Most Important Cards of Each Decade

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

Let's trace a little baseball card history; this might be fun. Difficult to place the T206 cards, but let's say they're 1909-10 for the sake of argument. Feel free to add other decades.

1881-1890
1. N162 Kelly (Close call over the Anson for tops from this gorgeous set)
2. Four Base Hits Kelly (Rare beauty of 19th c's biggest character)
3. WG1 Anson (First baseball card game with actual players)
4. N172 Delehanty Pitching (One of the most storied 19th century players, one of his better cards)
5. N167 Keefe (Major HOFer from the precursor to the first major card set, see #4)

1891-1900
1. Just So Cy Young (Clearly, the greatest card of the decade)
2. Alpha-Photo Engraving McGraw (The key card, if there is one for a 1-of-a-kind set)
3. Mayo Anson (Key? from this set)
4. 1894 Mayo Football, any (First football card, I know, a little OT, but still...)
5. Cabinet with the 1894 Orioles (THE team of the decade, have seen such card, don't know #)

1901-1910
1. T206 Wagner (not Heinie! Obvious)
2. T206 Magie (First noted error card)
3. E107 Wagner(Important card from first major series of 20th century)
4. T210 Jackson (Biggest "prookie" of them all)
5. T205 Joss (First card of a deceased player)

1911-1920
1. Baltimore News Ruth (Next biggest "prookie")
2. 1914 CJ Matthewson (Most popular card of most popular set of the decade)
3. CJ Jackson (See above. Most attractive Jackson card of all?)
4. 1912 Obak Weaver (Key from this important minor league set, hard to find Black Soxer)
5. T202 Tinker/Chance/Evers Slides (The famous infield on a single card!)

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Do you mean most importnant, most valuable, or best looking? It's hard to tell from the cards that you've ranked. The first football is in the n162 set.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

I think "important" in the sense of historical value, but all those categories sort of mix. (I definitely made a few choices for aesthetic value). I didn't know that there were earlier football cards in the n162 set. I guess the mayos can stand as the first football set, is that safe to say?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

1881-90 N172 Anson in Uniform
1891-00 Just So Young
1901-10 T206 Wagner
1911-20 Baltimore News Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

21-30 it's tough to come up with an important card off the top of my head.
31-40 33G Lajoie
41-50 41PB DIMaggio
51-60 52T Mantle
61-70 63T Rose
71-80 80T Henderson or 75T Brett

After 1980 it's more about sets that are important to the hobby than individual cards. The only single card I can think of as being important is the 1981 Fleer Nettles name misspelled that caused the error mania.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

How 'bout the 1899 Henry Reccius Cigars Wagner


.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It probably doesn't get a lot of respect because there are still those that are not convinced that card was actually issued in 1897. Even if it was, I'd still rate the Just So Young ahead of it. It's a better looking card.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

Jay, this is getting off track, but I gotta say that the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey vies with the Nettles for card of the 80's. Errors were big (The F* You Ripken card comes in third), but every shiny card on the market today owes its origin to the 1989 UD set, and to the most famous card from that set, #1 Junior.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Even without the Griffey, the 89UD set is significant, in and of itself, for the exact reason stated.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach Rice

Here is my list, I started it off at 1860 just for a round number.

1860-1869
-1864 Peck and Snyder single player card of James Creighton
-1869 Peck and Snyder Cincinnati Reds

1870-1879
-1871 Mort Rogers Harry Wright(Not really a card but a scorecard)
-1873 Boston team cabinet featuring both Wrights, Spalding, and O'Rourke

1880-1889
-1887 Four Base Hits Mike Kelly
-1887 N690 Kalamazoo Bats Buck Ewing
-1887 N690 Kalamazoo Bats Keefe
-1887 N690-1 Kalamazoo Bats team cabinet Boston with Radbourn, O'Rourke, and Kelly
-1888 N172 Anson in uniform
-1888 Joseph Hall New York team cabinet

1890-1899
-1893 Just So Tobacco Cy Young
-1895 N300 Mayo Cut Plug Adrian Anson

That is my personal list of the most important cards of the 19th century. Of course not everyone is going to agree but to me these cards listed above represent the very best of the decade they were produced in.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'm always uncomfortable ranking "important" cards becuase generally, it ends up being what is the rarest adn most valuable based on the criteria set up. That's quite different from important. When talking it important, you can really only talk about sets, because singles cards have almost no impact on the marketplace at the time issue. The exception being the Nettles card creating the error craze.

Important sets would be:

n172 the first widely available mass produced set
e223 G&B the first candy issue
e107 the first major set of the 20th century
t206 the resurrection of card inserts
1933 Goudey the first major gum set
1948 Bowman the return of cards after the war
1952 Topps change of format and use of real photos
1957 Topps first with is what is now the standard 2.5x.35 inch card
1981 no set, just the courts ending Topps monopoly
1989 UD the begning of the end of modern cards

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

nicely stated JAy!!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

Yeah, "important" is a tough word, and I grant you that the Nettles had a uniquely immediate effect, but I do think that certain cards can also be looked at retrospectively as having been important or innovative for the hobby. Certainly the Peck and Snyder cards are examples. The 33 Lajoie is an example of this as a sort of premium card, the altered image of the 1914/1915 Mattie is another example of series-innovation. An error card like the Magie is another, and so on and so on. I'd also include the eulogy on the back of the T205 Joss in this class of "important" cards, and the T202 Tinker/Evers/Chance has to be a reference to contemporary pop culture (Franklin Pierce Adams published his poem in 1910, shortly before). All these individual cards stand out as cards, unrelated to their sets, and as historically important examples, I think. In this way certain rookie cards of "important" players can have importance outside of their sets (like the T210 Jackson, maybe, or the Just So Young).
BUT...I agree that trying to pick a card out from the N172 or E107 sets, or making a card important because only 60 or 5 or even 1 survived, that's maybe where using "important" slips into judgements of value or beauty.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Most of your examples for important are cards are based on our perspective. There was set of P&S cards you could get, not just the Red Stockings. The Lajoie only stands out because it is part of the most popular 30s set. Short printing a card was nothing new at that point. It was common practice. I doubt changing the picture of Matty was done to get more people to buy CJ to get the card, otherwise they would have revamped the whole set if that were the intent. I doubt seriously the t205 Joss had any impact on collectors when it was issued. The Tinkers/Evers/Chance is good marketing, not neccessarily important. If it was, you have seen other sets following suit with similar type cards. You have to look to the strip cards of the 20s to find multi-player card of the Waner brothers and then until the 30s again before multi-player cards start showing up on a regular basis.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: martindl

"Important" is such a subjective term. In fine arts, it is used to define an artists' masterpiece, first of a particular genre, a piece that defines that particular artist, an artist as catalyst of a particular movement, etc. When applied to cards, it could mean many of the same things, as i think many of the individual cards listed above do.

For me, I very much like Jay's list of sets and where they fall in the order of things. I'd probably add either the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set or the Fleer 1963 set, because from an importance perspective, both were attempts to break Topps' monopoly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The 1897 Reccius Honus Wagner card is definitely one of the "Top 5" cards from that decade.


1893 "Just So" Cy Young
1894 "Alpha" John McGraw
1897 "Reccius" Honus Wagner


These 3 cards are the cornerstone Rookie cards from that Decade.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach Rice

Hal, you claimed probably 6 months back that the Just So Young was not his rookie because of it being only issued in the Cleveland area. Have you had a change of heart ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

My thinking was NOT that the "Just So" was not his rookie card (it is)... but that the E107 could ALSO be considered his rookie card.



Just like Gehrig has the 1925 Exhibit and the 1927 York Caramel.

Just like Wagner has the 1897 Reccius and the 1903 E107.

Just like Cobb has the 1907 Postcards and the 1909 cards.




This is much different than the distinction between a Minor League card and a Major League card. In these cases, BOTH cards are Major League cards... but the earlier card has one thing or another about it that makes it not a "true" rookie card to certain collectors.

Whether it be the lack of national distribution, the fact that they are oversized, the fact that they are postcards, etc.



Just like some will consider the REA Josh Gibson postcard to be his rookie card... while others will consider the 1951 Toleteros to be his rookie card... and BOTH of them have "issues."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Are you sure the Reccius is 1897 ? best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No, it could be 1897 or it could be 1898 or it could be 1899.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Actually... it could also be from 1895, since Henry Reccius lived on Elliott Street as far back as 1890...

but he would have had to had a "premonition" about a kid named Wagner who was going to play for the Colonels two years down the road!!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

If the Just So Young can't be a rookie because it was only distrubuted in the Cleveland area, the Reccius cannot be a rookie for the same reason, as it appears to have only be distributed in the Louisville area.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I did a quick search and looked back at April 24,25 of 2005. This is what you said, to paraphrase:

"Thus, one would think that if the card was issued anytime AFTER 1903... it would have included his BUSINESS address and phone number as well (and probably ONLY his business address and phone)."



so we now know it had to be in the 1800's?.....did you find some new stuff out?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Uh Jay...

did you read my post?


I listed the Reccius Wagner and compared it directly to the Just So Young for exactly that reason.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No Leon, the card "could" be from 1900 or 1901 or 1902 or 1903 at the latest... but any of those would still make it his earliest card.

It just defies logic to me and everyone else that a Louisville cigar salesman would still be using Wagner as the "name brand" for his cigars AFTER the Colonels "deserted" Louisville after the 1899 season.

The Louisville Colonels had been playing there for 15 years... so the town was far from pleased when team owner Barney Dreyfuss up and left with his players to Pittsburg.

This was a sore spot with Louisville citizens, so using Honus Wagner as a "spokesperson" after 1899 would be like rubbing salt in the wounds of your customers.



I doubt there were too many vendors in Baltimore in 1984 selling "Baltimore Colts" products after Robert Irsay pulled the team out of town overnight in 1983.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Hal, I misread it. I'm grumpy today, so you'll have to forgive me.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

Jay -

I would add the 1992 Donruss set as an important set as they were the first to add inserts as we know them today. The Diamond Kings were randomly distributed in packs that year and it became the first real sub-set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

"21-30 it's tough to come up with an important card off the top of my head."

My vote for the 1920's would be the 1925 Exhibit Gehrig.

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

1921-30 1927 Sports Co. of America Ruth (1927 copyright)

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Hal, where did you come up with the requirement that rookie cards must have been nationally distributed? Wouldn't that require confirmation that a particular card (e.g., a particular backed M101-5 or T206) was sold in each and every state? Do you really think Carolina Brights were sold in the West? Has your research revealed that your 1926 Spalding rookies were distributed on the East Coast?

You have a lot of cards on your website that you call rookies that were clearly not distributed in every state (e.g., all of your foreign cards such as the '36 Dimaggio, '24 Ruffing, Leon Day, Dihigo, Lloyd, Dandridge, etc.) or haven't (to my knowlege) been proven to have been distributed in every state or weren't distributed at all (Alleghenys).

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Id ad....

1916 E137 Zeenut Jimmy Claxton
(First black player picture on a US baseball card)

A GAI-3 (VG) sold in Sotheby's last summer for $7,200. I think the price guides need to update the value (2006 SCD has it at $6,000 NRMT)

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Marcus:

That's just the way some people feel... that card cannot be a "card" unless it was distributed nationally.

With me, I believe that we can have it BOTH ways.


A player can have TWO rookie cards -- his first of ANY sort and his first "nationally available" card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

"..that card cannot be a "card" unless it was distributed nationally."

NOW you're saying that a T216, O-Pee-Chee, Diaz Cigarettes, worldwide gum, etc. is NOT only not a ROOKIE but it is also not a CARD? That's very odd.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Hal, did I read that correctly? Now a card can be a "rookie" even if it was issued in a year subsequent to that player's other "rookie"? I think once and for all we should just toss the futile effort to define rookie cards and appreciate each card on its merits.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think there's 3....the first card, the first major league card, and a wild card of whatever I want to call a rookie....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Leon--With the caveat that in times of doubt the first two can be eliminated

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

or at least when one is trying to sell the subject card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Peter:

Why do you act like I am making these rules up?


This has been the "rule" ever since Topps started putting out "Topps Traded" sets in 1980.


A player, such as Barry Bonds, will have a "rookie" card in the 1986 "update" set...

and will also have a "rookie" card in the 1987 "regular" set.


This has nothing to do with "benefitting" me in any way, it is simply a fact.


Likewise, I have NO REASON to benefit from calling the 1952 Topps Mantle card his "rookie" card...

but don't act like 99% of the hobby doesn't do this, even though he had a card issued in 1951.

[Archive]

Posted By: HandsAtNeck

I know that it seems silly, but why not call a rookie card a player's first card after he made it to the big leagues? Forget about cards which preceeded that, forget about widespread distribution, forget about cards which followed that.

If you want to collect a player's first card, his last card, his first year making the all star team, or other career commeratives, that is a different subject, perhaps.

Edited to add: A unanamous definition of what constitutes a card will never be achieved except by Imperial Edict from PSA or other such high ranking authority, imo. Until such edict, I do not agree that a card's size affects its legitimacy, nor do I believe that a card is a postcard if it has never been used as such. It is a collectable until mailed.

Edited again to add:

Pictures on paper are not cards imho. In order to be a "card" the candidate object must pass a rigidity test such as: being able to support it's own weight if held fixed at any edge.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Because you still run into the problem of "what is a baseball card"?

Is Josh Gibson's postcard a "baseball card"?

Is Ty Cobb's postcard a "baseball card"?

Is a 8" x 11" Sporting News magazine supplement a "baseball card"?

Unfortunately it is all a murky mess...

but that's what makes it all so fun!!

[Archive]

Posted By: HandsAtNeck

It is not murky, nor a mess; unless you insist on it being so. Please see above.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I insist.

[Archive]

Posted By: HandsAtNeck

I know Hal, why?

Please state the minimum size which you feel is large enough to potentially be considered as a card, and the maximum size. If you have justification for either of these requirements, please state them. Also add the shapes which are acceptable to you for consideration as potential cards.

My requirements in this regard relate to practicality. Although three dimensional representations of baseball players could be neat; they are not cards. Similarly, an object may be too small to be reasonably handled, or too big. I have no shape limitations in my thinking.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

in order to be a card...it must have the ability to be shuffled in the hands amongst others, whereby orienting and arranging them into some form of hierarchy. the operator's hands must be the size of an ordinary mans, neither excessively large or small.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I remember as a kid reading in Ripley's believe it or not that the entire Gideon bible had been copied on to a grain of rice. Would that be considered a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think that was the lord's prayer, not the whole bible. Even with todays technology, I don't think you could get the whole bible on a grain of rice.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

unless the rice was made of silicon

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

No bc the grain of rice was distributed regionally.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

Lots of important cards. The Oscar Charleston Billiken being the most important. In fact, I'd rate the Billiken set as one of the best in the hobby. Crisp photographic images, chock full of HOFers and tough to find. Plus they evoke a sense of place and time like few other sets do. The Aguilitas are a fine set, too, as are the V100/E120 sets. (I really like the sepia, big bordered V100's. The Cobb, Mack and Rickey cards are especially excellent.) But for the 1920's, I'll take the Charleston as the #1 card and the Billikens as the #1 set.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

XRC" was a very short-lived designation Beckett used for only a few years, I think by 1988 they realized it was ridiculous and dropped it. The traded sets were nationally distributed, by the way, I think Beckett's thinking was that a true rookie card had to be available in packs. But that has been over for at least 15 years if not more.