with just 22 HR's and .288 his next and last year with the Yankees).

I'm sure other members have said the same thing, but just saw the original post and wanted to get my two cents ($1.25???) in. Unfortunately for most, the time for purchasing the real Ruth rookie for any semblance of an affordable price was in the early '90's, when prices varied from around $2,000 for a legitimate VG example to $5,000 plus for EXMT or better (one graded "Fair" recently sold for $36,000, if I recall correctly, in the most recent REA auction). IMHO, any contemporary Ruth is likely to rise in value--you may want to check out the 1921 Exhibit, which is somewhat available (though not abundant) as one that is reasonably priced. That year also represented the Babe's best performance (again, by recollection only, .378 or .376 BA; 59 HR's; 44 Doubles; 16 Triples, for a record 119 extra base hits). It was also the year of the Yankees' first pennant).

Enjoy any Ruth issued contemporaneously with his playing days that you can find, in the best condition you can afford.

Best of luck,

Larry

PS: The only market that "crashed" in the early '90's was the new card market, which had been based primarily upon speculation and transient demand.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

How Beckett could even come to that nonsensical conclusion demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge over the very same hobby it purports to play a significant part in.

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

[nolemmings]

What are promotional cards?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

Like I said, it's not my logic. I tried to go out of my way to say that, actually. I simply gave Beckett's rationale, which is what I've heard echoed over the years numerous times when this subject has come up elsewhere.

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back). (Edited to add in addition to the blank backs, obviously)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Someone else can correct me if I've got any of this wrong, but Beckett's Rookie Card designation has always been given to cards they consider the first mainstream card of that player. The Sporting News cards were promotional cards while the Goudey cards were not. Even though they were issued well after his career started, they're often considered rookies because of that.

What I've never understood is the logic used in the case of the Ruth Sporting News card doesn't generally hold true when compared to other players. For example, Stan Musial has pre-1948 major league cards such as the 1947 Bond Bread version. Yet if you talk to most 100 people, 95 will consider his 1948 Bowman his rookie card. If the Sporting News card is Ruth's true rookie card, then there are a slew of key cards for other players that have been long recognized as rookies that really aren't.

I don't have a preference for one over the other, and to me, it doesn't really matter. But there's no industry consistency to these sorts of things.

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I can see that. And I think the many years off from the beginning of Ruth's career to the Goudey cards are a big problem when trying to justify them as rookie cards. His is a special case for sure.

I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The true Ruth RC............

[ALR-bishop]

Book it.

[Enfuego]

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Enfuego

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

I'm guessing he is a long time subscriber to SCD!

[Peter_Spaeth]

1948 Leaf, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Funny, I owned probably one of the earliest versions of that Babe baby photo. A single original probably remains tucked away in a family photo album somewhere. Mine was produced around 1920, over 20 years later but still at a pretty early stage of the Babe's career. You would think it would have some value to it but when it came time to sell, I couldn't even get $100, I think I ended up letting it go for something like $60 and it was encapsulated by Beckett, which cost money as well. Guess I was the only one that thought it was pretty cool..............

[Peter_Spaeth]

The rookie card craze does, or did, go too far -- 1992 Bowmans of guys in street clothes.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The rookie card craze does, or did, go too far -- 1992 Bowmans of guys in street clothes.

Players in street clothes aren't necessarily limited to modern cards. Here's one from pre-war (not mine, obviously).

[bcbgcbrcb]

C'mon, Gary, don't be embarrassed to show off one of your lesser cards.........

[Bicem]

So it that Matty's rookie, or is the 1902 W600 that shares the same image?

My vote would be w600.

[CW]

There are no words to describe the coolness of that Mathewson card. Just pure cool.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Gary, don't be embarrassed to show off one of your lesser cards.........

Hi Phil, I think you're mistaking me for Wonka...

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by DennyH

Hello everyone I am new to board but a collector from the 80's before the market crashed and slowly working on a pre war collection.

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I would love to purchase his true rookie and Beckett claims the Goudey is his rookie and just wanted the thoughts of this board.

There is minimal debate. Ruth’s 1916 M101 IS his TRUE rookie card. The 1914 Baltimore News card was issued as a minor league card/schedule with Ruth donning his Baltimore uniform; therefore, a “pre-Rookie” minor league issue. As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform. However, while an extremely significant issue (and costly I might add), many collectors disregard that as a true Rookie card because it is a full team image. Bottom line is the 1916 M101 Ruth is his first mainstream card issued with him ALONE and wearing a Boston MLB uniform, thus his “true” rookie card.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Please forgive me if this has been answered already in this thread (I haven't read through the entire thing yet), but why does Beckett call the 1933 Goudey a rookie card when it is so much later than so many other issues?

Thanks, and again, sorry if this has been addressed already.

[joshuanip]

I’m biased but it’s the m101 issue. First featured card of him as a professional. Not going to chime in on the postcard as I’m not a postcard guy. Let market demand decide that.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by joshuanip

I’m biased but it’s the m101 issue. First featured card of him as a professional. Not going to chime in on the postcard as I’m not a postcard guy. Let market demand decide that.

I dont own one but dont understand why there is any debate on this one. Seems quite obvious.

[oldjudge]

Different people have different "rookie card" definitions. For me it is the first individual baseball card as a major leaguer. This would eliminate the Baltimore News Ruth which is a schedule, not a baseball card, and is not a major league representation. The 1915 Ruth is a team postcard, eliminating it on two accounts (not individual, and for me not a baseball card). That leaves the M101-4/5 Ruth which fits my criteria.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform.

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

Right, he's in a Red Sox uniform in the 1914 postcard.

[LincolnVT]

The "1914" Love Of The Game postcard is cool...especially if it is Ruth...I've spent some time looking over all of the research and am still left wondering. To me it looks like he has a glove is on his left hand. Why is the PC in a Beckett holder rather than a PSA or SGC? Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.

As for the M101, it's his rookie card.

The 1915 PC (which I have a copy of in an SGC 20 holder) is also a rookie image, pre-dates the M101 and is much, much more rare. What I like about the 1915 Red Sox team PC is that it is the first card that you can see Babe Ruth on in a professional uniform. The 1915 postcard IMO is on the move.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

I'll take the under on that 50K.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by DennyH

My question is what does all the professionals of this hobby consider Babe Ruth's rookie card? Is it the Goudey, Sporting news, or Baltimore News?

I don't consider myself a "professional," but I'm thinking that because it's Babe Ruth, who really is in a pantheon category all his own, the 1914 Baltimore News card is the best of the three, simply because it's the first Babe Ruth card ever issued. In this context it doesn't matter that he's a minor leaguer. And from a personal aesthetic standpoint, it adds a lot that the card has the year of issue on the back. So you have a card of the great Babe Ruth before he was B*A*B*E R*U*T*H, produced possibly back when he was better known as George.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

I don't consider myself a "professional," but I'm thinking that because it's Babe Ruth, who really is in a pantheon category all his own, the 1914 Baltimore News card is the best of the three, simply because it's the first Babe Ruth card ever issued. In this context it doesn't matter that he's a minor leaguer. And from a personal aesthetic standpoint, it adds a lot that the card has the year of issue on the back. So you have a card of the great Babe Ruth before he was B*A*B*E R*U*T*H, produced possibly back when he was better known as George.

I feel the same way. The BN Ruth is my holy grail card. I don’t give a crap what uniform he’s wearing. Financial considerations aside, I prefer to own the BN Ruth than any other card in the hobby. I would take a low grade BN Ruth over a
high grade M101.

[benjulmag]

BTW, if we are talking about early Ruth "cards", there is also a 1914 Baltimore News team "card" that features Ruth. The only one that I am aware of sold at REA in 2007. Here's the link: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...ing-babe-ruth/

As I recall shortly after the sale there was an extensive discussion on this forum as to the definition of a baseball card and whether this team photograph qualifies. Regardless how one characterizes it, as is the case with the 1915 team postcard featuring Ruth, it is a great early image of him.

[drcy]

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league, college or other non MLB card.

Which one is his best or most desirable or most valuable or rarest or sometimes even first is another question.

P.s., rarity is strictly a measure of the number of cards, while scarcity is a measure of supply versus demand. Market value is as good a representation of scarcity as any. Whether or not you think the T206 Honus Wagner is rare, the $$ value indicates the card is very, very scarce (demand far exceed supply).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by drcy

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league.

No, it isn't. The card has to be nationally issued, not a regional. If you are going to ignore that part of the definition, why can't someone else choose his very first card, the Baltimore News or something else?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by drcy

The Sporting News is his rookie card. Rookie card means his first trading card as a Major League Player (Federal League or other MLB-level team will count). Can have multiple rookie cards if multiple MLB trading cards came out in the same year. Can't be his rookie card if it's a minor league, college or other non MLB card.

Unless it's Jeter, or McGwire, or .....

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

BTW, if we are talking about early Ruth "cards", there is also a 1914 Baltimore News team "card" that features Ruth. The only one that I am aware of sold at REA in 2007. Here's the link: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...ing-babe-ruth/

As I recall shortly after the sale there was an extensive discussion on this forum as to the definition of a baseball card and whether this team photograph qualifies. Regardless how one characterizes it, as is the case with the 1915 team postcard featuring Ruth, it is a great early image of him.

Wow Corey! Thanks for sharing. I hadn't seen that one until today...just added to my spreadsheet.

[ValKehl]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

"Rookie card is defined in the mind of the collector."