1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan

Pardon my novice questions. Is the 1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card known as Babe Ruth's rookie card ? How many of them are known to exist ? Is it as many as the T-206 Wagner ?


Thanks.
Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No, it is not considered his "rookie" card because it does not really meet any of the definitions. It shows him on his minor league team and was printed while he was still in the minor leagues. His real "rookie" card is the 1915 M101-5 card.

That having been said...

the 1914 Babe Ruth card is incredibly rare (much more so than the T206 Wagner) and is worth every penny. Anything THAT old and THAT rare with someone THAT famous on it is a treasure REGARDLESS of what you call it.

I don't think, however, that it is the first "baseball related" image of Ruth, because I think there is a team photo somewhere out there of Ruth with his Orphanage Team that pre-dates 1914.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

What about Kid Nichols N172 with Omaha? Isn't that considered his rookie card? If so, then Ruth's is too. Just opening a friendly discussion here. I'm a big fan of the Ruth card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Nope.

Nichols rookie card is his 1895 Mayo.



That's why I never bought an Old Judge Nichols.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Is that universally accepted by all rookie collectors?

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i believe the concept of a rookie card is more a post war concept and begins really with the bowman and topps sets. especially with 19th century cards it is the term rookie card really does not apply

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

A quick question regarding rookie cards. Why on your site do you have Cy Youngs e107 as his rookie ? Even though just one exists his Just So is his rookie and should not be ignored. It pre-dates his e107 by ten years.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But collecting rookie cardss of all Hall of Famers is hot today and there has to be a few cards where collector opinion diverges.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Not everyone shares the same opinion with regard to rookie cards in prewar sets. It is pretty much a matter of taste. Personally, I think the OJ is Nichols' rookie card. Not everyone shares this opinion - that is part of what makes collecting fun!

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i think the oj nichols is also and hal should sell me his mayo. rookie cards are of a players first card in the majors but do we consider the players league and AA the majors or just the nl?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

David:

This issue was discussed at length a long time ago, but I don't know how to find the thread.

Basically... since I collect HALL OF FAME rookie cards... I count WHATEVER the official Hall of Fame counts.

If you look at their site, you will see that they do NOT count Nichols' stats from his Western League (1887-1889) days as being in the MAJOR LEAGUES:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Pitching/Nichols_Kid.htm

BUT...

when you look at others in the American Association, you see that that their stats ARE counted as MAJOR leagues, like McPhee:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/McPhee_Bid.htm



SO...

Western League is NOT considered to be MAJOR LEAGUES by the HOF... but the American Association IS.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Hitting/McCarthy_Tommy.htm

This link shows that the HOF also counts the Union Association as MAJOR LEAGUES... even though it was only around for 1884.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

This link shows the 7 leagues accepted as MAJOR LEAGUE baseball over time:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- In your most humble opinion, why do you think a 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth sells for significantly more than an M101-5 Ruth if it is not his rookie card? I know it is somewhat rarer but it takes more than just rarity for a card to be so valuable. It also takes demand.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

There is no question the Baltimore News is the earlier card, the rarer card and the more expensive card compared to the Sporting News. But the Baltimore News is a minor league card and not the rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

i think the ruth sells for so much because it is ruth. certainly there a few cards i can think of that are more scarce for cards like cobb or wagner but do not sell for anywhere near 6 figures just because they are not ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Webster's defines rookie as:

"A first-year participant in a major professional sport."

So why cant the Baltimore News Ruth or Nichols OJ be considered rookie cards? They are the first cards the players appeared on playing a professional sport.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Chris:

Because then CRAP like this would be considered a player's rookie card:

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Chris - you can define rookie any way you want. However, the larger baseball collecting community tends to define rookie as in first card from the major leagues.

Use your own logic - why does MLB have a "Rookie of the Year" if the winner has already been a professional baseball player for many years?

At the end of the day, with pre-war cards, minor league examples are typically not considered the so-called "Rookie" card. Yes, there are sometimes exceptions, and first-cards of major HOF'ers are always very popular. But the rookie card tends to be the first major-league depiction of that player in a series of cards that was widely distributed.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I tend to agree with Chris. We are not talking about Cal Ripken with the Rochester Royals issued as a giveaway at a minor league ballpark. The Nichols and the Ruth are significant cards and the Old Judge set in particular is one of the most important ever issued. However, I don't collect them, I just pontificate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Pontificate away, Obi Wan Kanobi.

But even "the force" can't get Nichols to the Major Leagues before 1890.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Yes, everyone can choose to define a rookie card however they want. If I am collecting rookie cards, I would prefer to have the Nichols OJ over a card that was issued 5 years after his major league debut. Maybe that makes me a "first card" collector then...

I dont really care if others consider it a rookie or not - actually, with the prices "true" rookie cards have been getting lately, I would just as soon that no one agree with me!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

No, Omaha will never be the major leagues, but an N172 Nichols is a very serious card- or as Dana Carvey said as Ross Perot: "as serious as a heart attack."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Just because someone doesn't own a card doesn't mean it's not a rookie. There is absolutely no doubt that the '14 Ruth and OJ Nichols are true rookie cards.....like it or not.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

When we are talking about pre-war cards I think technical issues of "rookie" or not have little meaning as they do in today's modern market.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

about what he just said strongly. That is why I believe and know that Cy Youngs rookie card is not his e107 but his just so.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Ask the grading services, they know everything, and make all of our rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The Just So of Young is in fact a major league card, so I don't think that one is in dispute, is it? Perhaps because it was regional there may be a sticking point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Leon:

In the 2005 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards by Bob Lemke...

the 1914 Baltimore News card of Ruth is specifically NOT listed in the "Vintage Major League Baseball Cards" section...

and IS listed in the "Minor League Cards" section at the back of the book.

Don't act like I am trying to make up the rules here based on what I own. That's not fair to me.

I am using the most widely accepted guide on cards and the Hall of Fame itself for my data.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

I know it's his rookie but Hal lists his e107 as his rookie. Not trying to start anything but Hal does list his e107 as his rc.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Just So was only distributed in the Cleveland area so I guess in the strictest definition it is not a rookie- this is why there are different opinions but collectors are free to collect as they wish.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Barry and I were just privately emailing and he dared me to "fuel the fire". I'm just messin' with ya' I would think a major league card is generally a must to be a rookie....but personally since I don't collect rookies anymore I don't care too much....It's a good friendly debate, the rookie one....Just having some fun.....regards....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Barry--There is no comparison between the number of Baltimore News Ruth cards and the M101-4/5 Ruth cards. The latter is as common as any card in the set(read-not all that rare); the Baltimore News Ruth is very rare with only a handful of copies known. The real question in value is not why the Baltimore News Ruth sells only at 2 1/2 times the price of an M101-4/5 Ruth, but rather why it doesn't sell at 10x the price or more. I'm not saying that the Baltimore News Ruth should be more expensive; I'm saying that the M101-4/5 Ruth is a card that has been overhyped by the auction houses with the result that some collectors with more money than sense have bid the card up to the moon.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

OK Leon, you got me!



Zach: It's my website, I make the rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon speaks the truth- and I think it's fair to say with certain specific cards it is reasonable to have differences of opinion. The 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson is a prime example of one that is considered a rookie despite numerous cards picturing Jackie issued prior to it. When you collect you set your own parameters and then proceed accordingly. Others may differ and if I think an OJ Nichols is a rookie card, so sue me (please don't sue me).

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

What about Jesse Burkett?

He appears on 4 cards that I know of:

1893 Just So
1903 W600 Sporting Life Cabinet
1909 Ramly
1921 Koester Bread

If the Just So isnt his rookie, what is? Does Burkett have a rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The M101-5 has been hyped as a rookie. Perhaps the 1914 Ruth is priced properly and the Sporting News is the one that is overpriced. No right answer to that one. It's a matter of preference.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

By 1921 Burkett is long retired. That would be an interesting rookie card. I say Just So, but there will be a difference of opinion for sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

If lots of collectors like the minor league card best, it will sell for more, rookie or whatever notwithstanding. Personally, I've never cared much whether a card is a player's rookie. I prefer vintage pre-rookies to most any rookie of a HOFer and often I prefer a final card to the rookie card (esp. if there are stats on it). I suppose the same is true of the folks who bought the 1914 Ruth. I'd rather have my Zeenut or PCL Exhibit Averill than any ML card of Averill and I know I would enjoy a 1969 Mantle more than a 1951 Mantle, values notwithstanding. In other cases, there are other considerations. I personally would rather have a Buck Weaver with the Sox than the Obak Weaver, even if the Obak predates and costs more than the Sox Weaver (in fact, I opted for an M101-5 Weaver over the Obak when I was shopping for a Weaver card). Ditto for the Jackson: give me the M101-5 over the E90-1 any day. There is something about having a player depicted with the team where his impact was most powerful.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

If I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times:

CWYWC* !!

*Collect What YOU Wanna Collect




But at the same time...

YHTRTCHOOCANWAWTWTC* !!

(a little harder to remember and not as catchy)

*You Have To Respect The Collecting Habits Of Other Collectors And Not Worry About What THEY Wanna Collect

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

According to the hobby (and everyone here), a rookie is a baseball player in his first year of the major leagues. Clearly a card before the pictured player entered the major leagues is not a rookie card, because the player is not yet a rookie. It's a pre-rookie card.

Earlier than Major League rookie year minor league and college cards of a player are generally called Pre-Rookie cards. Curiously, Mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card is widely called his rookie card, even though he didn't play in the Majors until 1986 and is pictured as a Team USA Olympic player.

It could also be reasonably argued that many players don't have rookie cards, as their first MLB card appeared in their third, forth or whatever year in the bigs. Unless the 'rookie' is being applied to the card itself, rather than the player.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- I wish you didn't translate the second abbreviation- I wanted to spend the next three years trying to figure it out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Who can explain why Barry Bonds' 1986 cards are "XRCs" and what exactly an XRC is? Is it a limbo category between a minor league card and a major league card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

XRC is the designation that the guides give to cards from update sets like Topps Traded or Fleer Update, while the RC designation is used for cards from the normal Topps and Fleer sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For modern cards (Post War), a rookie card is generally considered to be the player's first regular card (no League Leaders or team cards) from the regular issue of one of the major producers (Bowman, Topps, Fleer, Upper Deck, etc). Modern arallel and inserts are not considered to be rookies. Introduced in the 1970s, but taking off in the 1980s, the major manufacturers issued small 'rookie and traded' and similar 'special' sets issued after the regular sets. For rookie card definition purposes, these rookie/traded cards are considered on the order of parallels and inserts.

However, if a board member were to offer an 'XRC' card on eBay and call it a 'rookie card,' it's likely no one would object.

There will always be reasonable debates as to whether or not a regional or XRC or this or that shiny insert is a rookie card. The time an eBay seller will get legitimately get heaped on is when he labels a rookie card that clear is not (1989 Topps Mark McGwire).

If an eBay seller wants to call a 1951 regional issue Willie Mays' rookie card, that is fine by me. If the potential bidder in this auction doesn't consider it to be May's rookie card, as it's not a Topps or Bowman, that's fine by me too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I guess a better question is whether people consider XRCs to be rookie cards and, if not, why not? I notice that Hal displays the '85 Clemens and the '87 Bonds.

XRCs do depict players in major league uniforms. Is it because traded/update sets are not considered to be nationally distrbuted? I would argue they are since they're available at card shops and shows throughout the country.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

XRCs are clearly rookie cards. At some point Beckett changed its system and started considering cards from traded sets as rookies. They just refused to go back and fix the mess for the few years they used the XRC designation. The mid 80s traded sets were extremely plentiful. There are a zillion 84 Fleer Update Clemens cards, there is no reason on earth to consider an 85 card his rookie. Same with Bonds -- appeared in three 86 traded sets, why would anyone consider an 87 card his rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

The definition of a rookie card is completely arbitrary, having been invented in 1980 by dealers to move old Topps and Bowman cards. I'm still not clear on why the double printed 1952 Topps Mantle is considered a rookie card. Might as well define it as cards of a certain size, or photo (vs. drawing). I have trouble seeing the parallel between the Ruth and today's minor league giveaways also.

Which is older- rookie cards or Kwanza?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The earlier definition was the strict hobby definition, not neccesarily mine. In my opinion, if an XRC pictures the player and the player actually has or soon will play in the bigs (not 6 years later after toiling in AA), I would call it a rookie card. I also count regional cards as rookie cards, but not minor league cards.

Duly note that the XRCs and inserts are often more expensive than the 'by the book' rookie card. The 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (XRC) is more expensive than his 1985 Topps RC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I'm just not a big fan of "Traded" cards...

but they can certainly be considered "rookie cards."

I just think that the REGULAR card from the following year's FULL set is ALSO considered a "rookie card."

But then again...

CWYWC !!