|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>Eric the numbers don't lie. I don't think that many would disagree that there is increased demand for a "rookie" of most all players and HOFers to be sure. I love having rookie cards. The thread started with the futility of trying to define what is a rookie particularly in the realm of prewar. I still maintain that this is a recent phenomenon (as Ted points out) and that most of the collecting public and for certain the investing public has bought in.<br /><br />Also the numbers for graded examples of the post-war rookies will always be higher because the cards sell for more and it makes more financial sense to have them graded.<br /><br />To Hal's point, as the demand for "rookie" cards grew so did the need (I guess) for a definition of what one was. This is the gray area that IMHO will always be gray dependig upon what you call a "card."
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Steve Dawson</b><p>First to Peter C...<br /><br />It's never too early in the day to start thinking about that!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Imagine the arguments people will have if Maury Wills is ever inducted into the HOF!<br /><br />What is his rookie card?<br /><br />Is it 1960 Bell Brand?<br /><br />How about 1960 Union Oil?<br /><br />Would it be the 1963 Fleer?<br /><br />What of the 1967 Topps (his first Topps card)?<br /><br />Wait a minute...isn't that him on 1960 Topps #389 (the 1959 World Series game #5 card)?<br /><br /><br />Sheesh!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br /><br />Steve
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I think if you get a high powered microscope you might could find him on the back row of the Dodgers 1959 Topps team card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted, you flipped Exhibit cards that were strictly created as baseball cards -- but did you ever flip postcards? My guess is that postcards were treated as postcards and 'baseball cards' and Exhibits treated as they were meant to be - cards designed solely to commemorate players.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I collect Exhibit cards and have hundreds of them. I never really thought of whether I considered them cards or rookie cards as that important. But if enough people do (and they do) you can end up paying some good money for 23-24 Bottomleys and 26 Gehringers. Take a look at what a 1921 Hornsby just sold for on ebay. <br /><br />Again, the Rookie card is an important designation in terms of value that's easy to surmise. What is a rookie, especially in prewar will be a subject long debated.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>All I can say is that there are some really nice and valuable post cards of early 20th Century teams<br />that I cherish just as much as my BB cards.<br /><br />TED Z<br /> <br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Did you ever play POKER for BB cards ? We graduated from Flipping cards to playing Poker<br /> for them.<br />I can clearly recall four (or 5) of us gathered on our stoopes (spelling ?) and playing "5-card<br /> draw" for 1950 and 1951 Bowmans. It didn't matter who we threw in the "pot"....we would<br /> raise the ante with a Jackie Robinson or a Ted Williams. Best hand of playing cards would<br /> take all Bowman BB cards in the pot.<br /><br />And, the never-ending quest was for a Joe DiMaggio card. We kept spending our pennies<br /> and nickles hoping to open a Bowman pack and find a Joe D. And, the suspense grew as each<br /> new series was available.<br /> <br />After all, in early 1949 we were excited to tear open Leaf BB packs to find Joe D cards.<br /> Alas, we were whispering the words......"where have you gone Joe DiMaggio ? "......way<br /> before Simon and Garfunkel ever thought of the lyrics.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jorge</b><p>Hello everybody, did I miss anything?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Gotta disagree with you Hal. <br /><br />First, the Ruth is a bad example for a couple of reasons; 1) he was not a nobody in 1916, when his m101 cards came out; rather he was coming off a 18-8 season in 1915, was in the middle of a twenty win World Series bound season, and was regarded as an up and comer; and 2)the way the m101s were distributed, there was no way you were going to trade a hundred or any meaningful number of one player for the next. You got twenty at a time, at least through TSN, and you had the ability to back order whoever you wanted, so trades along the lines you suggest almost certainly didn't happen. <br /><br />Second, I don't believe the superstar/lack of superstar dichotomy is nearly as pronounced as you suggest. Many or most kids were set collectors and team collectors. I'm sure everyone wanted a Ted Williams and maybe a Jackie Robinson in 1954, perhaps Mays too, but after that second tier stars were probably no more important than cards from your favorite team. It's before my time, but I'd bet a Braves fan was more into a Hank Aaron card than Yogi Berra, even if he was a rookie, just because he helped complete the team set. So too would set collectors seek an Aaron to fill the Topps set, even in 1954, more than they would Richie Ashburn, Red Schoendienst, etc., even Yogi Berra, if they needed the card, at least those kids outside of New York.<br /><br />Third, I can't see the supply of rookie cards being adversely affected because a guy was a nobody. To me that implies that cards of lesser players somehow got thrown out, while just the stars or more worthy ones survived. I know of no kids from my youth who threw away cards of anyone--if mom threw out the whole bunch, that's different, but nobody said geez I guess I don't have enough room for all of these, let me sort through them and throw out the players I don't recognize. Frankly, it seems to me that more high conditioned examples of Aaron and the like should have survived, as they are not the ones who would have been handled and shown off as much like Mantle, etc. In sum, unless they were short printed, cards of guys like Aaron in 1954 should have been more plentiful down the road than many others.<br /><br />Fourth, whatever the notion that rookie cards were scarfed up towards the end of a player's career, after it was learned how great he was, the fact is at least a generation has passed, and in Ruth's case several generations, so these cards should have made their way back into the hobby. So if Ruth's early cards first became popular in the late 30's and Aaron's in the late 60's, those collectors should have died and recirculated many of those cards by now, making them available and refuting any notion that supply has dried up.<br /><br />Finally, whatever the notions about players 90 or 50 years ago, even today rookie cards are pricier, when supply is not an issue at all. Rather it is demand, fueled by marketing and speculation, that drives these prices.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted, I feel the same way about my Cobb Dietsche and HM Taylor postcards -- and all of this Exhibits that I can buy. Indeed, I seem to be paying prices for them that would suggest they are as beloved as his baseball cards. I just wonder what kids thought of them back in 1907. There are so few that exist as of today compared to say, the T206s.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I don't recall playing poker for cards... but it is possible - because we did play poker and we didn't have much money <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />What I do remember is flipping cards and 'colors'.<br /><br />If you are not familiar... colors was a complete game of chance and very much like 'war'.<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>Fundamentalism is a Mental Disease<br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/746I7KAI8-U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/746I7KAI8-U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well here's a scan of some junk cards.... Across the top is Phil Gagliano, Mike Shannon, and Gaylord Perry, undesirable pre-major league cards. T210 series 6 minor league cards of future players Casey Stengel, Fred Toney, and Jim Viox. Stan Musial's 1947 Homogenized Bread cad, Joe Page on Tip Top Bread, Alfred Martin's Signal Gas card, a Lefty Gomez Zeenut, Leon Durham from the Arkansas Travelers, a Texas League card, Charles Ponder on a Zeenut, Harry Brecheen with Homogenized Bread, and you can see only Tommy Herr's last name from his Arkansas Travelers card. Just a bunch of scuffed up, folded and worn bookmarks. Anyone still read books?<br /><br /><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/greatwake/firstcards.jpg"><br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>take that Stengel out of the "junk" pile. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hey ole buddy.......I thought I had all of Billy Martin's cards, but you have beat with your<br /> 1948 Signal Gasoline card. Do you have Casey Stengel from this set ? He managed the Oaks,<br /> prior to managing the Yankess in 1949. And, brought Billy and Jackie Jensen with him to the<br /> Yankees.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Frank, nobody is saying minor league cards cannot be highly desireable. However, the fact that they're desireable does not mean they're rookies.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Is your 1947 BB Musial a "Roundie" or a "Square" one ?<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Ted,<br /><br />Mr. Musial is square. Only round corner 47 card I have is Johnny Sain, guess that might be a rookie card, too, maybe.<br /><br />In the Signal Gasoline, I have no Stengel. Lost bidding on one once, saw one not for sale once... I have Ttten, Gassaway, Hafey (cousin of HOFer Chick), Hamrick, Holder, Lavagetto, Lillard, Lodigiani (who was a fascinating guy, and that's who's card I was first after when I started Signal Gas), Martin, Raimondi, Van Robays (who is the guy that named the Ephus pitch, the one Williams hit in that All-Star game), and Wilkie (that Canuk pitcher). I'd be happy to welcome an affordable, slightly worn Stengel into the pile. A tack hole is ok, nothing graded, please.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Mark, I basically agree.<br /><br />I think of a rookie card as a player's first card from when his major league career commenced. And if there is no card within a year or two of that debut, then we start looking at minor league cards. Still, I like Gaylord Perry standing tall with that outfield wall in the background.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>I think a rookie card should be the players first PRO team. If he gets paid to play, then he is a PRO. There are many items that can be considered a players rookie card (item). I do not like Team cards or cards with other players on them to be considered rookies (1963 Rose/1906 Cobb W601/ 1982 Ripken). I Like the 1964 Rose, 1907 Cobb Postcard, and 1980 Ripken (minor league). <br /><br />Now on Joe Dimaggio. Are you KIDDING me with a 1939 Playball?? In my eyes his 1934 Zeenut card is a PRO card of him. If you do not like that then the 1936 R312-313-314 series cards would all count. Then we can move on the Opeechee and World wide cards before we even make it down to 1939. <br /><br />How do we define a card? Is it by size? Paper type? How it's distributed? What the print run was? How it was marketed? What was the purpose of receiving the card? I think many type collectors do NOT want to go down that road then. <br /><br />There will always be a debate for what is a players true rookie. Many times there may be 2-10 items that would be considered his rookie card (item). <br /><br />Yes I think Pins, Publications, Silks, Postcards, Gum cards, Caramel cards, Exhibits, Premiums, Bobble Heads, Pennants, Cabinets, Wire photos, etc.. Should all be considered for rookie items and anything that is on paper should be a CARD! <br /><br />JC
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Stayed up to beat out some dudes on a few Sovereign T206's for my set. And, I was sniped out on every<br /> card. It serves me right for bidding on Graded cards. I'd rather bid on "naked" cards, I usually win those.<br />Can anyone tell me why people get cards graded that are less than Vg ? I don't see how they profit on them.<br /><br />Anyhow, yes indeed, your Johnny Sain (with the rounded corners) is his 1947 rookie card. The BBread cards<br /> with the square corners is anybody's guess as to when they were issued.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Ted,<br /><br />So that would have been the Bender portrait and the Devlin cards... I'd bid on them, but with less conviction than you. I agree, I thought the whole idea behind graded cards was to get the good 'uns.<br /><br />I did finally get a Reulbach hands at side with the glove in Sovereign 150. I'm tickled with him. That gives me a Piedmont 150, Sweet Caporal 150, and a Sovereign 150 of Ed... how many others are there of that first card of his?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I bid on 6 cards and lost them all at the last few seconds. All 6 were Graded either Vg, or<br /> Vg-Ex, so we are not talking about "big $$" here. Ungraded, these cards would have sold<br /> for no more than $50 each.<br /><br />Your buddy Ed Reulbach from the 150 Series can also be found with a brown HINDU back.<br /> It is seldom found, however, and I've never seen one.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />One reason I (occasionally) buy graded cards in less-than-vg condition is cuz I'm a newbie in the pre-war scene and I'm not very good at spotting fakes. Alot of auctions have "reprint" somewhere in the title but when I look at the card I can't tell that its a reprint. So, instead of spending $50 on a card that might be a fake, I'd rather spend $75 and know its real. Plus, its already in a protected slab so I don't have to worry about how to safely store it. But I hope to be buying raw in the near future.<br /><br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey there, Rob,<br /><br />You could buy 2 or 3 ungraded cards from some reputable dealer. After you've handled a few you'll get a comfort for determining authenticity. If there's one that catches your eye on eBay and you're unsure about it, email me, Ted, or some of the other guys on here, we could check it out and offer you an opinion as to authenticity.<br /><br />And you're not alone. There are piles of low to mid-grade slabbed T206s out there, and lots of collectors for them.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Awesome, thanks for the offer Frank!<br /><br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I just re-read your prior post here and I am puzzled about this "colors" game that you<br /> are referring to ?<br /><br />It must be a NYC "thing"....I never heard of it....so clue us in ?<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Judson Hamlin</b><p>that we would play. you could go by any color on the front of the card- team name, pennant, stuff like that, and you flip them into a pile until there was a match and the winner took the whole pile. Too confusing for the 75's tho--
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Our favorite was "hit the leaner." You could win some pretty big pots sometimes.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>(as an aside... Judd you are on! We can flip for the shiny stuff)<br /><br />Ted,<br /><br />Colors was the 'other' popular game in the schoolyard besides flipping cards.<br /><br />It worked like this.<br /><br />Two kids would take their stack of baseball cards and hold them face down - similar to how you would hold a deck of cards in the card game 'war'.<br /><br />The first kid would go and would throw a card down from the top of his pile and place it face up.<br /><br />The next kid would go and would throw a card down from the top of his pile and place it face up on top of the last card thrown.<br />If the colors of the printed band on the bottom of the card were the same... that kid would be able to take the whole pile.<br /><br />Assuming the colors were not the same... the kids continue to take turns placing a card on top of the pile until one kid is able to match the prior card.<br /><br />It worked pretty good in the 70s.<br />Assume that the following cards were placed down one after the other (two kids alternating turns).<br />The fourth card here is the winner as it went on top of the same "color".... the kid gets to take the whole pile of 4 cards.<br />Usually the game continued unitl one kid lost all of his cards, the teachers made us go back to class, or a mom called a kid in for dinner.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.cardpricer.com/card_images/img_full.php?f=Topps/74Topps/74T%20010%20Bench.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.cardpricer.com/card_images/img_full.php?f=Topps/74Topps/74T%20235%20McNally.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.cardpricer.com/card_images/img_full.php?f=Topps/74Topps/74T%20026%20Campbell.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.cardpricer.com/card_images/img_full.php?f=Topps/74Topps/74T%20027%20Scott.jpg">
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe- you would never be able to play that game with orange borders! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Ted,<br /><br />The Reulbach hands at side card...<br /><br />150 Piedmont first,<br /><br />then 150 Sweet Caporal,<br /><br />then 150 Sovereigns... right?<br /><br />So if Reulbach is also in Hindu, and nothing else, do you reckon Hindu was the 4th group of cards distributed???<br /><br /><br />Frank.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Exhibits:<br /><br />Since they are my obsession, I have to raise a point on this quote from Wes: "I also associate exhibits with postcards and do not put them in the rookie card equation. It could be because while not all of them do, some exhibits have postcard backs."<br /><br />Actually, the vast majority were never intended to be used as or sold as PCs. The first PC backs surfaced on the regular issue machine vended cards in the 1928 set and are a small minority of the printing from that issue. That means 7 years of production weht by without a PC back. And, by the mid-1930s they were basically done with PC backs. Almost none of the post-1939 cards have PC backs: there are a few known rare printings in the 1950s with Mutoscope PC backs on them and some of the 1961 Wrigleys have PC backs (again a small minority of the print run). The 1925-29 PC back set itself was initially issued blank backed, then had a PC back put on it, then had that back modified to state that the cards were not for use in exhibit machines (an early effort at product differentiation, I suppose). Since many of the key rookies (Gehrig, Simmons, Lazzeri, Gehringer, Comns, etc.) precede the printing of these cards with postcard backs, I don't buy the argument that they are postcards and not rookie cards. I'd argue that from 1921-27 (at least) Exhibits were as pure a collecting vehicle for baseball cards as you can imagine. They were sold nationally, without any other product, for the sole purpose of collecting. But if you insist that Exhibits aren't true rookie cards, please sell me your Gehrig, Lazzeri, Combs, etc. cards on the cheap. I will give them a good home, I promise. <br /><br />Prookies:<br /><br />Another of my pet issues. Philosophically, why do we care about rookie cards? Because they are first (or for the cynics, because Jim Beckett decreed 25 years ago that we should). But if there are multiple "prookie" cards that precede the "first" card, doesn't that destroy the significance of that "first" card? Can you have a first if there are one or more "before the first" and you have to attach an asterisk to it to explain how it is but isn't the guy's first card? The 34 Zeenut Dimaggio is his first card ever. The 36 R issues are his first cards as a major leaguer. Which sounds more impressive (hint: it ain't the latter).
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>"I'd argue that from 1921-27 (at least) Exhibits were as pure a collecting vehicle for baseball cards as you can imagine ..."<br /><br />boxingcardman,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. If Exhibits aren't baseball cards, than baseball cards don't exist. Just because they didn't come out with new, progressively worse designs every year (pick your ugly Topps issue), use bad combinations of colors (why do the 1965 Topps Yankees get pink?) and print statistics on the back that are difficult to read, it doesn't mean they're postcards. They're just big baseball cards, like Turkey Reds. Less colorful, just as thick, but way cheaper ...<br /><br />By the way, was Jim Beckett really the guy who was responsible for the rookie craze/hype/novelty? It doesn't surprise me. It's clear he's a very good businessman ...
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I'm glad you chimed in on the subject of EXHIBIT cards.....what took you so long ? You are our<br /> resident "guru" on this subject. First, I will say it's immaterial as to whether an Exhibit type card<br /> has a postcard back, or stat back, or a blank back. To me it is a rectangular piece of cardboard<br /> with a BB player's image on it.....and that qualifies it as a BB card....period.<br /><br />And, when we were kids, growing up in the late 1940's and throughout the '50s, we spent a lot of<br />our hard-earned pennies getting those Exhibits. We loved them as much as our Leaf, Bowman and<br /> Topps BB cards.<br />Actually, to some degree we appreciated them more since they were more like photos of the players<br /> than the artistry of the BB cards of that era (until the 1953 Bowmans came out).<br /><br />As Rookie card candidates, most Exhibits present a problem in that there is uncertainty in the actual<br /> date of issue of them. The 1907 Dietsche Cobb is an exception to this dilemna, as it is clearly dated <br />on the back.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Exhibit baseball cards ARE baseball cards.<br /><br />Anyone who doesn't think they are should reconsider their criteria. Maybe Exhibits ARE cards and that crap that Topps and Bowman put out is merely bubble gum paper.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>"To me it is a rectangular piece of cardboard<br />with a BB player's image on it.....and that qualifies it as a BB card....period."<br /><br />There are many items that fit this criteria. Postcards are rectangular. So are box cutouts. And strip cards too. <br /><br />They might fit the definition of a baseball card since they are "rectangular pieces of cardboard", but I prefer regular gum and tobacco cards over postcards, strip cards, cutouts and exhibits. Just a preference. <br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Chris,<br /><br />The first Beckett's Baseball was issued in 1979, this just happens to conincide with the jump in the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle and a little bit later on the jump in the price of the '63 Topps Pete Rose Rookie. <br /><br />So it could all be coincidence but I don't think so. Beckett's has been instrumental in the Rookie Card craze.<br /><br />Peter
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I remember that Jim Beckett and Dennis Eckes, in the introduction to the 7th edition of "The Sport Americana Baseball Card Price Guide" (1986), said "the insipid rookie card phenomenon is still with us," and "the bubble has yet to burst." So they certainly weren't promoting rookie card collecting at the time, in fact they were a bit negative on it. [Insipid = "lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge."] However I would guess those comments probably can be attributed to Denny Eckes, Beckett's co-author for the price guides of that period, rather than Jim Beckett himself. In any case, I guess the rookie card bubble never did burst.<br /><br />Beckett and Eckes also said back then "there is no such thing as an EX-MT individual card. A card is either Mint or not Mint." At that time, according to their grading standards, the highest grade a card could be, if it was not Mint, was Excellent. But it soon became apparent to collectors that there were many cards that more than met the requirements for Excellent, but yet couldn't be called Mint. So all the intermediate grades EX-MT, Near Mint, Near Mint Plus, Near Mint to Mint, and so on came into common usage. This was important since so many of the cards sought by collectors, especially the post war material, fell into the Excellent to Mint range. These intermediate grades of course eventually became a part of the numerical grading systems in use today, where an Excellent card only gets a 5 on the scale of 1 to 10 (or with SGC, a 60 on the scale of 10 to 100).
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We cannot blame Jim Beckett for the "Rookie phenomena". Jim's first Price Guide (with Dennis Eckes) was out<br />in 1979. The Rookie craze was just starting by then. I just looked at Jim's 1979 and 1980 PG's and there is<br /> nothing in them identifying Rookie cards.<br /><br />Hey guys check-out these prices....from the 1979 Beckett guide.....<br /><br />T206 Honus Wagner....4800<br />E90-1 complete set.....1000<br />1933 Goudey Ruth..........90<br />1951 Bowman Mantle.....375<br />1952 Topps Mantle........500<br />1963 Topps Pete Rose.......5....YES, only $5.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted, that hurts. I'll take 20 Wagners, please. I mean 30. Ok, 40.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My answer to your question about Reulbach's HINDU card is that this back was printed quite early in the<br /> 150 Series; but not before the Piedmont backs. They were first; and, the Sweet Caps must of been a<br /> very close second. I think the HINDU's were next. And, then the Sovereign's.<br /><br />I am certain of this because Mike Donlin's 1st card (fielding) has never been confirmed with a Sovereign 150<br /> back. And, if this back doesn't exist, it verifies that the Sovereign's were last to be issued in the 150 Series.<br /><br />There will be more to this story....so, stay tuned.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>My preference in this whole "Rookie Card" debate is to collect the player's earliest collectible that can be graded/authenticated by PSA/SGC while also being encapsulated within one of their holders. Each of my rookie collectibles is graded for protection and authenticity and the new larger size holders are making a big plus in the market.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Don't you find it interesting that a 52T Mantle was going for 5 x the Ruth cards ?<br /><br />And, if I recall, Wagner cards at a 5K value were not that plentiful at the time. In 1980 when the 52T Mantle<br /> jumped to 3K, the entire nation started taking BB cards seriously as a collectible. And, not only did the 52T<br /> Mantle's come out of the woodwork, but so did more Wagner's. By 1980 the Wagner's had jumped to 15K.<br /><br />Unless you were part of the "scene" in this hobby back then, you cannot fully appreciate the impact these <br />two BB cards (Mantle and Wagner) made in the hobby.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>I agree with those that have a broader definition of what constitutes a baseball card. I have never understood why a postcard isn't considered a collectable? Doesn't the person who sends a postcard to a friend or family member usually choose something with a subject matter that they believe would be of interest to the recipient? Like sending a baseball postcard to a baseball fan? Wouldn't that recipient likely hang on to that card, possibly even starting a collection? I know I would have, had anyone ever sent me one. As far as the requirement that some sort of product be sold in conjunction with a true card: It seems to me that the product (or service) being included with the postcard, is the mail service itself. You are essentially purchasing a postage medium, and getting a cool picture card included with that purchase. Just like getting a card with your purchase of lousy chewing gum!
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well I consider postcards baseball cards. Otherwise, I'd not have a card of Billy Sunday. And I just bought another A C Dietsche of a 1907 Tiger...<br /><br />I do know that the next rookie card I get, if he's slabbed, I'll break him out, and if he isn't slabbed, I won't send him in for grading. I can't stand having them put in something so bulky, that gets in between me and my card. If I do get a card taht I don't know about my self, there's enough experienced collectors on here who're willing to share their knowledge about cards, that I could post a scan or email them and they'd opine for free, so no need to pay someone else for an opinion when mine is either better than theirs or I can get a better opinion free.<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You and I think alike.....so let's start the "BB Card Free Thinkers Society".....FREE your cards from<br /> that infernal plastic capsule, so the cardboard can breathe and live again. And if you have doubts<br />about a card you are interested in.....seek FREE advice from friends.<br /><br />Anyone can join the "Free Thinkers"....and, there are no club dues....it is FREE-EEEEEE.<br /><br />TED Z<br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>"I agree with those that have a broader definition of what constitutes a baseball card. I have never understood why a postcard isn't considered a collectable?"<br /><br />I think everyone agrees that a postcard is (or can be) a collectible, but is it a baseball card?<br /><br />Present day, postcards aren't considered baseball cards. But ... ?<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have to agree with Frank, Ted, and Adam.....(that's a lot of agreeing going on)....although I do differ a little bit. I like to hold, smell, feel, fondle and so forth my raw cards...which is probably 50% of my collection...I also like to ogle and check out my graded cards...both kinds give me joy. The fact my most valuable ones are encapsulated means I don't have to worry about little flakes continuing to come off the borders and anywhere else (ask Tbob about that <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>)..I don't have to worry about someone (or me) taking one out of a top loader and messing it up accidentally either....and I will agree with Adam about the first card as opposed to the first major league card being the rookie card of a player. Except in a few cases (52 Mantle especially and many Topps issues) the first card, even when a minor leaguer, is more valuable. It's not a coincidence.....great debate in this thread...It's threads like this that I really enjoy.....good, clean, interesting debate....
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>Frank,<br />You're not a fan of graded cards? Huh... I guess you learn something new every day!<br /><br />And Leon, I hope you at least treat your cards to a dinner and a movie first! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 PM. |