1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

"The 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (XRC) is more expensive than his 1985 Topps RC."

We will expect you to have a PSA 10 within the week, Hal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Why, he has NO CHANCE of ever making the HOF!



You know why?






Because he will NEVER retire!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

But Clemen's 1985 Topps Tiffany card is worth as much as his 1984 Fleer Update card.

I have no clue what that means in terms of rookie card or relative value. It just suggests that 1985 is still considered, I guess, as sort of a rookie card for Clemens, and that his 1985 Tiffany is relatively scarce and thus highly desirable.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It may interest vintage collectors to know that Major League Baseball has strict control over which players can appear in a set and which players can labelled rookies by the card manufacturer. MLB contemplates these issues just as collectors do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

You tell 'em, Marc S.!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

nice second year card, Hal

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Hal by the way you are wrong for every year except a few years in the mid 80s. Are you saying 1995 Bowman is Garciaparra's rookie, not 1992 Topps Traded?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thanks.

I'm too traditional to be a big fan of "Traded Sets"...

because I have often said that I want to collect the SAME cards that kids could have gone and bought themselves in packs from the drug store.

The "Traded Sets" do NOT meet this criteria as they were never sold "over the counter"...

so I don't like them.

To me, they are the same as a "Premium" type card that you had to send away for.

Just not my cup of tea.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No... all I am saying with my website and collection is:

"HERE ARE THE CARDS I OWN. IF YOU SEE IT, I OWN IT. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, I DON'T OWN IT. I MAY WANT IT - OR I MAY NOT WANT IT - BUT IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, I DON'T OWN IT. IF YOU SEE A CARD THAT YOU OWN TOO, THEN THAT IS KEEN. IF YOU OWN A CARD AND DON'T SEE IT ON MY WEBSITE, THEN YOU ARE REALLY COOL AND I SUCK. THANKS FOR VISITING."

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

lol
I think you should reconsider your position though. Traded sets were WIDELY available in shops and kids for the most part get their cards from shops.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I guess my view is jaded from having grown up in a city where there were no card shops and no card shows.

We can't all live in Beantown.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Tiffany sets were not available in packs either, by the way, or I am pretty sure anyhow.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

True... but the IMAGE on the card is exactly the same.

This is like a "Type 1" and a "Type 2" of certain vintage cards, like the Kotton and Mino cards.

Different stock... but same set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Hal you are losing this one buddy!! Concede!! (Your Pedro "RC" is also from a factory set by the way)

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Peter:

I collect HAL OF FAME rookie cards.

None of the ones you mention are in the Hall of Fame.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

HAL of fame? My what a freudian slip.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It's so good I'm not even going to edit it!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I've always found the debate over the proper "definition" of a rookie card to be silly. I like collecting the first card of Hall of Fame players, regardless of whether others call them rookie cards. I would much rather own the Baltimore Ruth than the M101-5 Ruth. I would much rather own the 1913 Zeenut Heilmann that his Collins-McCarthy (if you disagree, I'll trade you my Collins-McCarthy). I would much rather have my 1922 Zeenut Lazzeri than his 1928 W-502 or whatever is considered by others to be his rookie card. Etc., etc.

But that's just me. Others like other things.

When it comes to modern cards, I have a different opinion. I don't have much interest in minor league cards issued by TCMA specifically as collectors' issues. I also don't have much interest in cards issued of teenagers in a mad rush by the card companies to issue the very first card of every player. So, for modern cards, I would probably be more interested in an early major league card of a player, than some pre-pubescent little league card. But, again, that's just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Looking at the tan Jimmy Foxx exhibit (rookie) card which Hal recently posted - I felt: WOW! This was from before he became THE BEAST. I had never seen him pictured so young.

So to me, rookie cards of key players are a great addition to a collection. One (or more) of the early Ruth exhibits really shows a young trim man, starting out - I guess it was the first year he hit 50+ HRs.

I haven't started with these yet, but for me they don't have to be rookies if they portray a youthful star adequately.

As far as "what constitutes a rookie card" though, my vote would be the date that the picture was taken (or drawn, I guess). So if the photo is from a player's minor league days; it is not his rookie card to me; independent of when the card was issued. I would want a players earliest MLB photo shown on a card, even if I have to wait years for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I'm a little late jumping in here, but this is what I consider to be Jesse Burkett's Rookie Card.



I think that I must have said it a hundred times by now: The only consensus when it comes to determining what card(s) constitutes a players Rookie Card is that there is no consensus.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

A little correction Hal,1990 topps traded cards were sold in packs.

Another thing that is wrong on his site and he doesnt care about is some of those t206s he considers rookies.Some are from the 350-460 series and not guys rookies which appear in the 150 subjects series made up to 2 years earlier.Hal doesnt care about that so why should other people.If he wants to settle then let him,we can all laugh at him when we check his site and notice these mistakes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Oh, the horror!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Uh, Hal, isn't your 85 Topps McGwire a minor league card or the equivalent by your own definition? I don't think he had even been signed by the A's yet, and certainly he is shown in a USA Olympic uniform not an A's uniform.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I can field this one Hal

Peter its because McGwire isnt in the HAL of Fame yet so he doesnt count

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert McKenzie

In the 'new' market the 'pre-rookie' is THE rookie card. Bellingham Griffey etc. I bought a box of bowman chrome about 4 years ago and am still waiting for the 'rookie' from the set to bust out in the majors. my .02

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

I vote for Kwanza

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Alleghenys can't be rookie cards I guess since the (single) set was a prototype and therefore not made available to tykes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Prove it.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

Not trying to beat a dead horse and I hope this doesn't offend you Hal, it is not my intention to, but if you consider the Alleghenys rookie cards then why would you not consider Just Sos rookie cards ? At least the Just Sos we're released to the public even if only in the Cleveland area where as the Allegheny's were never released. So I think that if you consider Brown's rookie card his Allegheny then you must consider Cy Youngs rookie his Just So. In both instances there is only one of each known to exist, but the Just So was released to the public but the Allegheny's never were.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Zach:

As is mentioned in this thread several times...

a player can have MORE THAN ONE rookie card.

In modern days, players have a "traded" set rookie and a "normal" rookie in the following year's set.

Some people count BOTH as rookie cards... but some people only count one... and some only count the other.

That's one example.

Another example is with "Exhibit" cards and "Postcards"...

where some people consider them to be real rookie cards and other people do not.

A third example is with "pre-rookie" cards... where some people are free to consider them rookie cards while others do not.

That having been said...

there are some people who will NOT consider the Alleghany cards to be rookie cards because only one set was supposedly ever found.

Fine. They can think whatever they want. Free country.

I, on the other hand, choose to count them.

This "helps" my collection with Bresnahan and Brown... but it "hurts" my collection with Tinker and Evers since I can't find them.

If I were truly interested in "slanting" the facts in my favor, I would just NOT count the Alleghany cards as real... because THEN I would be able to get the Tinker and Evers rookie cards as well.



As for the "Just So" Cy Young card, OF COURSE it is his rookie card.

But that doesn't mean that there cannot be another rookie card for the same player that meets different criteria.

"First Card from a Nationally Distributed Set"

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

YHTRTCHOOCANWAWTWTC

Live it. We all do. Its only cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

ABG!!!!

(Atta Boy Gil)

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Im still waiting for the Hal Lewis rookie card craze to start.Heres a question to ponder,say someone makes a network54 collectors set and theres a problem with Hal's card.Lets say someone made a mistake on his "Hal holding his Wagner proudly" card(i'll let you decide what the error is on your own) and then when they correct it, will the corrected version still be his rookie card? What if only a few of these error cards hit the market but werent intended to,could that still be considered a rookie? What if the "error" was so small no one noticed for awhile and then the corrected version was a very short printed?

These are all questions id like to know.It will also be interesting to see if PSA/SGC allows the set to be on their registry

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Will the Net54 rookie cards be available in packs for kids to buy or just issued in factory sets?

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Everyone who appears in the set gets their own set,the others will be given away with subscriptions to Old Cardboard magazine and single cards chosen at random will be sent to anyone who sends Leon a SASE,limit 10 requests per household.

Also kids will be allowed to write an essay on why they love vintage cards and the winner will get an autographed set of cards(1/1).The contest will be won by Hal who poses as a kid just to win which will be realized when his registry set contains his own autographed card,and we will also find out by looking at Leon's autograph that he goes by Leon "the white gazelle" Luckey,but he never explains why.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

It seems like everyone is trying to put together a collection of the rookie cards of HOFers. While Jay is putting together a collection of the rookie cards of non-HOFers.

He disguises it as a player set which focuses on the only card issued for players. But we are watching.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Not a bad idea to consider if I ever get anywhere near completion. The big trick would be the 57 players that make their only appearance in the e107 set. That set is the reason I set the start date at 1908.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.