Rookie debate Part 2......Cobb

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

This has occasionally come up but still seems to be highly debated. For whatever reason, there seems to be even more controversy surrounding Cobb. Are postcards considered rookie cards? What year was each set ACTUALLY released? If several were produced the same year, which came first?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Whichever card was nationally distributed, not a premium, not depicting him in a minor league, and available in packs kids could purchase at the drugstore (hmmmm does that rule out tobacco?), that is his true RC.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

with prewar ist card issued! if it is printed on paper or cardboard it is the rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I like the E102 also, mine is a SGC 40...wait us a sec, I think it came from you! LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

How she doing for ya?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Not like the chicken or the egg, but which came first? The E101 or E102?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

She loves the safe deposit box very much and I admire the scan daily LOL

You gave me a fair price on the card and while I cringed a little bit on the price, I'm really glad I bought it when I did espicially in light on the increased popularity in Caramel issues lately

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Nope not the E102. I just checked Hal's site and he does not have one.

That is the earliest Cobb card I have as well. Just cannot bring myself to think that the T206 would be a RC with 4 poses. Just too modern of a concept.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

People seem to like to throw in the "national distribution" thing into the mix for a rookie card. The only problem with this is that even the major sets like t206, 205, etc were essentially regional issues pretty much relagated to the Northeastern part of US. Lee and I have spent plenty of time trying to find collections or even a small handful of t-cards in MN and haven't had any luck. Talking to other old time collectors, once you get West of Chicago, there isn't a whole lot in the way of original hoards/collections from the tobacco and caramel era of cards.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

I'm going to do something really bad here that might bring the wrath of everyone down on me...

In the 80s there were three major card companies T, D and F. I know it's hard to think about modern cards, but for most of us that could care less about this stuff I'm obviously referring to Topps, Donrus and Fleer.

Lets say F printed the first year card of a player before anyone else but T distributed there card of that same player first. Which is the TRUE rookie card? The first distributed or the first printed?

Ok, now take your hacks at me. BTW, I'm not sure if I'd consider a PC a real "card" (by the way, that was my "vintage" contribution to the thread).

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

To me any card issued in the same calendar year is on equal footing with any other. So in the case for example of Tony Gwynn, his 1983 Topps Fleer and Donruss cards are all his "true" RCs. I also think almost anyone except Hal would agree that if a player first appeared in a traded set, that too is his "true" RC. Even Beckett agrees with that except for a few years they had the stupid "XRC" designation which results in some second year cards like 85 Clemens and 87 Bonds still being misdesignated as RCs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

postcards and the Sporting Life Cabinet, I guess Cobb's Rookie would have to be either an E101 or T206 Green Portrait or Bat On Shoulder (as those were the two Cobbs issued in the 150 Series for T206). The Bat Off Shoulder and Red Portrait Cobbs did not come out until the 350 Series for T206.

For me, a card is a card. I have always considered the Dietsche Cobb from 1907 his Rookie.

Hal will probably not agree with me, but for vintage rookies, I feel that it is the first card (any form, as long as it is not a pin, button, etc.) that was issued of a particular player. Some of the issues, we still do not even know how they were distributed - W555 is a great example of that. Also, for vintage, there are several issues NOT distributed Nationally that are considered "regular" issue cards - just look at the Philly Caramels and Croft's issues that were issued in Philly. We all consider them regular issue cards and not some regional Wilson Franks type don't we?

For Cobb, my answer is simply - go with the 1907 Dietsche Postards (Batting or Fielding) - afterall, they have the date of 1907 printed on the reverse, so you can't go wrong!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I agree, I don't have a problem considering a post card and baseball "card". This is actually the size limitation for my set. I think anything bigger than a post card a you move into the area of what would be considered a premium and not a true card. And yes, I do not consider t3s cards, but I love them none the less and probably slip and call them cards, but by my defianition of a card, they are not.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lyle Jobe

at least , this time . I would also add the Wolverine News postcards which have reportedly been found with a 1907 postmark .
Note the 1907 designation on the SGC label .

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

The Wolverine is one of the 1907 postcards that would be considered Cobb's Rookie and is actually rarer than the Dietsche Batting and probably even the Dietsche Fielding as well. I really like the Wolverine example!

BTW - I thought we Cobb fans always agreed - LOL!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

That's simply an awesome shot of Cobb.