NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

View Poll Results: What's Joe DiMaggio's rookie card?
1933 - 36 Zeenut 43 27.04%
1936 R312 22 13.84%
1936 World Wide Gum 70 44.03%
1937 O-Pee-Chee 2 1.26%
1938 Goudey 20 12.58%
Other (please specify) 2 1.26%
Voters: 159. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:28 PM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default Joe DiMaggio's Rookie Card?

I'm trying to figure this out: what is Joe DiMaggio's rookie card?

Last edited by samosa4u; 07-17-2019 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:37 PM
Matthewevan Matthewevan is offline
member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 5
Default

I would have to say the 1936 WWG.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:40 PM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default

I added the poll just now. Please vote. It expires in 30 days. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:58 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,008
Default

Either of the 1936 issues.
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:04 PM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

Really interesting question. I guess it depends on how you define things.

I don't think issues like R312 are "cards" so so me personally, I wouldn't include them.

Also, Zeenut is a minor league card, so I personally wouldn't include that either.

Then it gets a little tougher to decide. Should foreign issues count? Is Canada "foreign"?

I'm not sure how I would answer that. If you're ok with a "foreign" card, then I think 1936WWG is the rookie. If not, then 38 Goudey.

But, the 38 Goudy is such a stupid looking card, I'd never buy one.

If I wanted a DiMaggio, what I'd personally get is one of the Play Ball issues.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:57 PM
mantleman mantleman is offline
Andy Sargent
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolarBear View Post
Really interesting question. I guess it depends on how you define things.

I don't think issues like R312 are "cards" so so me personally, I wouldn't include them.

Also, Zeenut is a minor league card, so I personally wouldn't include that either.

Then it gets a little tougher to decide. Should foreign issues count? Is Canada "foreign"?

I'm not sure how I would answer that. If you're ok with a "foreign" card, then I think 1936WWG is the rookie. If not, then 38 Goudey.

But, the 38 Goudy is such a stupid looking card, I'd never buy one.

If I wanted a DiMaggio, what I'd personally get is one of the Play Ball issues.
I'm following Don on this one. Agreed the 1938 is a mainstream issue but I consider the 1939 Playball as his rookie when I bought mine. This could spark a great debate, but ultimately in comes down to minor vs major league issue and what people consider mainstream issues cards.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:59 PM
sycks22's Avatar
sycks22 sycks22 is offline
Pete Sycks
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,596
Default

The weirdly zoomed in 36 WWG in my book.
__________________
My website with current cards

http://syckscards.weebly.com


Always looking for 1938 Goudey's
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:31 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,311
Default

I could see an argument for the 36 WWG or 38 Goudey. But as someone else mentioned I'm not a fan of the way the 38 looks and will probably pick up a 41 play ball when I add a Dimaggio to the collection.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:40 PM
darwinbulldog's Avatar
darwinbulldog darwinbulldog is offline
Glenn
Glen.n Sch.ey-d
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,086
Default

It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-16-2019, 04:02 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,634
Default

Agreed but would probably add r312

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post
It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-16-2019, 04:35 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5,485
Default

What about the National Chicle? He's still wearing number 18 on that card. It must be the earliest image of him as a professional, no?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:10 PM
triwak's Avatar
triwak triwak is offline
Ken Wirt
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 811
Default

Or this. (Mine, so I'm biased lol)!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 83. Joe McCarthy.jpg (77.1 KB, 525 views)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:30 PM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycks22 View Post
The weirdly zoomed in 36 WWG in my book.
It does have a mug shot feel to it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:31 PM
MikeGarcia MikeGarcia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,138
Default Spring 1936 Florida

Quote:
Originally Posted by triwak View Post
Or this. (Mine, so I'm biased lol)!
..now it's a matter of which Gum maker sold their product in the stores first.

..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:44 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 7,388
Default

R312 and R314 are in the American Card Catalog. They count. The WWG card is awesome (when unaltered) but is Canadian, so no dice, eh. The Zeenuts are my favorites but they are pre-rookies.
__________________
Please visit my web site: www.americasgreatboxingcards.com
Judge a man by how he treats someone who can do nothing for him--Nick Charles
10% off any BIN in my eBay store (user name: exhibitman) for N54 members buying direct from me through this site instead, just PM me.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-16-2019, 05:49 PM
Steve D's Avatar
Steve D Steve D is offline
5t3v3...D4.w50n
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,317
Default

For me, it's between the two 1936 issues, as the Zeenuts were PCL (minor League) cards.

The 1936 World-Wide Gum cards were issued in Canada. How were people in say, Virginia or Missouri supposed to get them at the time?

The 1936 R312 Issue was issued in the United States, but it is a "Premium" issue (not normal cards). Still, they were available to baseball fans in the US.

So, you have a quandary.

I vote for the R312 issue being Joe's RC, as it is a US issue, and was available for baseball fans in the US to purchase.

Steve
__________________
Successful BST deals with Leon, veloce, shammus, lharris3600, jimivintage, sb1, seablaster.

Current Wantlist:
1909 Obak Howard (Los Angeles) (no frame on back)
T205 Adkins, Donohue, Fisher, Graham (Cubs), A. Leifield, Wilhelm
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:21 PM
yanksfan09's Avatar
yanksfan09 yanksfan09 is offline
_Er!ck*L.ew1n_
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Default

I really like this one!

I would say any 1936 issue can be called a rookie card, with zeenuts being pre rookie/ minor league issues ( and awesome!)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 44247624010_fdc4e2f9e0_z.jpg (37.2 KB, 504 views)
__________________
Er1ck.L. ---D381 seeker http://www.flickr.com/photos/30236659@N04/sets/

Last edited by yanksfan09; 07-16-2019 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:04 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,193
Default

Any of the 1936 issues that are "cards". The Zeenuts are pre-rookies as mentioned previously and anything after 1936 is too late. The R312 is the one most on the fence. Size-wise it's pretty close to the max as far as what I would consider for "rookie card" status, still a little bit smaller than a cabinet card size such as W600's so I could live with it as being a DiMaggio rookie card.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:29 PM
Rhotchkiss's Avatar
Rhotchkiss Rhotchkiss is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,524
Default

I don’t own any DiMaggio cards. But if/when I do, it will be the Zeenut batting followed right behind by Zeenut throwing. Those are minor league cards, so by definition they cannot be rookie cards. But in my opinion, they are the cards to own
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:30 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,008
Default

Not a rookie, but my favorite, and not often found.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dimaggio orcajo.jpg (70.9 KB, 454 views)
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:00 PM
orly57's Avatar
orly57 orly57 is offline
Orlando Rodriguez
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Miami
Posts: 974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss View Post
I don’t own any DiMaggio cards. But if/when I do, it will be the Zeenut batting followed right behind by Zeenut throwing. Those are minor league cards, so by definition they cannot be rookie cards. But in my opinion, they are the cards to own
I agree. In some instances I prefer a pre-rookie to the first card in a major league uniform. Ryan, when you do go with DiMaggio, look into the 1935 Pebble Beach. I personally think that’s the best DiMaggio card out there. Super rare, great image, and they are all autographed!

Last edited by orly57; 07-16-2019 at 10:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:10 PM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,739
Default

A player can have more than one rookie cards. The R312, WWG and National Chicles are all rookies! 1939 Play Ball a rookie? Not even close.

Last edited by Orioles1954; 07-16-2019 at 10:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-17-2019, 08:17 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 7,388
Default

One thing I also appreciate about the 1936 R cards is that they are affordable if you are not a condition freak, which is an anomalous thing for a prewar RC of a major HOFer
__________________
Please visit my web site: www.americasgreatboxingcards.com
Judge a man by how he treats someone who can do nothing for him--Nick Charles
10% off any BIN in my eBay store (user name: exhibitman) for N54 members buying direct from me through this site instead, just PM me.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:37 AM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default

The World Wide Gum is leading the way, however, the Zeenut is putting up a big fight! It's pretty interesting because a lot of you folks like minor league cards.

Now regarding the Canadian issues, I want you guys to look at it this way: we all know that the 1951 Parkhurst Gordie Howe is his rookie (and it's a very ugly card too). However, this card was only available in Canada. The 52' and 53' Parkies were only sold in Canada too. Howe's first card sold in America was from the 54' Topps series, I believe. Now since the 51' Parkie Howe is a foreign issue, then can we argue that it's not his rookie? The same goes for all the other popular hockey rookies that were not sold in the States, such as the O-Pee-Chee Gretzky, Topps Bobby Orr, etc.

I also agree with many of you that the 38' Goudey DiMaggio is an ugly card. Now I'm not really bothered by the set design; what I can't stand looking at is DiMaggio's facial expression. It just looks like he is on a toilet seat.

I still have Joe Orlando's Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby book and on page 102 he calls the 38' Goudey DiMaggio his "official rookie card." However, this book came out long time ago and a lot has changed since then.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-17-2019, 12:34 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is online now
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,010
Default

DiMaggio had 1936 Wheaties as well. And that along with the WWG and his R312 etc. Are all his Rookie cards. I also agree that for a long time the 1938 Goudey was considered his Rookie. And I love his 1938 Goudey card especially the high series.
I dont think any of these cards carry the high multiple of some other big name rookies. Like the Ruth or Gehrig. The WWG and the 38 Goudey sell for the most but both are scarce
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-17-2019, 04:09 PM
100backstroke 100backstroke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 654
Default

That Orcajo Postcard is a beauty. I am not into the 4 in 1 Exhibits, however, the 1937 which features both Gehrig & Dimaggio strikes my fancy - am on the hunt for a nice one.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-17-2019, 04:20 PM
frankbmd's Avatar
frankbmd frankbmd is offline
Fr@nk Burke++
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Between the 1st tee and the 19th hole
Posts: 5,875
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post
It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.
I dare you to submit a card for grading and receive in return a Crab Nebula designation on the flip. Which TPG? Your choice. If successful, submit it to PWCC for sale and post the flowery description from their auction here.

Crab Nebula WWGs should be a separate option in this poll.
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER BUT CLEARLY........

GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION


518/1000 Monster Number

Over*760* successful B/S/T transactions completed in 2012-19.
Over 550 sales with satisfied Board members served.
Thank you all.



Now nearly PQ.

Last edited by frankbmd; 07-17-2019 at 04:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-17-2019, 04:43 PM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u View Post
The World Wide Gum is leading the way, however, the Zeenut is putting up a big fight! It's pretty interesting because a lot of you folks like minor league cards.

Now regarding the Canadian issues, I want you guys to look at it this way: we all know that the 1951 Parkhurst Gordie Howe is his rookie (and it's a very ugly card too). However, this card was only available in Canada. The 52' and 53' Parkies were only sold in Canada too. Howe's first card sold in America was from the 54' Topps series, I believe. Now since the 51' Parkie Howe is a foreign issue, then can we argue that it's not his rookie? The same goes for all the other popular hockey rookies that were not sold in the States, such as the O-Pee-Chee Gretzky, Topps Bobby Orr, etc.

I also agree with many of you that the 38' Goudey DiMaggio is an ugly card. Now I'm not really bothered by the set design; what I can't stand looking at is DiMaggio's facial expression. It just looks like he is on a toilet seat.

I still have Joe Orlando's Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby book and on page 102 he calls the 38' Goudey DiMaggio his "official rookie card." However, this book came out long time ago and a lot has changed since then.
Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-17-2019, 05:43 PM
Paul S Paul S is offline
P. Sp.ec.tor
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Landlocked by High Toll Fees
Posts: 2,107
Default

This is why people in Toronto go to Buffalo to do their shopping
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-17-2019, 05:44 PM
BeanTown's Avatar
BeanTown BeanTown is offline
Jay Cee
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!
Haha true that. Whats next a Ty Cobb rookie debate?
__________________
Love Ty Cobb rare items
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:06 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 7,388
Default

This will probably be a bridge too far for some but add this 1936 to the pile:



More info:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-card-cutouts/

"Some of the stamps are intriguing early collectibles of players, too. For example, this series included Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio. 1936 was DiMaggio’s first year in the majors and, as a result, this is a legitimate rookie issue."
__________________
Please visit my web site: www.americasgreatboxingcards.com
Judge a man by how he treats someone who can do nothing for him--Nick Charles
10% off any BIN in my eBay store (user name: exhibitman) for N54 members buying direct from me through this site instead, just PM me.

Last edited by Exhibitman; 07-17-2019 at 10:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:32 PM
Kenny Cole Kenny Cole is offline
Kenny Cole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 1,192
Default

Yes, a bridge too far. Can't do newspaper cutouts. I will stick with the
WWG because I view that as a card as opposed to the premiums, which I do not feel similarly about.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:41 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is online now
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,008
Default

Card or not, I would like to find a really nice EX or EXMT R312, had a 7 but for some reason sold it a while back.
__________________
Stuff trumps all. Even tainted stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:28 PM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!
Yes, that’s the point I was trying to make (second paragraph.)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:31 PM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
This is why people in Toronto go to Buffalo to do their shopping
I love Buffalo. Best beer selection I have ever seen.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:10 AM
PhillyFan1883's Avatar
PhillyFan1883 PhillyFan1883 is offline
Connor
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 52
Default 36 wwg

The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.
__________________
Successful Transactions with: Oldjudge X4, SOXINSEVEN, Brian van Horn X3, Danf19,Androolius,qed2190, Chris Counts,
griffon512 X2, and Marckus99.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-18-2019, 03:23 AM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883 View Post
The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.
Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:54 AM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”
Ha! Another good question.

I think people use "rookie" and "inaugural" interchangeably. I do think there should be a distinction but I doubt you'll ever get the industry to make that distinction. "Rookie" is too ingrained to change.

I was just reading an article the other day about the N172 set being filled with "rookie" cards. Um, ok. Perfect example where inaugural would fit much better.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:47 AM
JoeDfan JoeDfan is offline
Sean Sullivan
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 692
Default My favorite

R311

Technically, probably too big, but I love it.

Although the National Chicle is a stunning action shot, so that is right up there too.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg R311 Leather Finish DiMag.jpg (72.1 KB, 224 views)

Last edited by JoeDfan; 07-18-2019 at 10:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:15 AM
PhillyFan1883's Avatar
PhillyFan1883 PhillyFan1883 is offline
Connor
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”
Great question and I tend to agree. The problem only really comes into play with these lets say pre 1940's players. I like the inaugural thought and it makes sense, but again with the earlier players it doesn't feel right not to attach the RC designation to one of the players cards. Tricky stuff lol. Then there is a guy like Shoeless Joe who really makes an interesting conversation with his 1909 E90-1 Pro rookie but then in 1910 the famous T210 minor league card.. Fun conversations for sure.
__________________
Successful Transactions with: Oldjudge X4, SOXINSEVEN, Brian van Horn X3, Danf19,Androolius,qed2190, Chris Counts,
griffon512 X2, and Marckus99.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:44 AM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:58 AM
JohnnyFinance7 JohnnyFinance7 is offline
K.J. Kin0$hit@
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 34
Default Joltin Joe Rookie card

I just picked up and voted for the 1936 R312.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:02 PM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolarBear View Post
I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

I'm with you on 1 an 2. Definitely not on 3 and 4. By the way, 1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan....NOT his rookie card.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:21 PM
darwinbulldog's Avatar
darwinbulldog darwinbulldog is offline
Glenn
Glen.n Sch.ey-d
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolarBear View Post
I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.
1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg N172 Fields.jpg (76.2 KB, 208 views)

Last edited by darwinbulldog; 07-18-2019 at 12:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:41 PM
PolarBear's Avatar
PolarBear PolarBear is offline
Don
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post
1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

My personal definition of "card sized" would fit into a standard PSA/SGC slab, so yes T206 etc. are cards. I never really thought about it before but I think they need to be square/rectangle. I personally wouldn't consider E254's "cards" by that definition.

Of course there are Canadian baseball cards. I just wouldn't consider them a true "rookie". How far do we want to go beyond that? It's easy to include Canada since they have a baseball tradition and the cards are in English. What if Japan issued a "rookie"? Most people wouldn't count it. As I said, these are the lines I draw, which I expect most people will disagree.

I'd consider cards with a single named player, who is the main subject, to be cards of that player. Plenty of modern action shot cards are obviously meant to be for that player even though others may be in the shot. (1973 Topps is pretty bad about this though and sometimes you can't tell what player they were trying to shoot)

For what it's worth, I don't buy into all the "rookie" hype or "most desirable" hype anyway. Like I said up thread, if I wanted a DiMaggio, I'd get one of the Play Ball issues instead of anything from 36-38. I just don't care about "rookie" cards.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:43 PM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,167
Default

I don’t understand why a Canadian card would not be considered a card. The reality is that it was more likely a kid in New York City would have access to a Canadian card made in Ontario than they would a Zeenut card made and distributed in California. Maybe it is because I grew up in Maine and Had daily interactions with Canadians but I have never thought of Canada as a “foreign country” in the same way do other places like England or Australia.

Also the definition of a rookie card in the modern card market is very different than it was when most of us collected as kids. Today the definition is a card from the season you make your debut in the Major Leagues (preferably pictured with the big league club). Mike Trout’s “rookie” is considered to be the 2011 Topps Update and sets made at that time but he was pictured on cards dating back to 2009 but those aren’t considered his rookie but merely his first cards and many are worth far less than his Toops Update card, even though they are earlier. Some players today are featured on cards MANY years before they make their debut (I was looking at a player the other day That had their first card in 2010 but didn’t make the majors until 2016).

Many of the rookies we collected back in the day wouldn’t be collected as rookies now, chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, etc. I have never seen someone really selling a 2003 Miguel Cabrera as a rookie even though that was his debut year.
__________________
Check out my website www.StarsOfTheDiamond.com
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:05 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 7,388
Default

What about Mark McGwire: 1985 Topps when he was on USA Baseball as a college athlete or 1987 on his first MLB cards?

The one thing this thread shows is that the whole 'rookie card' thing is a construct that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in less organized periods of collecting history. When you fold international cards into the mix, it really goes off the rails. Like, what do you do with the Negro League greats who had Cuban or Venezuelan cards that predated (by decades) any American cards? What about Ichiro? Anyone want to argue that a 2001 SP Authentic is a rookie instead of a 1993 BBM?
__________________
Please visit my web site: www.americasgreatboxingcards.com
Judge a man by how he treats someone who can do nothing for him--Nick Charles
10% off any BIN in my eBay store (user name: exhibitman) for N54 members buying direct from me through this site instead, just PM me.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-18-2019, 11:22 AM
samosa4u's Avatar
samosa4u samosa4u is online now
Ran-jodh Dh.ill0n
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 506
Default

The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:30 PM
shagrotn77 shagrotn77 is offline
Andrew Mc.Gann
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u View Post
The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~
Amen brother. "Rookie" should be synonymous with "first". The whole notion of pre-RC and XRC is silly.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


ebay GSB