True Pre-War Rookie Cards

[Rhotchkiss]

With all the different types of "cards" issued during 1900-1930 (tobacco, caramel, confectionery, bread, post cards, etc.), and in the absence of a true, mainstream "set" (like T206 or Goudey), I find it confusing and very hard to determine the true rookie card for each of the following HOFers. Can the board help create a consensus on what the true rookie card is for each of the following players:

Ty Cobb
Walter Johnson
Cy Young
Christy Matthewson
Nap Lajoie
Joe Jackson
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you have not done so already try searching this has been done many times before. As for Ruth, the question is going to be do you count the Baltimore News or not and I doubt there is any consensus on that. For Gehrig I think most would agree it's the 1925 Exhibit. I am certain there are several threads debating the Cobb and Lajoie it depends what the date of some issues are and that isn't completely certain. For Young, from memory, it's the Just So although it's extremely scarce. Jackson I would think E90-1. Mathewson I forget, it may also depend on the uncertain date of some issues.

[RaidonCollects]

Ty Cobb I consider his E102 card, although it may be his Rose postcard. Not sure.
Cy Young is his 1893 Just So Cabinet
Joe Jackson as said above is his E90-1, however his T210 card can also be called a rookie.
Babe Ruth is his M101-4 or M101-5 and there might be a few more in "the M101-4/5 family" his Baltimore News card is a "pre-rookie" minor league card.
Lou Gehrig as said above, 1925 Exhibits.

Don't know about the rest,

Thanks,

Owen

[pherbener]

The Matty would be his E107 although some people may argue his W600 Street Clothes variaton.

[darwinbulldog]

Below is the closest thing we have to a definitive list, but you really have to decide for yourself if you want to count a minor league card issued during the year of the MLB debut (e.g., Baltimore News Ruth), a minor league card that was issued before the year of the rookie debut (e.g., Tip Top Lefty Groves), or after the qualifying rookie year (e.g., pretty much anything nominated as a rookie card for Stan Musial), and whether you count postcards (e.g., this Walter Johnson postcard), discs (e.g., E254 Tris Speaker), various premia (e.g., M101-1 Honus Wagner), whether the player has to appear alone or can share the card or "card" with another player or two or three...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603

[Rhotchkiss]

That is awesome is awesome! Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you

[calvindog]

Though this is a team card, I look at this as my "rookie" Cobb.

[Bicem]

Agreed, that is Cobb's only 1906 cardboard issue.

[WWG]

This might help, it also includes "pre-rookie" cards.

http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/rookieslist.asp

[pitchernut]

Why is this not considered his rookie?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by pitchernut

Why is this not considered his rookie?

Only because I think it pushes past the limit of what a "card" is.

[darwinbulldog]

Agreed. It's a rookie issue but not a rookie card or any other kind of card.

[darwinbulldog]

Phil also put this list together. As you can see, he lists the 1905 W601 for Cobb.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128179

[h2oya311]

I'm biased, but I consider this to be Cobb's rookie...it has an undivided postcard back and it pictures him w/ George Parquette, a jeweler from Augusta, Georgia, in 1905.

On August 25th, 1905 Ty Cobb played his final game in the minor leagues with the hometown Augusta Tourists before joining the Detroit Tigers. Play was stopped so fans could present the young, but already dominant, Cobb with a floral bouquet and a gold wrist watch. To show their support, local fans actually took up donations to raise the money for the watch which was purchased from Parquette Jewelry Store in Augusta, Georgia. The shop’s owner, George Parquette was an avid sports fan and took this opportunity to meet and have his photo taken with the young local sports celebrity, Cobb. This postcard originally came from the estate of a relative of the Parquette family.

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I'm biased, but I consider this to be Cobb's rookie...it has an undivided postcard back and it pictures him w/ George Parquette, a jeweler from Augusta, Georgia, in 1905.

On August 25th, 1905 Ty Cobb played his final game in the minor leagues with the hometown Augusta Tourists before joining the Detroit Tigers. Play was stopped so fans could present the young, but already dominant, Cobb with a floral bouquet and a gold wrist watch. To show their support, local fans actually took up donations to raise the money for the watch which was purchased from Parquette Jewelry Store in Augusta, Georgia. The shop’s owner, George Parquette was an avid sports fan and took this opportunity to meet and have his photo taken with the young local sports celebrity, Cobb. This postcard originally came from the estate of a relative of the Parquette family.

Just when I thought I'd seen it all Derek. That is an amazing item!

[h2oya311]

as for the other guys on your list, here's what I have on my checklist (only two of which I own):

WaJo - 1907 Weiser Cabinet, 1907 Weiser PC, 1908-09 Carl Horner Cabinets, 1908-09 Rose PC, 1908 W601 Washington Premium, 1909 Barr-Farnham PC, or 1909 T204 Ramly

Young - 1890-92 Ryder Studio Cabinet, 1890 JA Rogers Studio Cabinet, 1893 Just So Tobacco, or c1893 Pifer & Becker Cabinet

Matty - 1901 Police Gazette Supplements (11"x17") (w/ and w/out tag line), 1900-01 Type I Press Photo - Bain, 1901 "El Petit Habana" Cuban Baseball Publication (9"x12-1/2"), 1902 W600 Sporting Life Cabinets "Street Clothes" - Type 2, 1903 E107, 1903 Burr McIntosh, or 1903 Benjamin Falk - Astoria - NY Giants PC

For Matty, there are also some team photos that were likely re-struck at a later date but they were taken during the period, so it's possible that one/more exist. I've only seen re-strikes for these at this point so they don't count in my book (yet)...they are 1898 Honesdale Baseball Team Photo and 1899 Bucknell Team Photo.

Lajoie - 1897 Leslie's Illustrated (Weekly Magazine) Cover Photo, 1898 Sporting Life Magazine Cover, 1899-00 M101-1 Sporting News, 1902 W600 Sporting Life Cabinets - Type 1, 1903 E107, or 1903-04 M.A. Seed Co. Cabinet

Joe Jax - 1907 Victor Mills Team PC (ML), 1907 Victor Mills Team Photo (ML), 1908 Greenville Spinners Team Cabinet, c1908-09 Greenville Postcard, 1909 E90-1, or 1910 T210 Old Mill Cigarettes Series 8 - New Orleans

Ruth - 1914 Baltimore News, 1914 Baltimore Orioles Team Photo, 1914 Providence Team Photo, 1914 Press Photo, 1914 RPPC (Ruth on Mound at Fenway vs. Detroit - 2nd game), 1915 Boston Team RPPC, 1915 PM1 Ornate Frame Pins, 1915-20 Baseball Stars Notebook, 1916 M101-5/4, 1915-19 Press Photo (AP), or 1915 M113 Baseball Magazine Premium

Gehrig - 1922 Hartford Senators Team Photo, 1923 M114 NY Yankees Team Photo Premium, 1925 Exhibits, 1925-31 W590, 1923 Press Photo (Columbia Uniform), 1923 Press Photo (Yankees Uniform), 1923 Police Gazette Newspaper (6/16/23) (inside), or 1924 Walter Johnson's Barnstorming Team Photo

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by pherbener

Just when I thought I'd seen it all Derek. That is an amazing item!

Thanks Paul!

[botn]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Can the board help create a consensus on what the true rookie card is for each of the following players:

There is no consensus on some/many of those HOFers because as you can see early in this thread, we do not all agree on what a "card" is.

This has been discussed many times on the board, and while always thought provoking, in the end there has never been a consensus because there are entirely different schools of thought.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by botn

There is no consensus on some/many of those HOFers because as you can see early in this thread, we do not all agree on what a "card" is.

This has been discussed many times on the board, and while always thought provoking, in the end there has never been a consensus because there are entirely different schools of thought.

Which is why I have a lot of items listed for each player...to each his own. If you like only "standard size" individual cards, great (it's listed). Individual photos? Team photos? Large sized individual cards, team cards, postcards, pins, newspaper stock, supplements? Regional vs. nationally issued cards?...major league uniform only vs minor league uniform vs suit/tie/street clothes photos...how 'bout early childhood photos? Again, to each his own.

While there isn't consensus on what makes an item a "rookie" card, I tend to think that any card/photo/item that makes its way onto my checklist (which is constantly being updated), then it's a "rookie card" in my book. Even if it's not a contemporary card (like the 1974 Laughlins for many Negro League HOFers). I love learning of new/obscure items to add to my checklist, even if it's a virtually unobtainable item (either for financial reasons or scarcity). If anyone is interested, my checklist is simply an extension of Phil's checklist from years ago along with those cards that "check all the boxes".

[botn]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Which is why I have a lot of items listed for each player...to each his own. If you like only "standard size" individual cards, great (it's listed). Individual photos? Team photos? Large sized individual cards, team cards, postcards, pins, newspaper stock, supplements? Regional vs. nationally issued cards?...major league uniform only vs minor league uniform vs suit/tie/street clothes photos...how 'bout early childhood photos? Again, to each his own.

While there isn't consensus on what makes an item a "rookie" card, I tend to think that any card/photo/item that makes its way onto my checklist (which is constantly being updated), then it's a "rookie card" in my book. Even if it's not a contemporary card (like the 1974 Laughlins for many Negro League HOFers). I love learning of new/obscure items to add to my checklist, even if it's a virtually unobtainable item (either for financial reasons or scarcity). If anyone is interested, my checklist is simply an extension of Phil's checklist from years ago along with those cards that "check all the boxes".

Your list is very comprehensive and fantastic. As someone who defines rookie card very loosely I see plenty there I would deem a rookie issue though maybe not a rookie card. You have cabinets, postcards, traditional cards, photos etc and my point is that many here would reject many of those listed a rookie cards.

To me a rookie "card" is pretty simple. It is the first time a player appears on an item that has any intended or actual distribution to the public. Does not matter about the size, whether or not it has advertising, whether it was issued nationally or locally or if it features that player in the minor leagues.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by botn

To me a rookie "card" is pretty simple. It is the first time a player appears on an item that has any intended or actual distribution to the public. Does not matter about the size, whether or not it has advertising, whether it was issued nationally or locally or if it features that player in the minor leagues.

I pretty much agree with the definition above. My definition is the first cardboard collectible that was commercially distributed to the public either nationally or regionally. The only other caveat that that I have is that a minor league card would be a pre-rookie.

[barrysloate]

Sometimes a collector has to make a practical choice when deciding which rookie card to add to his collection.

Take the Just So Cy Young, for example. To my knowledge the card is unique, and the collector who owns it will not sell it in his lifetime. So if you are looking for an example of Cy Young, you will have to go with something other than Just So.

Added to the dilemma is that Just So's were distributed in the Cleveland area only, so one could argue it's a regional issue and therefore doesn't qualify.

At the end of the day, each collector has to make some decisions.

[Bicem]

Also agree that a card needs to be cardboard and intended for more than private use.

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Or, to play the devil's advocate, the 1951 Wheaties premium (yes, it is a card, with a dot pattern, and not an actual photo), but that's opening up another can of worms! The only certainty is that the '52 is most emphatically NOT his rookie.

Best wishes,

Larry

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Agreed, and they are wrong each time.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Or, to play the devil's advocate, the 1951 Wheaties premium (yes, it is a card, with a dot pattern, and not an actual photo), but that's opening up another can of worms! The only certainty is that the '52 is most emphatically NOT his rookie.

Best wishes,

Larry

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, I'd take this Campy "rookie" over any Bowman card any day...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

Even SGC does that on its flips, which is really lame.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

and all the tpgs got that one wrong too...fwiw, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, i'd take this campy "rookie" over any bowman card any day...

+100000

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by RaidonCollects

Ty Cobb I consider his E102 card, although it may be his Rose postcard. Not sure.
Cy Young is his 1893 Just So Cabinet
Joe Jackson as said above is his E90-1, however his T210 card can also be called a rookie.
Babe Ruth is his M101-4 or M101-5 and there might be a few more in "the M101-4/5 family" his Baltimore News card is a "pre-rookie" minor league card.
Lou Gehrig as said above, 1925 Exhibits.

Don't know about the rest,

Thanks,

Owen

How do you not count the Baltimore News for Ruth since it was a minor league issue, but count the T210 for Jax even though it was as well?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by RaidonCollects

Ty Cobb I consider his E102 card, although it may be his Rose postcard. Not sure.

I think that it is generally accepted that the E102 set was issued in 1910. The Rose Co. postcard set was definitely first issued in 1908. I believe that Cobb's first individual cards were any of his 1907 postcards - AC Dietsche (2 poses), HM Taylor, Wolverine (2 poses) and Seamless Steel along with his W600 Sporting Life Cabinet, which was definitely first issued in 1907. If you want to include team cards, then the 1906 Sporting Life Detroit postcard would be for you.

[RaidonCollects]

Originally Posted by Griffins

How do you not count the Baltimore News for Ruth since it was a minor league issue, but count the T210 for Jax even though it was as well?

I know both the T210 Jackson and Babe Ruth Baltimore News are both minor league cards, but it's a bit complicated, I only consider the Baltimore News to be a "pre-rookie," whilst the T210 Jackson is just a rookie (maybe not even that).

Ruth played with the Baltimore Orioles in 1914, and his "pre-rookie" was issued sometime around that. His M101-4 (and others) were not issued until circa 1916. I consider the true rookie of a player to be their first major league card appearance.

With Jackson it is a bit different. Joe went in between the majors and minors from 1908 until 1910, he played his first full major lg. season in 1911. During this time, Joe played with the Philly Athletics in 1908 and '09. He was traded to the Naps in '10 where his played with the New Orleans Pelicans in the minors and finished the season with the Naps. Joe's E90-1 card pictures him with the Athletics so it must have been issued (or at least the picture is from) in 1909 (E90-1 production didn't start till '09). Jackson is one of the most common cards in the set, leading me to believe that his was issued in most or all of the E90-1 years (1909-11), but ACC didn't both to change his team due to being in and out of the minors. Joe didn't play for the Pelicans (who he is pictured with in T210) until 1910 (also being T210's approx issue date). This leads me to believe that the E90-1 card came before the T210, although his E90-1 production may have run during and past T210 production if Joe was printed in multiple years.

Sorry for writing too much, I probably could have just used a couple sentences,

thanks,

Owen

[h2oya311]

My head is spinning, but I sorta see the logic with this...since I look for the earliest (generally playing years or baseball related) cards/photos of a player, I have a much easier time figuring out "rookie" (or should I say earliest?) issues for negro league players. With all this minor league/major league "pre-rookie" mumbo-jumbo, what do you do there?? Ignore these HOF negro league athletes completely?

Maybe it's just me, but I have a harder time calling a 1949 Bowman card of Satchel Paige a "rookie" when he was 44 years old and had been playing organized/professional baseball since the late 1920s. And how about Josh Gibson or his predecessors who never played a Major League Baseball game?? And don't tell me that Gibson's 1950-51 Toleteros is a rookie either. He had died in 1947, 3-4 years prior to issuance!

[RaidonCollects]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

My head is spinning, but I sorta see the logic with this...since I look for the earliest (generally playing years or baseball related) cards/photos of a player, I have a much easier time figuring out "rookie" (or should I say earliest?) issues for negro league players. With all this minor league/major league "pre-rookie" mumbo-jumbo, what do you do there?? Ignore these HOF negro league athletes completely?

Maybe it's just me, but I have a harder time calling a 1949 Bowman card of Satchel Paige a "rookie" when he was 44 years old and had been playing organized/professional baseball since the late 1920s. And how about Josh Gibson or his predecessors who never played a Major League Baseball game?? And don't tell me that Gibson's 1950-51 Toleteros is a rookie either. He had died in 1947, 3-4 years prior to issuance!

Yeah, it's quite tough when it comes to that. According to Google the definition of a rookie is "a member of a sports team in their first full season." for baseball, you are not considered a rookie until your first major league season (Rookie of the Year etc.). It's tough to determine Negro League players' "rookie cards" because they never (or until the 40's and 50's) were allowed to play in the big leagues. I would consider these players' rookie's to be their first card, no matter the league they were in. Another problem that you mentioned is the lack of Negro League card issues, to my memory there are none or very few that were issued in the US and a tiny number abroad. The problem with Paige is that although he had a few card issues during his career, they were all when he was 40?+ years old, asking the question whether you can still call some of those cards rookie despite them being decades after the start of his career. Just a side note, I believe Josh Gibson had a postcard issue in the 1930's, '31 maybe?

Just my opinion on those cards,

Thanks,

Owen

[bcbgcbrcb]

Here are my parameters:

Rookie Card - Earliest "card" picturing the individual in the Major Leagues. Max of 4 players pictured and must be a catalogued issue.

Rookie - Earliest catalogued issue picturing the individual. Max of 4 players pictured. For example M101-1, M101-2, etc.

Earliest - Any team or individual item not meeting the above mentioned criteria for a rookie or rookie card.

Pre-Rookie - Earliest catalogued card with no Major League stipulations, typically a Minor League issue such as Zeenuts, etc.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Here are my parameters:

Rookie Card - Earliest "card" picturing the individual in the Major Leagues. Max of 4 players pictured and must be a catalogued issue.

Rookie - Earliest catalogued issue picturing the individual. Max of 4 players pictured. For example M101-1, M101-2, etc.

Earliest - Any team or individual item not meeting the above mentioned criteria for a rookie or rookie card.

Pre-Rookie - Earliest catalogued card with no Major League stipulations, typically a Minor League issue such as Zeenuts, etc.

Phil - Those are pretty good parameters. Where would you categorize Old Judge cards of players associated with their minor league teams?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that ['51 Wheaties] premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

Some hold that opinion, and they're welcome to it, but not everyone does. Just be aware that it is in fact only an opinion. I've seen the so-called "proof," and am not impressed (if you wanted a photo of Mantle in his home, pinstriped uniform, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to obtain one in ways other than air-brushing out the road uniform characteristics from the photo taken during the '52 World Series with Brooklyn and putting the pinstripes in so that they were just right--sounds like a true pain in the a__, most likely because it would be--plus, look closely--the shadows are distinctly different on the bat and by his chin in their depth. Why in the world would you go to the additional trouble of changing them? Mantle would have taken exactly the same stance from the right side every time he assumed it--that's called habit, built out of playing and practicing since he was three years old or so). I recall reading that they came out when a Wheaties exec retired (don't think they were seen before the late '80's at the earliest), and he reportedly told Bob Lemke that they were created in 1951. Plus, the other photo premiums from the set were the basis of drawings issued with Wheaties in 1951. I personally believe that it will remain labeled a 1951 long after we all are gone, but as I stated, to each his own.

Highest regards,

Larry

[bcbgcbrcb]

Derek:

I have been asked and expressed this opinion many times before regarding the Old Judge "minor leaguer" cards. By and large, the N172's are a Major League issue but do include some players on their minor league or pre-Major League teams. I would classify those as rookie cards due to the nature of the set overall.

[BeanTown]

Great thread and agreed there are many rookie cards of HOFers. Supplements, team cards, magazines, pins, Postcards, caramel cards, tobacco cards, etc... Common ingredient is they were all designed for distribution.

[Rhotchkiss]

Moving a few decades forward, what are Jackie Robinson and Stan Musial's rookie cards? I'll tell ya, those world wars really screwed up cards and add extra complexity to determining some player's rookie card.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Moving a few decades forward, what are Jackie Robinson and Stan Musial's rookie cards? I'll tell ya, those world wars really screwed up cards and add extra complexity to determining some player's rookie card.

I believe that Jackie's rookie card is the 1947 Bond Bread.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Sean

I believe that Jackie's rookie card is the 1947 Bond Bread.

Depending on your definition of "rookie", I would tend to go with:

Robinson: 1946 Parade Sportive (5"x9.5" or 7"x10"), 1947 Bond Bread, 1947 Fleetwood Slacks, or 1947 Brooklyn Team Issue

There are also some cool Negro League and even UCLA Football photos featuring Robinson.

Musial: 1941 Rochester Team Premium, 1943 M114 Baseball Magazine, 1946 Sears Cardinals PC, 1946-47 Propaganda Montiel, 1946-47 Sensacion Premiums, or 1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange + some Press Photos in between 1942-1946 that could qualify.

I have seen some reference to a 1946 Montgomery Ward, but I'm not sure what that is (or if it's related to the Sears postcard). For what it's worth, I have only seen one example of the 1946 Sears PC. I know that others are out there. That would be my preference as a traditional "rookie" card and I would LOVE to own one - hint, hint to anyone listening out there!

[BeanTown]

1905 Sporting Life Supplement of the Tigers and Cobb. Little bit different than the Sporting Life postcard that came out a year later in 1906.

[Leon]

That would require a really large slab though?

Originally Posted by BeanTown

1905 Sporting Life Supplement of the Tigers and Cobb. Little bit different than the Sporting Life postcard that came out a year later in 1906.

[pitchernut]

Unless you have a "mini"