Home Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

One of my picks of Babe Ruth cards that are still reasonably priced in this market...1934 Goudey

1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

When card prices rise it puts a dent in many of collector's hopes of building their cardboard dreams. I am always looking for cards that are still reasonably priced in relation to the swelling of the overall market. I share one with you today that I personally enjoy the beauty of AND the value of.

This particular card has two strong factors that often sway me, 1) looking exceptional for the grade, and 2) a card that has not experienced the same dramatic price increase that most have.

My 'pick to click' today is the 1934 Goudey Premium Babe Ruth....a beautiful striking card of the Babe.

If there was one oversized card to add to your collection, there is nothing more appropriate that an oversized card depicting the larger than life immortal Babe Ruth.

As baseball cards are often equated to art, the Goudey Ruth Premium is as fine exemplar of that comparison as any with its beautiful striking photo touched with artistic renditions ,while framed as ornately as a classic art piece.

All Ruth cards have risen astronomically, yet the Ruth premium has not seen quite the same percentage increase…yet. It may be its larger size that has held it back so far, yet other larger sized items such as many Paper Premiums and T3 Turkey Reds have not had a problem rising with the tide of the market. The T3 Cobb is such an example and it easily outpaces the more scarce '34 Goudey Ruth premium in price, and nobody out paces the Babe in similar comparisons. The once scoffed at larger sized Exhibit cards have taken off dramatically in price. As such, the ‘larger sized card’ reason simply doesn’t justify the current lower price in the Ruth and vintage market overall.

The 1934 Goudey Ruth was an early redemption card available only by sending in 50 1933 Goudey Wax Pack wrappers. 50! As such it is not a coincidence that the pop reports are so low for the 1934 Goudey Premium Ruth.

Currently there are only 48 graded from PSA with only four being higher than a 2. Only 48 graded from PSA. That is astronomically low. There are another 55 graded from SGC with only ten higher than a 2.

Those are really low numbers and this is Babe Ruth we are talking about...and it is a Goudey product.

The card is thick, sturdy, and big…all like the Babe. It is beautiful, striking, and is the same picture as the 1933 Goudey #144, each with its own take of an artist's rendition.

Currently PSA 2’s are in the $4,500-$6,000 range. There aren't a ton of sales, but looking at the low pop, the beauty of the card, the rise in price of large sized Paper Premiums, T3's, and Exhibits...and that it is a Babe Ruth from his playing days made by the famous Goudey company, I see a bargain in this market. Those are my thoughts, maybe someone looking for a gorgeous Ruth that isn't ready to shell out $12,000-13,000 for a high quality "2" for a 1933 Goudey, can scratch their Ruth itch with this beautiful example of a cardboard gem...not this exact example, but one like it :)

Comments

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    As baseball cards are often equated to art, the Goudey Ruth Premium is as fine exemplar of that comparison as any with its beautiful striking photo touched with artistic renditions ,while framed as ornately as a classic art piece.

    All Ruth cards have risen astronomically, yet the Ruth premium has not seen quite the same percentage increase…yet. It may be its larger size that has held it back so far, yet other larger sized items such as many Paper Premiums and T3 Turkey Reds have not had a problem rising with the tide of the market. The T3 Cobb is such an example and it easily outpaces the more scarce '34 Goudey Ruth premium in price, and nobody out paces the Babe in similar comparisons. The once scoffed at larger sized Exhibit cards have taken off dramatically in price. As such, the ‘larger sized card’ reason simply doesn’t justify the current lower price in the Ruth and vintage market overall.

    If you're looking for reasons why the '34 Goudey Ruth is not as popular or valuable, I think it's because it's not really a "baseball card" as most would define it. There are no stats or highlight or info of the player on the back. The back has a flip-out stand to prop the photo card up on a desk or shelf. It's a different category, more comparable to a postcard or even an old photo, then to a trading baseball card. So in that sense, it may not be as collectible as a "traditional baseball card". And it's not as simple as it being a larger size making it less desirable. Rarity doesn't always equate to value or collectability.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,241 ✭✭✭✭✭

    that is a beautiful display piece, but I would agree, that it is not a "trading card" per say. I would imagine that is the main reason the value may seem low. Boy, does that present well for the grade.

    very nice piece

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2023 6:12AM

    @RonSportscards said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    As baseball cards are often equated to art, the Goudey Ruth Premium is as fine exemplar of that comparison as any with its beautiful striking photo touched with artistic renditions ,while framed as ornately as a classic art piece.

    All Ruth cards have risen astronomically, yet the Ruth premium has not seen quite the same percentage increase…yet. It may be its larger size that has held it back so far, yet other larger sized items such as many Paper Premiums and T3 Turkey Reds have not had a problem rising with the tide of the market. The T3 Cobb is such an example and it easily outpaces the more scarce '34 Goudey Ruth premium in price, and nobody out paces the Babe in similar comparisons. The once scoffed at larger sized Exhibit cards have taken off dramatically in price. As such, the ‘larger sized card’ reason simply doesn’t justify the current lower price in the Ruth and vintage market overall.

    If you're looking for reasons why the '34 Goudey Ruth is not as popular or valuable, I think it's because it's not really a "baseball card" as most would define it. There are no stats or highlight or info of the player on the back. The back has a flip-out stand to prop the photo card up on a desk or shelf. It's a different category, more comparable to a postcard or even an old photo, then to a trading baseball card. So in that sense, it may not be as collectible as a "traditional baseball card". And it's not as simple as it being a larger size making it less desirable. Rarity doesn't always equate to value or collectability.

    Still a card, but bigger. Yes, the size may have held it back a little, but paper premium issues which are made of thin paper and just as big(or even bigger), no writing on back, have risen dramatically in price compared to seven years ago...so that can't be the main reason. Sometimes cards just fly under the radar for a while. It has happened several times and it changes.

    That happened to Exhibit cards which describe the same thing, no writing on the back, a large size, basically a photo. Heck, some are actually postcards themselves like the Cobb Postcards that were 'junk' 25 years ago but now command sticker shock prices.

    The 1946 Parade Sportive Jackie Robinson is a paper premium large sized item that isn't remotely like a card(it is fragile thin paper), and that price has risen exponentially in the last ten years.

    Same for the T3 Cobb's cards bigger than the Ruth Premium. Commands big money.

    Honus Wagner giant sized cabinet cards command insane money. Blank backed. A giant photo. This one is actually cardboard like the Ruth.

    The one other thing all those have in common is that none of them are Ruth either ;) so demand isn't an issue.

    I'm well aware that rarity alone isn't the only factor, but this is a playing days Ruth card made by Goudey and is beautiful. It isn't an obscure southern minor leaguer player that maybe three people in the world have heard of where only six have been graded.

    Some things just take longer to appreciate, but as history has shown, it happens a lot in this field when perceptions change or things just get noticed more. This Ruth card already has similar examples in the hobby that have grown by leaps and bounds. It will change too :).

    These are merely my thoughts and how my outlook on things work. It is for entertainment purposes. Sometimes the spider senses tingle and it is time to get to work ;)

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    These are merely my thoughts and how my outlook on things work. It is for entertainment purposes. Sometimes the spider senses tingle and it is time to get to work ;)

    And mine too.

    You focus on the card size, but I agreed with you.

    The thick card stock may actually hurt it, as it is more likely to survive, compared to it being of thin fragile paper.

    And the subject matter of Babe Ruth, by 1934, very late in his career and a year away from retirement, every magazine, advertisement, product had Babe Ruth's likeness on it.
    This goes for any icon. Elvis. Beatles. Star Wars. Michael Jordan. You can't escape the deluge of product during their successes.
    This '34 Goudey Premium has the feel of a "made to be collectible". Think Franklin Mint.

    And for your comparison to other stars' products, both the Exhibits and the T3's w/Cobb are sets including other players of that era, possibly making it more desirable as you can build a players/team set. The '34 Goudey Premium is just Ruth, and 3 team cards.

    Can't compare to early Jackie Robinson stuff, as more people of color enter the hobby, they have different heroes.

    And Honus Wagner still has the mystique following him from the T206.

    But who knows, the '34 Goudey Premium could take off, and if you own it, I hope it works out for you.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2023 4:06PM

    @RonSportscards said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    These are merely my thoughts and how my outlook on things work. It is for entertainment purposes. Sometimes the spider senses tingle and it is time to get to work ;)

    And mine too.

    You focus on the card size, but I agreed with you.

    The thick card stock may actually hurt it, as it is more likely to survive, compared to it being of thin fragile paper.

    And the subject matter of Babe Ruth, by 1934, very late in his career and a year away from retirement, every magazine, advertisement, product had Babe Ruth's likeness on it.
    This goes for any icon. Elvis. Beatles. Star Wars. Michael Jordan. You can't escape the deluge of product during their successes.
    This '34 Goudey Premium has the feel of a "made to be collectible". Think Franklin Mint.

    And for your comparison to other stars' products, both the Exhibits and the T3's w/Cobb are sets including other players of that era, possibly making it more desirable as you can build a players/team set. The '34 Goudey Premium is just Ruth, and 3 team cards.

    Can't compare to early Jackie Robinson stuff, as more people of color enter the hobby, they have different heroes.

    And Honus Wagner still has the mystique following him from the T206.

    But who knows, the '34 Goudey Premium could take off, and if you own it, I hope it works out for you.

    '34 Goudey hardly has the "made to be collectible" feeling. If so, there wouldn't be only 100 graded. It was a premium from Goudey. You have heard of Goudey, yes? Does the Franklin mint make vintage Goudey products?

    You said the size is the limiting factor and that size disqualifies it from being a "card". None of your examples support your premise because those are all large sized items and some aren't even cards but sheets of paper....yet they rose in price at a very high rate.

    So if the paper premiums, T3's, Exhibits, and large Cabinets are cards...how is the 1934 Goudey premium not a card?

    So is the W600 Honus Wagner considered a card for him? Many consider it his rookie card. It is as big as the Goudey Premium...can't be both ways. I know double standards are america's past times, but sorry, can't have it both ways.

    Ruth's likeness was all over in the 1920's/30's every week in pictorials, yet his card prices from the 20's are through the roof, so that makes no sense. Zero sense.

    Are 1964 Topps stand ups baseball cards??? There goes your easel theory.

    The Ruth is part of the Goudey family of sets, so there is that. Had to buy Goudey cards and send in to Goudey to get it. You didn't send in to some knockoff company like the Franklin mint lol. It is also its own set and doesn't matter if there are four or 20 in the set. It is a set. A premium set.

    And the 1934 Goudey premium baseball card in a "2" sells for over $4,000 so clearly has excellent value already and shooting holes in your theory about this Franklin mint nonsense. The thing is, it just hasn't risen quite as much as other Ruth stuff, and other similar stuff from other players, mostly because many don't know about it, and some cards do fly under the radar for a long time and they take off more.

  • brad31brad31 Posts: 2,476 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good point on the stand-ups. Collect those and they don’t fit my definition of a card since the back is blank. Same with some of my test cards (‘68 3-D and ‘72 Cloth Sticker). Nice pick-up.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2023 7:28PM

    Everyone has personal tolerances, likes, dislikes, etc...but the notion of that not being a card is ridiculous.

    There is a famous book called The American CARD Catalog. It is the American CARD catalog, not American 'PHOTO' or "PPAPEER" or 'SOMETHING ELSE' Catalog. The card catalog does have a section for pins and other "novelties," but:

    Under the Candy and Gum "CARD" section is listed the 1934 Goudey Premiums. It is simply not a standard sized card.

    So the 1934 Goudey premium "Set" is listed under the "Candy and Gum CARD section," in the American CARD catalog. Yes, it is a card ;)

    So factually it is:
    A card
    From a set
    From a major manufacturer of the time
    Picturing a baseball player
    A premium addition to the 1933 Goudey set
    The same photo used on the 1933 Goudey #144...not some Franklin Mint junk(the most ridiculous thing I've read on here).
    And yes, it could be "traded"

    It just happens that it also contains the most famous player of all time and the most valuable across the board in the baseball card collecting world and has a graded pop in the low 100's. Yes 100's TOTAL population. It just happens to be a hair undervalued compared to the price jumps in past few years and in comparison to some of his other cards.

    And it is beautiful baseball card made of cardboard.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    '34 Goudey hardly has the "made to be collectible" feeling. If so, there wouldn't be only 100 graded. It was a premium from Goudey. You have heard of Goudey, yes? Does the Franklin mint make vintage Goudey products?

    Couldn't say. I haven't checked the history of the Franklin Mint. Although someone did make Goudey Premium Reprints.

    You said the size is the limiting factor and that size disqualifies it from being a "card".

    LOL. Never said that. Reading is FUNdamental.

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    So if the paper premiums, T3's, Exhibits, and large Cabinets are cards...how is the 1934 Goudey premium not a card?

    So is the W600 Honus Wagner considered a card for him? Many consider it his rookie card. It is as big as the Goudey Premium...can't be both ways. I know double standards are america's past times, but sorry, can't have it both ways.

    I'm not having it ANY way. Again, YOU are the one focused on the size of the card, and whether or not it is technically a "baseball card" or not. Are the '67 Topps Pin-ups "baseball cards"? or the 80-81 Topps Basketball Posters "basketball cards"?
    Why do the Lakers and Celtics Team Posters have little value while being Magic and Bird rookie year picture "cards"? Made by and distributed by Topps during their playing days. You have heard of Topps, yes?

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    Are 1964 Topps stand ups baseball cards??? There goes your easel theory.

    LOL. Took you long enough to bring that up. I was thinking of that since the first post.
    You won't like the answer, but I'm sure there are many that would say "No". Just look above.

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    The Ruth is part of the Goudey family of sets, so there is that. Had to buy Goudey cards and send in to Goudey to get it. You didn't send in to some knockoff company like the Franklin mint lol. It is also its own set and doesn't matter if there are four or 20 in the set. It is a set. A premium set.

    I hope you enjoy your redemption made to be collectible '34 Goudey Premium copy of an actual '33 Goudey BASEBALL CARD.
    I hope it goes up in value for you. GL

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 8:55AM

    @RonSportscards said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    '34 Goudey hardly has the "made to be collectible" feeling. If so, there wouldn't be only 100 graded. It was a premium from Goudey. You have heard of Goudey, yes? Does the Franklin mint make vintage Goudey products?

    Couldn't say. I haven't checked the history of the Franklin Mint. Although someone did make Goudey Premium Reprints.

    You said the size is the limiting factor and that size disqualifies it from being a "card".


    LOL. Never said that. Reading is FUNdamental.

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    So if the paper premiums, T3's, Exhibits, and large Cabinets are cards...how is the 1934 Goudey premium not a card?

    So is the W600 Honus Wagner considered a card for him? Many consider it his rookie card. It is as big as the Goudey Premium...can't be both ways. I know double standards are america's past times, but sorry, can't have it both ways.

    I'm not having it ANY way. Again, YOU are the one focused on the size of the card, and whether or not it is technically a "baseball card" or not. Are the '67 Topps Pin-ups "baseball cards"? or the 80-81 Topps Basketball Posters "basketball cards"?
    Why do the Lakers and Celtics Team Posters have little value while being Magic and Bird rookie year picture "cards"? Made by and distributed by Topps during their playing days. You have heard of Topps, yes?

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    Are 1964 Topps stand ups baseball cards??? There goes your easel theory.

    LOL. Took you long enough to bring that up. I was thinking of that since the first post.
    You won't like the answer, but I'm sure there are many that would say "No". Just look above.

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    The Ruth is part of the Goudey family of sets, so there is that. Had to buy Goudey cards and send in to Goudey to get it. You didn't send in to some knockoff company like the Franklin mint lol. It is also its own set and doesn't matter if there are four or 20 in the set. It is a set. A premium set.

    I hope you enjoy your redemption made to be collectible '34 Goudey Premium copy of an actual '33 Goudey BASEBALL CARD.
    I hope it goes up in value for you. GL

    None of your convoluted rationale disqualifies the 1934 Babe Ruth Goudey Premium from being a baseball card. It always has been a baseball card and always will be. Double standards you apply do not change that fact. It matters none if I would "like" your answer in regard to 1964 Topps stand ups being cards or not. They simply are cards despite your convoluted rational. You sound like the poster Goldenage.

    As for the 1980 Topps poster inserts, if they were individual inserts of Larry Bird and not team photos, and there were only 100 in existence, damn straight they would be worth a lot more money even if only made of thin paper. The Goudey Ruth is not a thin paper insert either. It is a sturdy piece of cardboard. The comparison is dumb on many levels, but again, I would be all over a 1980 Larrry Bird or Magic Johnson poster insert if they were individual images. If hardly anyone else knew of them and there were only 100 around, I would buy them all. They would be great value and have tremendous potential.

    FYI a 1969 Lew Alcindor paper ruler insert just sold for $4,150. Do you have any other bright ideas you want to share?? LOLOLOL.

    The days of being spoon fed by Beckett rational and convoluted rationale, both which go hand in hand, are getting further and further away. They will soon be gone and it has already propelled a lot of cards into much higher territory that were once scoffed at by this closed minded thinking. The examples are abound. The train has left the building I am sorry if that hurts your senses.

    Damn straight I will enjoy the 1934 Goudey premium Ruth baseball card. It is a playing days Ruth card and compliments the other more common Goudey Cards from the set. The value is already good. That is only part of the equation(and already pokes holes in all your idiotic comparisons).

    is a beauty worth collecting...and yes trading if I desire to lololol. Or am I not allowed to trade it for a smaller baseball card based on your convoluted rules?? Lol.

    On the flip side, enjoy your 1980 Topps Pepe Frias collectible photo with writing on the back.

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,350 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 9:06AM

    Great discussion.

    I guess I'll just call all my items....stuff.

    Mike
  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 9:24AM

    @Stone193 said:
    Great discussion.

    I guess I'll just call all my items....stuff.

    Sometimes the most simple explanation is the best. That really isn't a bad thought.

    This is the back of the 1969 Topps paper Ruler insert of Alcindor. A $4,000 long piece of paper. Stuff or card. It is worthy of being collected and "traded" lol. Anyone who had the foresight in buying them before they were considered "paper junk inserts" had good thinking of value at the time and maybe just got lucky with the future growth in value, but they did well. This happens a lot and there are still CARDS out there with more room to grow.

    So if someone does not want to call this Alcindor piece of paper a card, so be it. It is made by a bona fide company and it isn't a knock off unlicensed piece or the dumbass Franklin Mint argument. The Ruth premium NOT being a card is just idiotic. It's been a baseball card since forever. Just because it isn't mainstream by Beckett standards means nothing in determining if it is a card or not.

    According to one poster above, that Alcindor insert shouldn't be worth anything because his image was all over the place in 1969 so why would anyone want it? lol. You could just cut a picture out of a sports illustrated according to him.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    @Stone193 said:
    Great discussion.

    I guess I'll just call all my items....stuff.

    LOL. Don't you dare!!
    You MUST MUST MUST call everything a "card", otherwise they would have no value, according to the OP.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    @Stone193 said:
    Great discussion.

    I guess I'll just call all my items....stuff.

    LOL. Don't you dare!!
    You MUST MUST MUST call everything a "card", otherwise they would have no value, according to the OP.

    Easy Goldenage, I never said that. That is actually your convoluted definitions of what a card is.

    None of your convoluted rationale disqualifies the 1934 Babe Ruth Goudey Premium from being a baseball card. It always has been a baseball card and always will be. Double standards you apply do not change that fact. It matters none if I would "like" your answer in regard to 1964 Topps stand ups being cards or not. They simply are cards despite your convoluted rational. You sound like the poster Goldenage.

    As for the 1980 Topps poster inserts, if they were individual inserts of Larry Bird and not team photos, and there were only 100 in existence, damn straight they would be worth a lot more money even if only made of thin paper. The Goudey Ruth is not a thin paper insert either. It is a sturdy piece of cardboard. The comparison is dumb on many levels, but again, I would be all over a 1980 Larrry Bird or Magic Johnson poster insert if they were individual images. If hardly anyone else knew of them and there were only 100 around, I would buy them all. They would be great value and have tremendous potential.

    FYI a 1969 Lew Alcindor paper ruler insert just sold for $4,150. Do you have any other bright ideas you want to share?? LOLOLOL.

    The days of being spoon fed by Beckett rational and convoluted rationale, both which go hand in hand, are getting further and further away. They will soon be gone and it has already propelled a lot of cards into much higher territory that were once scoffed at by this closed minded thinking. The examples are abound. The train has left the building I am sorry if that hurts your senses.

    Damn straight I will enjoy the 1934 Goudey premium Ruth baseball card. It is a playing days Ruth card and compliments the other more common Goudey Cards from the set. The value is already good. That is only part of the equation(and already pokes holes in all your idiotic comparisons).

    is a beauty worth collecting...and yes trading if I desire to lololol. Or am I not allowed to trade it for a smaller baseball card based on your convoluted rules?? Lol.

    On the flip side, enjoy your 1980 Topps Pepe Frias collectible photo with writing on the back.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 10:25AM

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    On the flip side, enjoy your 1980 Topps Pepe Frias collectible photo with writing on the back.

    '80 Topps Pepe Frias has a lower POP than your '34 Goudey Ruth Reprint collectible, and if I had it PSA graded, it would be a POP 1 at that grade.
    Much more rare and an actual baseball card, so it automatically should be more valuable, according to you.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 11:03AM

    @RonSportscards said:

    On the flip side, enjoy your 1980 Topps Pepe Frias collectible photo with writing on the back.

    '80 Topps Pepe Frias has a lower POP than your '34 Goudey Ruth Reprint collectible, and if I had it PSA graded, it would be a POP 1 at that grade.
    Much more rare and an actual baseball card, so it automatically should be more valuable, according to you.

    No, it is universally obvious that cards of little value simply do not get sent in to get graded, hence low population or no population in the graded realm.. The 1934 Goudey Premium Ruth does not fall into this category since a "1" is around $2,000 and is more than worthy to be sent in.

    It is also universally obvious that the pop reports do not encompass cards that have not been graded, and that is true of every card in existence as some exist that still have not been graded for almost every card.

    This should be universally understood hence why I didn't go into detail about that. Instead, I had to hold your hand an explain it like I would to a two year old.

    So not only do you get spoon fed by Beckett principles, you don't understand the universally obvious.

    Your response is not surprising, lol.

    The 1934 Goudey Premium isn't a reprint you fooll, just because the issue was reprinted later on like a host of other card sets. It just means it was reprinted so more people can afford to buy a likeness of it.

    Go enjoy your 1980 Topps picture card of Pepe Frias.

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I decided to defer to PSA to break the "tie."

    They have them listed as "cards."

    So. Let's get them on the horn and give'm hell!

    Mike
  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    @Stone193 said:
    I decided to defer to PSA to break the "tie."

    They have them listed as "cards."

    So. Let's get them on the horn and give'm hell!

    They have been listed as "CARD" sets in the American Card Catalog since forever. There never really was a question is if they were cards or not. People try to discount certain sets because they don't fit the 'Beckett norm" so they create convoluted reasons as to why it isn't a "card"....reasons that would discount a lot of issues from then being cards too.

    One guy even said because the set size was only FOUR cards that it isn't a card. Nonsense. It is all nonsense reasons. So is 1948 Bowman a set compared to 1952 Topps with such a wide variance in set size? What number of cards in a set makes it a set? A fool would say "5" in this case, lol.

    Size reasons. Nonsense. Size variance in card sets is very common before Topps came around. In 1952 Topps even advertised its cards as "Giant sized cards". There is no universal size requirement that makes it a card or not.

    Some say it is a photo. Nonsense. Heck, the 1933 Goudey set even advertises their product as "pictures" of players, not cards. The premium isn't a photo anyway. Not even close. It's a thick cardboard piece with an image printed on it just like their 1933 and 1934 cards except this is bigger and blank backed.

    You know what are photos? The Old Judge cards. They are actual photos affixed to a cardboard backing. So those aren't cards? They are also pretty small. But then they have giant cabinet sized versions too. So neither one is a card? Both are? One is and one isn't? All blank backed too.

    But it has a blank back. Nonsense. Ruth has a rookie card candidate that has a blank back version. Not a card? BS.

    My personal favorite is the 1921/1922 Caramel cards...but those are listed as "pictures" on the back, so are those pictures or cards? lol. Here is the back of a 1922 Caramel Ruth.

    Do I like some Ruth cards better than this one because of some of those factors listed above? YES, but that doesn't mean the Premium isn't a card or unworthy. Absolutely not. It does, in this high price landscape, provide a real good value to have a playing days Ruth card, and considering the growth of all of his 'cards' or whatever other adjective you want to sign to a published image of him, this one still has a little more in it. The fact that it is extremely visually appealing in the end is one of the major factors in the desire to obtain one.

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Card. Not card.

    I got lost in the most important part.

    Congratulations on a really cool pick up - I like it - great shot of the Babe.

    Thanx for sharing buddy.

    Mike
  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 11, 2023 5:08PM

    @Stone193 said:
    Card. Not card.

    I got lost in the most important part.

    Congratulations on a really cool pick up - I like it - great shot of the Babe.

    Thanx for sharing buddy.

    You're welcome.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    One guy even said because the set size was only FOUR cards that it isn't a card.

    That is not what that "one guy" said. LOL
    Your reading comprehension is really bad. I don't blame you, I blame the schools.

    We all now know the real reason you started this thread.
    You own the Ruth "card" and now you're trying to pump it to make it more valuable.
    Looking back, the overselling of it is obvious.
    Can you comment on how thick the cardboard stock is again. LOL

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    One guy even said because the set size was only FOUR cards that it isn't a card.

    That is not what that "one guy" said. LOL
    Your reading comprehension is really bad. I don't blame you, I blame the schools.

    We all now know the real reason you started this thread.
    You own the Ruth "card" and now you're trying to pump it to make it more valuable.
    Looking back, the overselling of it is obvious.
    Can you comment on how thick the cardboard stock is again. LOL

    The 'One guy' said a lot of inaccurate things and just added a couple more here because he was wrong...so now is going to create more BS reasons to try and save face. Have at it. That doesn't phase me.

    Time for you to head down to the Franklin mint and then check Ebay for the latest deals on your coveted 1980 topps Pepe Frias picture card.

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Geez.

    At this point it might be time to just agree to disagree?

    Shake hands and share a sixer.

    Mike
  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 12, 2023 12:56PM

    @Stone193 said:
    Geez.

    At this point it might be time to just agree to disagree?

    Shake hands and share a sixer.

    And that's the point. I never really disagreed with him.
    He wanted to know why the Ruth wasn't as collected or valuable compared to other "cards" of that era.
    I gave some possible, hypothetical reasons why the COLLECTING PUBLIC might not be as interested in it.
    Then Mr Sensitive took everything personally, starting straw man arguments, and attributing things to me that I NEVER said.

    He wasn't ready for an ACTUAL discussion. LOL
    He's just pumping his own "card" trying to increase value and interest.
    I even wished him luck several times.
    He even took his selective outrage out on Pepe Frias. The OP is a monster!! LOL

  • Stone193Stone193 Posts: 24,350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    @Stone193 said:
    Geez.

    At this point it might be time to just agree to disagree?

    Shake hands and share a sixer.

    And that's the point. I never really disagreed with him.
    He wanted to know why the Ruth wasn't as collected or valuable compared to other "cards" of that era.
    I gave some possible, hypothetical reasons why the COLLECTING PUBLIC might not be as interested in it.
    Then Mr Sensitive took everything personally, starting straw man arguments, and attributing things to me that I NEVER said.

    He wasn't ready for an ACTUAL discussion. LOL
    He's just pumping his own "card" trying to increase value and interest.
    I even wished him luck several times.
    He even took his selective outrage out on Pepe Frias. The OP is a monster!! LOL

    Ron - I didn't mean that literally - but more of a rhetorical statement of calling a truce.

    I'm not directing this at any "one" individual - just wanted to keep it nice. After all - in general - "not" directed at any one individual - but this is cardboard we're talking about and not the fate of the universe.

    Mike
  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    m
    @RonSportscards said:

    @Stone193 said:
    Geez.

    At this point it might be time to just agree to disagree?

    Shake hands and share a sixer.

    And that's the point. I never really disagreed with him.
    He wanted to know why the Ruth wasn't as collected or valuable compared to other "cards" of that era.
    I gave some possible, hypothetical reasons why the COLLECTING PUBLIC might not be as interested in it.
    Then Mr Sensitive took everything personally, starting straw man arguments, and attributing things to me that I NEVER said.

    He wasn't ready for an ACTUAL discussion. LOL
    He's just pumping his own "card" trying to increase value and interest.
    I even wished him luck several times.
    He even took his selective outrage out on Pepe Frias. The OP is a monster!! LOL

    More BS lol.

    The discussion basically ended with your Franklin mint garbage, as well as when claiming it isn't a baseball card. Ironically, that view comes from Beckett 'pumping' where you obviously bought into their pumping since you were spoon fed that line of crap in recent decades.

    It clearly always has been a baseball card and always will be. A Goudey card nonetheless. His only 1934 Goudey card to boot since he wasn't in the base set.

    Then your horrible analogies like the 1980 basketball topps team poster inserts(which were not only ridiculously bad, but with examples like the ALCINDOR RULER it just was an awful attempt at a discussion). Further you concluded the Pepe Frias was more valuable because it had a lower pop and you don't even understand that basic logic.

    I don't need luck with the card BTW. I'm not selling it. I got it to round a collection and it is a beautiful piece. Then offered a highlight of the card and its virtues to the collecting community. Some already know of. Some not quite so much. You want to call it pumping go ahead. This place is to talk about cards and that is what I am doing. So save your BS.

    You didn't shine any lights that I already knew existed as to why anything may not have achieved a higher status...and those views you possess are already baked in to my considerations when saying it still is undervalued based on the Ruth market, other similar items etc... So those points were moot and all already considered.

    If anything was a 'straw man' argument is because I already know the prevailing beliefs and misconceptions of some...and I address sooner than when officially brought up. You brought some of them up indirectly, but they are there. They still are with your "card" in parenthesis. So none of it is a strawman. You call it that because you were simply wrong on it and because you were spoon fed that view.

    Population of a card does factor in it too BTW. It is among several factors and is an important one but not the only one.

    "Demand is the key,." Blah blah blah. Yeah I know that factor. You act as if you are shedding a light on the aspect. I've known that since second grade. As powerful of a factor that it is, demand goes up and down and is still only one of the factors.

    So yeah, I will enjoy it and thanks for wishing me luck with it. A playing days Ruth card at that price is still darn good value right now. The beauty of it is tremendous and appealing.

    And yeah, it is thick ;).

    Thick CARDboard.

  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    Further you concluded the Pepe Frias was more valuable because it had a lower pop and you don't even understand that basic logic.

    Oops. You just got caught lying again. LOL
    What "that guy" actually said was...

    @RonSportscards said:

    '80 Topps Pepe Frias has a lower POP than your '34 Goudey Ruth Reprint collectible, and if I had it PSA graded, it would be a POP 1 at that grade.
    Much more rare and an actual baseball card, so it automatically should be more valuable, according to you.

    I guess your outrage didn't allow you to reach the end of that sentence. LOL

    Are you familiar with the concept that things that were not popular, or desired, or collected, etc., at the time they were issued, usually means less survived over time and therefore are more rare today? But that doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically are especially valuable today. And yes, I know you'll find a way to twist and misinterpret that also.

    To show there's no hard feelings, here's another Babe Ruth Made-to-be-Collectible you may be interested in adding to your collection. I don't think they were very popular at the time, so it may be tomorrow's rarity. Here's hoping. GL

    Vintage Babe Ruth Franklin Mint Collector Pocket Knife

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    @RonSportscards said:

    Further you concluded the Pepe Frias was more valuable because it had a lower pop and you don't even understand that basic logic.

    Oops. You just got caught lying again. LOL
    What "that guy" actually said was...

    @RonSportscards said:

    '80 Topps Pepe Frias has a lower POP than your '34 Goudey Ruth Reprint collectible, and if I had it PSA graded, it would be a POP 1 at that grade.
    Much more rare and an actual baseball card, so it automatically should be more valuable, according to you.

    I guess your outrage didn't allow you to reach the end of that sentence. LOL

    Are you familiar with the concept that things that were not popular, or desired, or collected, etc., at the time they were issued, usually means less survived over time and therefore are more rare today? But that doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically are especially valuable today. And yes, I know you'll find a way to twist and misinterpret that also.

    To show there's no hard feelings, here's another Babe Ruth Made-to-be-Collectible you may be interested in adding to your collection. I don't think they were very popular at the time, so it may be tomorrow's rarity. Here's hoping. GL

    Vintage Babe Ruth Franklin Mint Collector Pocket Knife

    Momma is wrong again.

    You used a crap example of a card that nobody sends in for grading and tried to make a point, and you looked dumb doing so. Clearly with Ruth being a $2,000 card in a "one", it made your attempt at a point meaningless and wrong.

    I'm aware of every 'insight' you think you are offering.

    Clearly with a price tag north of $2,000 for a graded ONE for the 1934 Goudey Babe Ruth premium it already shows you are wrong on those above sentiments, lol.

    So putting that knife up there as an example is just as idiotic as your other analogies.

  • AFLfanAFLfan Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Guys, this has gone well past the point of being a productive discussion. Please just agree to disagree and move on.

    Thanks, Todd

    Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
  • RonSportscardsRonSportscards Posts: 735 ✭✭✭✭

    @AFLfan said:
    Guys, this has gone well past the point of being a productive discussion. Please just agree to disagree and move on.

    Thanks, Todd

    Agreed. The OP will never understand the concept.
    My perspective has always been, the perception of the collecting public. I never really disagreed. I also never gave my personal view of how ugly the Ruth collectible is. I wouldn't do that and it wasn't relevant. Yet he disparages Pepe Frias and collectors of Pepe Frias and the OP gets a pass? Not cool.
    And I must correct the OP attributing things to me I never said. I will call out his lies.
    You'll notice though, I ignored all the OP's name-calling.
    I'm here for open, honest, civil, insightful discussions of cards and collecting.

  • 1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭✭

    I would rather have the jail bars for even taking the time to read those dumb analogies provided by that one guy.

This discussion has been closed.