Sure, for something like 1962 Topps Sandy Koufax, that's obviously true. But it's certainly not true for T206 Eddie Plank or even 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson.

The percentage of graded vs ungraded copies of any particular card is largely a function of its value. The number of ungraded T206 Wagners still floating around is likely very close to zero these days. Perhaps there are one or three yet to be discovered, but the likelihood that there are dozens of them sitting around in attics is almost certainly zero.

There are still some collectors out there who, as a point of pride or preference, like to keep their prized cards like 52 Mantles and 48 Leaf Paiges raw, but there aren't very many of them left in terms of percentage of the population. And every time those cards come to market, they still get graded (or regraded). And any time you have a vintage card that is so valuable that it must be graded regardless of condition in order for it to be transactable on the market for anything other than pennies on the dollar of its true value, you can be pretty sure that the pop reports for that card reflect something close to it's true population, if not slightly exaggerating it due to resubmissions (which are MUCH higher than most people here realize). So this would work for something like estimating the true population for 52 Mantles, but definitely not for estimating the 53 Mantle population (there are other sampling techniques we could use to estimate that, but that's another discussion and one I'd prefer not to get into here).

And while yes, I agree with those who say there are still plenty of 52 Mantles out there to be graded, the reality is that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of copies that are/were cracked and resubmitted.

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle = 2863 total pop (2040 PSA, 673 SGC, 147 BVG, 3 CGC)

The 52 Topps Mantle likely has a very similar print run as the 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson. Maybe 10% or so higher at most.

404 Error: Logic not found

Case in point, I never denigrated people who do not collect the earliest. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't collect the earliest. My argument was just that you can't support your assertion that collectors like rookies because dealers duped them into it. And I've been right all along. In all your walls of text, you've yet to even attempt to prove that claim. You keep making irrelevant arguments using poor logic about statements I made, all while missing the point.

I guess I'll just wait for you to produce literally any evidence to support your claim. But I won't hold my breath.

By the way, since it's clear it went over your head, "[citation needed]" is a meme based in wikipedia, meaning you have posted something without supporting evidence.

After three and a half decades of grading, IMO this romantic notion of countless pristine raw collections in the hands of mostly unknown old timers is largely a myth.

All of the factual evidence that I've seen shows the short print distribution in states that border Canada west of Pennsylvania.

I have posted this ad before from a May 12 1949 Spokane Washington newspaper. The ad states 6 cards in a pack and that's how many cards were in the packs in the Rosen short print find from Michigan all of the evidence on the first series is 5 cards in a pack.

Attachment 644469

My guess..

Taking all the crack and resubs into account, more likely the true number of graded 1952T Mick's are closer to the number of 52T Jackie graded (1968) than the current 2862. …and the true number of 1952 T jackie cards graded are prob closer to Bobby Thompson's 1175 than 1968 (as his card isn’t being cracked much).

LOL so I got that going for me, which is nice.

Time to put this testimonial on your marketing materials. “Certified medium potatoes!”

I actually laughed out loud.

Neither is common sense in your case. Have you ever even opened a Logic textbook? You know, one with basic syllogisms such as (-A ----> A) ----> A .

But you did say:

And now you're even offering yourself up as yet another counter example!

My support comes from the fact that both the man on the street and newbie collectors are bewildered at all the fuss regarding rookie cards. Even my old childhood collecting buddy wondered decades later why rookie cards fetched more collecting interest than say the card from the player's best year.

Only in your dreams.

Were you any kind of logician, you'd know that positive assertions border on impossible to prove. But negative assertions can be disproven with one simple counter example.

For example, I provided not just one but several counter examples to your assertion that collectors naturally prefer the old.

Moreover you argued that collectors are a set distinct from consumers. This is nonsense since collectors are nonetheless a subset of consumers (and thus influenced by marketing).

Sorry. I never claimed omniscience. Only common sense.

:p

Makes sense. This was a product of the 40s and everything back then was so different. A person could've purchased five boxes and pulled maybe one Paige and another guy could've pulled five Paiges in one box!! Rosen was lucky to have even found those boxes, however, they were obviously not the best ones!

This is interesting and I remember having a few discussions on here about this subject during the pandemic. How do you know that the blue hats were not a first printing instead ?? Also, do you have any idea why Leaf decided to make these changes ?? I was never in the printing industry, but I do have a basic understanding of CMYK printing. If they had rolled the black ink on top of the blue hat, then it would've given it its 3D shaded look (like the way most of them look like), but for some reason, Leaf decided to leave the black ink off the hat during that particular print-run, and again, I have no idea why they did this. Aesthetic reasons ?? Maybe trying to save black ink ?? :D

And I gotta' get your book, man !! :cool:

This is interesting and I remember having a few discussions on here about this subject during the pandemic. How do you know that the blue hats were not a first printing instead ?? Also, do you have any idea why Leaf decided to make these changes ?? I was never in the printing industry, but I do have a basic understanding of CMYK printing. If they had rolled the black ink on top of the blue hat, then it would've given it its 3D shaded look (like the way most of them look like), but for some reason, Leaf decided to leave the black ink off the hat during that particular print-run, and again, I have no idea why they did this. Aesthetic reasons ?? Maybe trying to save black ink ?? :D

And I gotta' get your book, man !! :cool:[/QUOTE]

Several factors pointed at the BLACK HATS being first. The strongest voice was that of the collectors that were alive during the first run and buying the cards. TedZ was the Rosetta Stone on this and so many others. Also if you look at the cards from the Antique Roadshow link, those were collected in Massachusetts, which is where the cards were first distributed. All of those cards, and all of Ted's had black hats, the removal of the black plate details made the cards brighter, and I am guessing that was direct feedback from sales or consumers. They also added color bars to close off the backgrounds, so it was a multiple plate change, making it truly a variation! Exciting stuff, I can talk about it all day long.

First of all, mad props to you for posting all this data. It's very helpful. Thank you.

Everything that you wrote above is a very interesting topic and worthy of its own thread. Here in Toronto, we have the biggest card show in the country twice a year. I have these American buddies of mine that always come down, and whenever they do, they ALWAYS get a 52T Mantle ... or two. I also have some dealer buddies who live in Quebec and they find this card every now and then as well. And this is just Canada I'm talking about !! Imagine the US ?? Wayyy bigger population and wayyy more cards !! In the next ten years or so, I believe that we’re gonna’ see hundreds and hundreds of these cards come outta’ boomer collections. It's gonna' be wild, bro.

Oh, and in the last REA auction, I was checking out the Leaf Jackies and noticed how most of the PSA-graded examples had new serial numbers. It's starting ... lol

The set just screams Andy Warhol and I love it !! But the Paige card is fugly !! What the hell was Leaf thinking choosing this image below to make his card ?? The Bowman blows it outta' the water !!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7~wAA...yo/s-l1200.jpg

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/c...8/images/1.jpg

I agree! It's all about the demographics. Boomers fuelled both the card and comic collecting hobbies, and they've now begun to cash in before they cash out.

;)

Leaf
 

Regardless, it’s a pretty cool set with some great cards.

The first American Musial was the 1946 Sears postcard.

I've seen mentions of it over the years but I don't think anyone has ever posted an image?

Yeah pretty sure the subject shouldn’t have their eyes closed, and to me, the shading on the Jackie makes him look deformed.

Wow !! Is that Jackie yours ??? Full-sized example with great centering !! Must be worth like 100k Usd.

I've seen some high-grade examples that are a bit "short" and it always scares me considering that Gary Moser used to love chopping these up (and maybe still does !!) :eek::eek:

Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

Leaf had zero agreements in place with players or teams. You can read a ton about their approach to photos and images here. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2024/...leaf-us-alone/

The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.

Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but having heard all the arguments, I think I would lean toward the Swell Gum Robinson.

That's a beautiful copy! Someone did a really nice job cleaning/conserving that one! Looks great.

Well said. For me, a player's "rookie card" is the first card printed of a player that I'd actually want to own. So for Musial, that's the 48/49 Leaf, and for Pete Rose, that's the 1964 Topps.

Haha! It’s really sharp and nice to look at. Thanks. Nicer than most 7s, some 8s and even a 9 or 2 in my opinion. Tough condition card…like many in the set.

I'd say it's nicer than most 8s and 9s. It's certainly nicer than every 8 or 9 with a cert number that starts with a 1 or 0, which probably accounts for 90% of the 8s and 9s out there. Almost all of which would probably regrade as 6s, 7s, or trimmed today.

The scan is just very bright and so it looks that way. Here is a better one on the PSA website:

https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.ne...4TLa6KqgaA.jpg

If you zoom in then you can see the oxidation, especially the top border.

It looks good.

I might regret it, but I would trade straight across for my BB Portrait in a 5.5

That's very generous of you!

I think so too. A Rook for a second year card

Wait. I thought you sold that card on the BST?

No one wants it

It's like the famous Peanuts comic strip where Charlie Brown buys 500 packs of baseball cards in an unsuccessful quest to get his favorite player, Joe Shlabotnik, then Lucy buys one pack...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...94e79a61_c.jpg

1948-1949 LEAF Baseball Cards
 

The Leaf Baseball Card set, most often referred to as the 1948 Leaf Baseball Cards, has always befuddled me for the most part as why it is considered a 1948 issue in the first place and not a 1949 issue. Is this designation a Misnomer?
I just read the book “re:LEAF written by Brian Kappel. Who support this Premise.
Many wonder why the series is “skip numbered” listing the 1st series (49 cards) as well as the 2nd series (49 cards) (SP) referred to as “Single Print”, as its distribution was much less than the 1st series, in a quantity of 98 total with numbers skipping from 1 thru 168.
I believe the cards are a 1949 issue. I have looked and read all the backs of these 98 cards and 96 of them all reference player records inclusive of the 1948 season. 1948 is either called out or implied as statistics mentioned are for the 1948 season. There are 66 cards showing a copyright date of 1948 and 32 showing the date of 1949. Both the 1948 and 1949 dates appear on the 1st and 2nd series cards. My thinking is they started writing the narratives for the card backs after the 1948 season and about 2/3rds were written in 1948 while the remaining got written in early 1949 before going to printing and distribution in spring of 1949. The two cards that don’t reference the 1948 season are the #3 Babe Ruth and #70 Honus Wagner, both of whom were retired and in the Hall of Fame well before 1948.
So why on earth this is considered a 1948 issue is beyond my reasoning. I have a copy of the first “Card Collector’s Company of Franklin Square N.Y. Checklist book issued inclusive if the 1962 Topps set and in it, they refer to these cards as 1948 but their checklist only includes the 1st (49) cards and mentioned more cards had just been found. The second series single print cards. As Leaf was a Chicago company, I guess it took awhile for them to end up in New York state. Perhaps The Card Collectors Company set the direction for all others to follow calling the cards as a 1948 issue.
I think the fact that there are only (98) cards not counting the 3 variations within the 1-168 numbering from Joe DiMaggio to Phil Cavaretta means there were initially planned 4 series of (49) cards each for what would have been a total of 196 cards. The 7x7=49 sheets would have produced this if it was not for what appears to have been many quality problems and what is mentioned by the Card Collector’s company as legal difficulties. The set is the only issue that Joe DiMaggio ever appeared as an active player post WWII except for the Callahan Hall of Fame series issued from 1950-56. There were no Bowman or early Topps issues so I bet Leaf had some exclusive rights to his gum card that may have carried as far as the 1960/61 Fleer Baseball Greats that never had Mr. DiMaggio. Leaf was still around at the time and did their 1960 set with two marbles in each pack instead of gum.
Some 20% of these cards are for the Chicago based White sox and Cubs and their card back narratives seem to have been written by a salty Chicago newspaper sportswriter most all in the same direct style. In would be interesting to somehow uncover who that was.
I believe the Leaf football issue of 98 cards was indeed a complete 1-98, 1948 issue as a summary review of their backs show reference to either NFL or college seasons of 1947 or before with card #91 of Leon Hart referencing a spring 1948 practice. I have not reviewed the backs of all 98 cards, however, like I have done with baseball issue. It is obvious to me that this football series of complete 98 cards proceeded with the baseball offering. The 1949 version of football cards look to end with skip numbers like baseball offering possibly with original plan for 196 cards that was cut short.
Lastly, I remember reading a long time ago that Leaf found that the album they offered on the back of some cards for 25 cents did not have the slots quite fit the cards and that they cut the width of later produced cards to allow them to better fit. Fact or myth it would be interesting to know how many of the cards were given the “A” for authentic but altered classification. I have two of these cards that are a little lean on published width too. There is such album that has been on eBay for some time now for about $4,000. The seller has told me there are 98 slots and they look to be the right size for the established card dimensions In any case the location of the Leaf Gum Company located at 1155 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago is long gone.
Don Carpente

Don, glad you read the book! If you reference back to the sales flyer that I included from the lawsuit is confirms that the backs were written by sports writers, and it also says that the set was initially intended to be over 300 cards. Sol Leaf didn't believe in paying athletes for use of their likeness, so DiMaggio's presence in the set was nothing more than putting a "name" in there to be a draw to legitimize the offering. You are correct about the 1948 football being "true" numbered, as the 1949 set also has 98 cards, though they are skip numbered. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line, I love talking LEAF!

Good discussion !!!

--Exhibit salutations (and 1947-51 regular issue)
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit')
--Sports Exchange W603
--R346 Blue Tint
--Swell Sports Thrills
--R302-2 MP & Co.
--1951 Berk Ross

And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP.

But other than that...

1952 Berk Ross as well right?!

Adam:

Don't forget the 1955 Canadian Exhibits. DiMaggio is in that set also,

If you buy into the Leaf being a '49 issue, I suppose that makes the '49 Bowman Jackie's rookie card as well. Maybe?

Cards as an active player, guys.

John, yes it does.

DiMaggio is also in the 46-47 Propogandas Montiel set