1926 Spalding Champions Ruth on ebay?

[ullmandds]

atleast those inserts in the 54' SI are "cards"...and they already are collectible.

not quite apples to apples in this comparison, IMO.

[glchen]

There has been something of a surprising turn of events in this situation of the original thread. I have once again attached the front and back scans of this "card" in the OP, and apologies for that. What happened is that I actually found the buyer who purchased this from ebay. It so happens that he recently purchased another Ruth card from me, and I noticed that his feedback number matched the feedback number of the buyer of the Spalding Ruth, so I sent him an email and asked him if he was the buyer of it. He said that he was, and I informed him that I believed that PSA holdered the incorrect card, and what he had was simply a page from a Spalding Reach baseball guide. The buyer then opened a case on ebay, and also contacted PSA with this information.

Well, PSA Research came back and said that the item he had was correctly a 1926 Spalding Champion Babe Ruth card (stats back), and the scan that I showed in post #2 in this thread was a card with a mislabeled flip. It shouldn't be a "Stats back" variation, but a "1926 copyright" variation.

I contacted PSA today, and spoke with the PSA rep who worked w/ the buyer. I gave her the story that that card was from a baseball guide, and could not be from the Spalding Champion set, as I emailed her other examples from that set, and they look nothing like what the buyer had.

So basically, what PSA wants now is more information. For the scans provided below, does anyone know with certainty which baseball guide that is from? If anyone has a picture of the cover and even better a picture of that page still in the book, would be great. Thanks again!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glchen

There has been something of a surprising turn of events in this situation of the original thread. I have once again attached the front and back scans of this "card" in the OP, and apologies for that. What happened is that I actually found the buyer who purchased this from ebay. It so happens that he recently purchased another Ruth card from me, and I noticed that his feedback number matched the feedback number of the buyer of the Spalding Ruth, so I sent him an email and asked him if he was the buyer of it. He said that he was, and I informed him that I believed that PSA holdered the incorrect card, and what he had was simply a page from a Spalding Reach baseball guide. The buyer then opened a case on ebay, and also contacted PSA with this information.

Well, PSA Research came back and said that the item he had was correctly a 1926 Spalding Champion Babe Ruth card (stats back), and the scan that I showed in post #2 in this thread was a card with a mislabeled flip. It shouldn't be a "Stats back" variation, but a "1926 copyright" variation.

I contacted PSA today, and spoke with the PSA rep who worked w/ the buyer. I gave her the story that that card was from a baseball guide, and could not be from the Spalding Champion set, as I emailed her other examples from that set, and they look nothing like what the buyer had.

So basically, what PSA wants now is more information. For the scans provided below, does anyone know with certainty which baseball guide that is from? If anyone has a picture of the cover and even better a picture of that page still in the book, would be great. Thanks again!

So you showed them the real card with the same exact flip as the abomination and they want YOU to do more research. How about they made a mistake and should fix it?

[Batter67up]

I think that we are seeing the last stand for TPG's. People are getting tired of the games played and the inaccurate grading of high-end cards. This goes along with the crooks that are able to carefully crack cases open and insert fake flips or fake cards. I truly enjoy card collecting but the issues out in the hobby will make it difficult for us to gain new people into the hobby. There will be fewer and fewer kids looking to take part in this as time goes on. I guess TPG's are like the big telco companies who use the motto "we suck less" and use this to try and gain your business over the competitors. This puts the hobby in a place that may get people to stop paying to get their cards graded. I am hoping we can make it through the BS that TPG's have brought into the hobby. Graded magazine cuts? Wow I hope to get a PSA 10 if I can only find a sharp pair of scissors.

[bgar3]

i do not have the guides, but it is either the 1925 spalding or reach guide. the "stats" are not stats, but an incomplete review of different subjects, it does not even start with a sentence and does not end with one, the back has no relation to the front, if broken out it would be paper, not a card. this should not be that hard for a major company whose business it is to grade cards. i think these are ridiculous, but to each his own.

[slidekellyslide]

Heh...the back of the card starts with "and"...what more proof do they need that this is cut from a book?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

I think that we are seeing the last stand for TPG's. People are getting tired of the games played and the inaccurate grading of high-end cards. This goes along with the crooks that are able to carefully crack cases open and insert fake flips or fake cards. I truly enjoy card collecting but the issues out in the hobby will make it difficult for us to gain new people into the hobby. There will be fewer and fewer kids looking to take part in this as time goes on. I guess TPG's are like the big telco companies who use the motto "we suck less" and use this to try and gain your business over the competitors. This puts the hobby in a place that may get people to stop paying to get their cards graded. I am hoping we can make it through the BS that TPG's have brought into the hobby. Graded magazine cuts? Wow I hope to get a PSA 10 if I can only find a sharp pair of scissors.

Personally, I don't see this..."last stand" scenario at all. The rest...I see!

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Leon

So you showed them the real card with the same exact flip as the abomination and they want YOU to do more research. How about they made a mistake and should fix it?

Yea, the problem is PSA said they've already done their research, and their research shows that item is correctly holdered. So I need to provide evidence to overturn this. I can't even begin to imagine what research they did, but my only guess is that they're saying that page is something from a 1926 Spalding promo that is different the 1926 Spalding Champion set, hence the "stats back" variation.

[VintageBall]

Their own website shows a different card on their "facts" site. Shouldn't this be proof enough:

http://www.psacardfacts.com/CardDetail.aspx?item=561667

Robert S

[glchen]

Originally Posted by VintageBall

Their own website shows a different card on their "facts" site. Shouldn't this be proof enough:

http://www.psacardfacts.com/CardDetail.aspx?item=561667

Robert S

Good point. I'll email that to the PSA rep. Thanks!

[Wildfireschulte]

I searched my guides - there is no such Ruth image in Spalding guides (1920-1929). I don't have a 1925 Reach guide but the image below from the 1924 Reach guide is the same photo that was slabbed (with a different caption).

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by Leon

So you showed them the real card with the same exact flip as the abomination and they want YOU to do more research. How about they made a mistake and should fix it?

Comical! Abomination is exactly what this is!

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

I searched my guides - there is no such Ruth image in Spalding guides (1920-1929). I don't have a 1925 Reach guide but the image below from the 1924 Reach guide is the same photo that was slabbed (with a different caption).

Thanks! I'll send this to PSA.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glchen

Thanks! I'll send this to PSA.

Please let us know what they say.

[barrysloate]

Besides publishing a yearly guide, Spalding also issued Spalding's Official Baseball Record between 1908 and 1924. These were similar in style and size to their other annual. Since the Babe Ruth photo appears to be from a 1924 guide (the 1923 season is discussed on the back page), maybe that is the source of the photo. This is purely a guess on my part, just another place to look.

And let me go on record and say that both the Nolan Ryan clipping and this Babe Ruth plate are an outrage, and shame on the grading company for slabbing them. Sometimes you just have to reject something as not gradeable. I know there are some who disagree.

Edited to say I now realize the plate is later than 1924, so it could not be from the record book. My bad. But it still could be from a publication other than the better known yearly guides.

[nolemmings]

another Nolan Ryan to consider (I'm guessing this ad ran in a variety of different periodicals and over time, so that you back collectors have your work "cut out" for you ):

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

another Nolan Ryan to consider (I'm guessing this ad ran in a variety of different periodicals and over time, so that you back collectors have your work "cut out" for you ):

I have spoken to PSA regarding this particular issue. They have assured me no more will be graded and it was a mistake on the graders part to allow these to be graded originally.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

another Nolan Ryan to consider (I'm guessing this ad ran in a variety of different periodicals and over time, so that you back collectors have your work "cut out" for you ):

Wow...just wow.

[Rich Klein]

I don't see the Problem with the Nolan Ryan item the way it is slabbed. It is an ad and was hand cut. Now, as Leon would say, it is up to the buyer to determine whether he or she wants that item. And with some of the passionate Ryan collectors I have met or heard about over the years, why not? Is the item from 1973? Is it accurately described? If the answer is yes on both counts, why object. This is not fraud and not misrepresented.


Rich

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I don't see the Problem with the Nolan Ryan item the way it is slabbed. It is an ad and was hand cut. Now, as Leon would say, it is up to the buyer to determine whether he or she wants that item. And with some of the passionate Ryan collectors I have met or heard about over the years, why not? Is the item from 1973? Is it accurately described? If the answer is yes on both counts, why object. This is not fraud and not misrepresented.


Rich

They will not slab a skinned Old Judge card, but they will slab a picture of Nolan Ryan snipped out of a 1973 Sports Illustrated magazine??? Wait a minute, PSA calls this one a mistake, but that 1923 Ruth is apparently A-OK....WTF is going on at PSA?

[Rich Klein]

It's called human beings. Card graders have to make these decisions all the time and while we used to make fun of people such as PRO for doing things like this, maybe in retrospect, they were ahead of their times.

Yes skinned Old Judges should be graded and notated as such as well. So should the 1984 Topps Nestle's cards of the full set which were professionaly cut back in the 1980's. Those are real cards and should be in holders.

As a matter of fact, the whole concept of "Sheet-Cut" cards needs to be changed at this point. If we've gone this far, why not allow for the OPC sheet cut hockey cards to be graded or anything else. Cards came from sheets, so grade em.

I think it can only help collectors long term

Rich

[pawpawdiv9]

Thanks guys for all the wonderful info and especially on the 66 nolan ryan.
Lets just say, the one i had got, well is now sold
Someone is enjoying it for their registry set.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Leon

Please let us know what they say.

I just wanted to give an update to this. I followed up with PSA mid-last week, and was informed that the issue had been transferred to the customer service manager at PSA, and that going forward, PSA would be working with the buyer of the Spalding card for this issue. I sent an email to the buyer, asking if PSA had contacted him, and he said that they had, and that he was asked to send his card to PSA, where they would examine it, and he would send it in. Thanks again to everyone who helped on this issue!