Foxx Rookie?

Archive · #1 05-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Posted By: Mike Heatherly

Is the 1926-1929 Exhibit considered one of, or his distinct rookie? Doe's anyone know the ballpark value of this card in a 3 grade?

Archive · #2 05-17-2007, 04:40 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

The exhibit is his rookie, and since I have one on ebay closing in a couple of hours, I will let someone else appraise it.

Archive · #3 05-17-2007, 04:43 PM

Posted By: Mike Heatherly

Nuff said, thanks for your imput!

Archive · #4 05-17-2007, 04:57 PM

Posted By: Mark

Do not forget HBL rookie card rule No. 5 - If one card was issued over a series of years, another card issue during such period is also a rookie card. Hence, the 1927 W560 Foxx is a rookie card.

Archive · #5 05-17-2007, 05:30 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

Thus begins the debate. I think there are some cards where there is more than one rookie, especially when it's not clear which was issued first. For example, 1934 Goudey Greenberg vs. 1934 Batter-Up Greenberg.

Archive · #6 05-17-2007, 06:40 PM

Posted By: Mark

Actually, Greenberg is governed by HBL rookie card rule No. 6 - If one card was issued over a range of years (e.g., 1924-36 Batter-Up), another card was issued solely during the first year of such range (1934 Goudey or Tigers Team Issue), then the card issued solely in the first year is teh sole rookie card. And so it has been written.

Archive · #7 05-17-2007, 06:48 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

If Batter Up was issued between 1934 and 1936, it's reasonable to assume some Greenberg's were printed in 1934. Did they precede the Goudey issue? I have no idea. I understand your point, but there is always a debate.

Archive · #8 05-17-2007, 07:02 PM

Posted By: Mark

HBL rookie card rule No. 2 - it matters not which card was released first to market during a particular year (The answer could easily vary by geographic location.)

Archive · #9 05-17-2007, 07:22 PM

Posted By: barrysloate

What are the HBL rules? Are those Hal's initials?

Archive · #10 05-17-2007, 07:51 PM

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yes.

Archive · #11 05-18-2007, 05:33 PM

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

For purists like us, I'm sure we would not consider the 1933 Goudey, Jimmy Foxx #29 a rookie. But the SCD has indicated that it is now significantly more valuable than the other Foxx in the 1933 Goudey set. What's up with that.

Peter

Archive · #12 05-18-2007, 06:38 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

The 1st series Foxx card #29 was printed on inferior cardboard (coarse stock). Therefore, this card
is much more difficult to find in nice shape. As is the 1st 50-55 cards in this set. Besides the fact
that Bengough is the #1 card the same applies to his card. Goudey used very crude cardboard in the
first series.

The higher # Foxx always shows up in better condition.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: 1927 W560 Jimmy Foxx HOF Rookie ~SGC 50~	Archive	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	02-15-2009 08:47 PM
1926 Exhibit JIMMIE FOXX Rookie + More	Archive	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	5	09-24-2007 11:56 AM
Forsale W560 Foxx Rookie card g-vg $60	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T	0	04-17-2006 03:10 PM
F/S - 1926-29 Foxx Exhibit - Rookie Card	Archive	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	02-13-2006 12:00 PM
1927 W560 Jimmy Foxx Rookie SGC 60 on ebay	Archive	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	10-24-2005 03:52 PM