|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Let's review the "ROOKIE" card phenomena. In the early to mid-1970's, BB card collectors were not<br /> really caught up in the rookie card "craze". As I recall it, it started with the "hype" on this card in<br /> 1979 - 1980 time period in this hobby. Funny, I never understood at the time why his real 1st card,<br />the 1951 BOWMAN....was ignored.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/mmantle52t.jpg"><br /><br />About the same time, this rookie craze was compounded by Pete Rose running a 44-game hitting<br /> streak challenge to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game record. And, Rose's 1963 Topps card jumped overnite<br /> from $5 to $50....and, kept climbing to $500 during the mid 1980's.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/array10cards.jpg"><br /><br />And just as we thought the hobby had classified most of the Rookie, or 1st cards, then controversy<br /> raised it's ugly head with advent of the Grading Co. in the mid '90s. Was the "1948" LEAF (actually 1949)<br /> Jackie Robinson his real rookie card ?<br />But, what about his 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread card ? Although, this is not considered a major BB<br /> card issue, it did have a widespread distribution. Ditto, for Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, and several other<br /> players' 1st cards in this set.<br /><br />And, then we have the never ending debates on the Rookie cards of Leroy "Satchell" Paige (Leaf vs<br /> Bowman). And, Ty Cobb....Postcard vs E90-1 card vs T206 card.<br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/paige2.jpg"><br /><br />1949 LEAF<br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/leroypaige.jpg"><br /><br />1949 BOWMAN<br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/apccobb.jpg"><br />1907 Dietsche Postcard<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/e90cobb.jpg"><br />1908 E90-1 card<br /><br />I have a moderate collection of what I consider are 1st cards (I include PCL cards as valid rookies);<br /> but, I don't really get carried away with these cards in my type set. So, let's "re-hash" the Rookie<br /> or 1st card debate....or if your "take", on this topic is different than mine (as stated)....let's hear it ?<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jorge</b><p>Nice cards!....Ted
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I think that it boils down to what any two people first and foremost consider a "card." For instance, I consider Exhibit cards to be cards in my world, many do not. Without general acceptance on what we usher in under the umbrella of cardom the debate will go on and on. Then having said that, did the "card" have to have national distribution? What about minor league cards. My POV of view is that Minor League cards are not rookie cards but for those who are Zeenut enthusiasts, this does not hold water. Does not make either of us right. I guess the real question is, "Why must there be a rookie card for everyone?" If that is your particular bent then you have to have a definition that you are comfortable with and defines your particular collection.<br /><br />I enjoy the debate but also realize that a definitive answer is not forthcoming unless of course we default to the Beckett definition. But if the 1933 Goudey is to be Babe Ruth's rookie then I don't think that is likely to happpen. I guess it is a symptom of us wanting to have an answer to each and every question. In my world and only mine (perhaps) it is not really that important. I collect prewar HOFers and select sets.<br /><br />Great discussion however and amazingly it's about the CARDS!<br /><br />Edited for POOR spelling!
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>The oldest card is the rookie card regardless of league or distribution or rarity. Of course, the next question is what's a card? Are exhibits and cabinets cards? If so, or if not, that changes a lot of rookie designations. Really, we will never ever never have agreement on either of these questions. We'd have to be rounded up and zapped with a mind control probe to get any kind of consensus. It would be just as fun to try to determine the best card of every HOFer and just as futile. (Just a thought, but maybe once a week we could have a thread on a HOFer just to get an idea of which card is sort of maybe considered the most desirable by a small plurality of vintage collectors. It'd be fun to watch the Mathewson and Cobb threads at the very least.)<br /><br />--Chad
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Paul S. must have jedi mind-trick powers. Prior to yesterday, I've never read anyone suggest that minor league cards are rookie cards. In fact, this forum had coined a word to describe desireable minor league cards such as the Balt News Ruth - "prookies" (short for pre-rookies).
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>generally speaking, i take "rookie" to mean the first season a ball player plays in the big leagues. <br /><br />so if a "card" is issued BEFORE the player's first big-league appearance, then i'd say no its not his rookie. however, if the "card" is issued at the time of (or after) the player's first big-league appearance, then yes its their rookie (even if they are wearing a non-big league jersey).<br /><br />For example, I think some of the 1989 Topps "#1 Draft Picks" had players depicted in their college jerseys (like robin ventura, steve avery, etc), but they played major-league ball in 1989 (same year the card was issued) so i'd say its their rookie card.<br /><br />like has been mentioned, whether the "card" was nationally distributed doesn't matter much nowadays cuz of the internet. but of course the definition of "card" is another topic. <br /><br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Chad and Jeff, you hit the nail on the head. Beyond the determination as to whether or not a minor league card or a card not nationally distributed can be viewed as a first card, the question on what is simply a 'card' remains. As an example, the Cobb 'first card' debate: while I have all the postcards and cards that are generally thought of as possible 'rookie' cards (so I have no financial horse in this race), I believe a card is a card is a card and a postcard is a postcard, period. As for exhibits -- which were intended to be depictions of the player and not created to be mailed, I believe that they should count as 'cards.' Just my two cents on the issue of 'what is a card.'
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>"Rookie" to me is the first card of a player after or at the time he became a major league player. Minor league depictions are not "rookie". Ideally the card should depict the player in a major league uniform. <br /><br />Players depicted, singly, on a postcard are cards. Team postcards are not. So, PC796 Sepia would be a card. Pinkertons are cards. W601 Sporting Life is not a card. Supplements, whether single player or not, are not a card. <br /><br />A more satisfactory way for me to collect, if I were so inclined, would be "first" card rather than "rookie" cards.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>I think the rookie debate is primarily relevant in regards to post WW2 cards when major sets began to be released yearly. With that any player who played a significant amount in the bigs would have the chance to be on a card.<br /><br />Due to the sporadic(and often regional) nature of pre 1948 releases, the emphasis on rookie cards has to be taken a bit less seriously. Many players either don't have contemporary issues, or have cards that don't reflect their playing career very well. Josh Gibson has a posthumous rookie, Jesse Burkett's only accessible card depicts him as a manager of a minor league club. <br /><br />Ultimately it comes down to preference, and what each individual collector is willing to settle for. Given unlimited resources I would definitely collect vintage rookie cards, but at this point I am willing to compromise. The T206 and 1933 Goudey are a godsend in this case. I can get key contemporary cards of hall of famers, that are also fairly accessible on a modest budget.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I have never understood the fascination with rookie cards. Sure the 'first' card of a player, or one that depicts them looking young and fresh during their rookie season, is kind of cool, but why should it command such a huge price multiple over other cards of that player? Sometimes the rookie card of a player is rather unaesthetic, such as the 1963 Topps of Pete Rose, which Pete has to share with three other players.<br /><br />I think the rookie card phenomenon arose in the 1980's partly out of a speculation game: you buy cards of a player when they first arrive in the big leagues, and then later reap the benefits of your foresight and talent recognition skills when the player goes on to have a great career. I remember back then people even tried to buy hundreds of copies of a single card; maybe they still do. The problem is that the supply of modern cards is essentially infinite (plenty of unopened cases probably still stashed away), so the price levels that these cards can ultimately reach is limited.<br /><br />Talking about 'rookie cards' of pre-war players like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth seems ridiculous to me. As has been pointed out, it depends on what you even consider to be a 'card'. If you have to debate what the 'real' rookie card even is, how desirable can it really be? But then again, since I have never placed much value on the rookie card concept to begin with, these debates are essentially meaningless to me.<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I feel the same way about the subject now as I did when I first saw people asking big prices for Rose rookies in the late 70s. Why in the world does it matter if a particular issue is someone's rookie card? It was a marketing ploy then, and it's marketing ploy now. I'm just surprised so many folks buy into it. I'm also puzzled by the insistence of rookie cards being limited to "major issues." To me, the "minor issues," like Bond Bread cards and 1941 Double Plays (a lot of rookies are in this set!) are just as valid as any "major issue." Baseball cards were not invented by Topps. And, by the way, so many so-called rookie cards are pre-dated by the ultimate red-headed stepchild of the hobby (and one of my personal favorites), Exhibit cards, which certainly qualify as a major issue ...
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Postcards are cards.<br /><br />Especially those series type... such as the Dietsche cards.<br /><br />I don't think the tobacco industry, bubble gum or candy industry, or any other industry cards can be annointed "real" over another commercial distribution (such as postcards).<br /><br />Actually - the postcards may be more like the current business model for baseball cards -- as the card itself was the intended item of sale (instead of a freebie tagalong item for some other product).<br /><br /><br />Admittedly, I am definitely biased when it comes to postcards <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>, but thats how I see it.<br /><br /><br />As far as rookie status. First major league team card. No minor league cards (sorry Baltimore News).<br /><br /><br /><br />edit to say:<br />Steve - while I think team cards (postcard or other) should not count as any individual player's rookie. They are cards.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Rule of thumb: First baseball card depicting the player as a Major Leaguer (or where he is a major leaguer). <br /><br />In common baseball terminology, 'rookie' means first year as a Major League player, not Minor Leaguer, college or high school player. <br /><br />Mark McGwire's 1984 Topps Olympic card is not his rookie card, as he is not depicted as a Major Leaguer and had not yet played in the Major Leagues. Similarly, the Baltimore News Babe Ruth is not Ruth's rookie card.<br /><br />The definition of rookie is not a definition or value, rarity, desirability. Rookies are often sought after due to their rookie-ness. However, that Mantle's 1952 Topps is more valuable than his rookie card, illustrates that the rookie card is not always the 'best.'<br /><br />Collect what you want. If you think the Baltimore News is Ruth's best card, that's great. If you think defining a card as a 'rookie card' is dumb, that's fine.<br /><br />If you want to define a rookie card as the one from the player's rookie year (first year as a MLB player), that is a fair definition. However, many players would not have a rookie card. Many HOFer football players would have no rookie card. I don't believe Roger Staubach or Joe Montana would have rookie cards.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>1914 Baltimore News Ruth card...<br /><br />is a VERY expensive and much-desired "PROOKIE" card.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>I guess people should consider changing the terminology to FIRST CARD. That would eliminate having to distinguish between a MAJOR or minor league card. I wonder if A-Rods parents had any of those little league cards made when he was a kid? I guess that would be considered his first card. As for Stengel, it would be T210. Oh yeah, what's a card? T206 are small, the traditional size card of 1957 (and later) Topps. I guess the opinion of a ROOKIE card depends upon what it is you have in your collection. The definitions are really mind boggling here... Are cut outs from boxes considered cards? Look at W555 or Orange borders? Are they cards or cut outs? Blah....
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>correct. A team postcard is a "card". A player depicted on the "card" would not however be considered either his "rookie" or "first" card.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />Look at what you did, the more we define it the murkier it gets. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I like David's definition above, but I disagree on one major point. The designation of a card as a rookie card does effect the desirability of card. At least it does for the half of the hobbyists that follow Beckett's.<br /><br />Peter
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Here we go, a numerical scoring system for determining the "best" rookie card of a player, when the choice isn't clear:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastronet.com/delgado.cfm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.mastronet.com/delgado.cfm</a><br /><br />This to me is a classic example of convincing oneself that something is meaningful, and then analyzing it to death. Can you imagine deciding what painting you like best based on some set of weighted numerical attributes?<br /><br />Above all, will someone please explain to me why rookie cards (given that we can figure out which ones they are) are so desirable in the first place?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>There's no question that a rookie card is considered special (1968 Nolan Ryan, 1954T Hank Aaron). I was just pointing out that the rookie card is not always the player's most expensive card: 52T Mantle, Cal Ripken RC, etc.<br /><br />When I say I don't think such-and-such card is a rookie card, some card owners act as if I've assaulted their religion or, even worse, the card's market value. That's why I qualified that my definition of rookie card is just a definition of rookie card. <br /><br />Rookie card designation effects financial value. But financial value shouldn't effect rookie card designation.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>JEFF<br /><br />I think this is a 1st.....I am disagreeing with you. In my opinion, a qualifying "artifact" to be<br />considered a "ROOKIE"....CARD....is any paper/cardboard product with a BB player's image.<br />I'll give you a good example of this....the 1939 PlayBall Joe DiMaggio has, by many, has been<br /> considered his 1st Major League card. But, more advanced collectors would argue that the<br /> 1936 R312 paper issue of Joe D. is his true 1st card....and, I agree with that it's the R312.<br /><br />Do I understand you.....to be in the school of thought that Cobb's 1907 p/c should not be<br /> considered his 1st BB card ? OK, then that leaves us to decide between the E90-1 or the<br /> T206 cards ?<br />My research has indicated that the 1st series of the E90-1 set was issued as early as 1908.<br /> Others may differ with my findings. And, if so, then is the 1909 T206 (150 series) cards of<br /> Cobb (green or bat on) his real Rookie cards ?<br />And, if you favor the T206's.....then a further dilemna presents itself.....is his very 1st card<br /> the Piedmont version, or the Sweet Caporal, or the Sovereign ? <br />My theory says the Piedmont's were first....again, others may differ. <br /><br />My point here is where does this "dilemna" end....when it comes to declaring a specific card of<br /> a BB player his true Rookie card.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/cobbcobbps.jpg"><br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I have never understood the fascination with rookie cards. Everyone recalls the rediculous fascination with Nolan Ryans rookie. It's his ugliest card. And then there was the insanity surrounding the 84 Donruss Don Mattingly. I remember when that card was considered somewhat rare. I guess it is rare if you compare it to the grains of sand in Maui. And the Pete Rose. Also his ugliest card. The way I define rookie cards, they do fit the definition. But to pay more for them because they happen to come off of the presses first is ludicrous. You are a true collector if you recall the dumbest rookie card of them all. Do you recall when people were actually hording the 1989 Star Co. Bob "The Hammer" Hamelin? He was the next Ruth. I have never thought of a players first card as anything special. If it fits my perameters, then I go after it. Otherwise it's just another card.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think we should accept the fact that this is an open ended debate, and that there will be differences of opinion as to what constitutes a rookie card. In some cases a minor league card can be a rookie if it was issued in a major, nationally distributed set. Again, Kid Nichols is my poster child for this.<br /><br />I think a rookie can be issued in a regionally issued set, such as the Just So of Cy Young.<br /><br />In the case of Cal Ripken, however, I would vote for either his 1982 Topps Update or his 1983 regular issue, because his minor league Rochester cards are not universally recognized as real anything. I don't know who made them, and I have no idea if they were reprinted after he got famous.<br /><br />I say look at each card individually, because there will never be a universal agreement among all collectors.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- in your Joe DiMaggio example, why choose the 1939 Play Ball when he appeared in 1938 Goudey? Why is that any less of a baseball card?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BINGO......you let the cat out of the bag......that's precisely why I posted this Thread.<br />In order to generate some thought-provoking exchanges on this highly controversial topic.<br /><br />Just read my post to Jeff regarding Ty Cobb's "1st card" and you see where I'm coming from.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Mike,<br /><br />That's great why don't we make the waters murkier by trying to figure out the the rookie card the real collector would go after. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I chose the 1939 PB Joe D. because for many years, it bugged me that this card was advertised<br /> as his Rookie card. Despite the fact that there are two Joe D. cards in the 1938 Goudey set, and<br /> the R312 Joe D. that I noted.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>it seems we are in agreement about team postcards / cards being "cards" (I think I misunderstood your first post).<br /><br />Hal -<br />I love the term PROOKIE. Great term (yes, new to me - or I just don't pay attention much).<br />And, I believe would prefer the PROOKIE Baltimore News Ruth over the actual rookie --- its jus a very cool looking card.<br />But that is on a card by card or player by player basis.<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted, no question that the Cobb Dietsche postcards preceded his true 'baseball cards' - and I don't disagree that the postcard has the 'look' of a large baseball card. I suppose that what has influenced my thinking is that the Dietsche and HM Taylor cards were designed first to be postcards, to be mailed, and secondarily as 'baseball cards.' And the E95, 90-1, T206, E 102, 101, etc. were designed strictly to be baseball cards (though I don't disagree that they were throw-ins in packages designed to sell tobacco and candy products). I suppose the size of the postcards also influences my feeling. It's just a gut thing. I can't say that I could ever imagine a bunch of kids flipping the postcards, you know?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />Great scan of that p/c Cobby. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Still my favorite and what i consider to be his rookie. And no thats not for value related purposes. As someone else alluded and i agree. When it comes to the pre Goudey stuff i don't think there can ever be anything definitive regarding dates.(As Ted brought up with the t206's)
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Cobb is on a 1906 W601 Sporting Life postcard.....would that be his rookie? (I had to get in here somehow)<br /><br /><br />ps..one other point....a rookie card is a first card if rookie means first....all you have to do is determine whether you want a rookie card or a rookie big league card....that could define what is a rookie card?
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />How about Frookie, Prookie sounds too much like nookie and it's too early in the day to start thinking about that. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>it's whatever PSA says it is via the SMR<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Why yes, I DO have a dollar, and I would LOVE to buy a bridge! - Did my brother-in-law tell you I was in the market?<br /><br />Honestly:<br />1) No minor League cards (MLB uni's only)<br />2) Widespread distribution (national not required)<br />3) Team cards don't count<br /><br />This means that my 48 Bowman Mize is certainly NOT his rookie; however, I would like to invoke the top-secret Rule#3, which is that the collector may at any time, as conveniently dictated by his current holdings, decide to make the RC rules less stringent as appropriate to add value to his collection!<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>Why do people consider that postcard to be Ty Cobbs "rookie card" ? Its not a baseball card, its a postcard, not a baseball card...
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Back in the day, I never "went after" the silly cards I mentioned. Actually I still have my Ryan rookie that I bought as a kid. It means more to me in that mode, than if I bought it as an investment. I just used them as examples of the craziness of the recent rookie craze. The reason I digressed into the recent craze, I guess was out of frustration over the entire subject. To me, calling Ruth's 33 Goudey, his rookie card, is just plain dumb. But that's just me. And it has been previously stated, we can all agree to disagree. I didn't intend to murky anything. The whole subject gives mea headache.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Leon's point is well-taken: when using the term "rookie card" one is not suggesting that it is the card reflecting the player's rookie year in baseball; instead, "rookie card" means literally that: a first card of the player, even if it's a year or two or ten past the player's entry into the major leagues. And Leon, of course you had to remind me of the one Cobb postcard I don't own! <br /> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1176151751.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1176151846.JPG">
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jason, <br /><br />Actually I liked the last part of your definition the most. So I have now started a niche collection of cards that are "arguably rookie cards." <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>Why would Beckett be so determined (if they are) to "solve" the issue by making the 1933 Goudey a rookie card? Does it answer the question, solve the debate, bring clarity to the situation? Answer: No. To me it makes them and their guide seem ludicrous (or Ludacris if you like). Is the percentage of "collectors" who collect based on rookie card status a significant enough amount of the collecting population to make this an issue that needs resolution? I guess maybe they are the backbone of the hobby so to speak, but more than likely a niche now and forever.<br /><br />As a poster mentioned earlier even if you collect "rookies" your own definition of the term will more than likely evolve as your collecting tastes/habits evolve over time. As I stated earlier I am interested in the debate for debates sake and because it raises some interesting perspectives to be evaluated.<br /><br />Besides, I have now learned that I own a Ruth rookie. Thatalone was worth getting up today and logging on for!
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Because it gives card issues an order. If there were no sense of the order (by year of manufacture) in which card issues were released, and that this somehow held meaning of some sort, then all issues would be considered equally interesting and value purely a reckoning of surviving examples and perhaps aesthetics. <br />And obviously, that's a pretty hard thing to judge these days so many years after creation, as we all would agree that numbers graded is no reflection of actual numbers surviving, and aesthetics a very personal opinion. So how would we determine the cost of a card, as trading is no longer a feasable way to collect? Would cards made well past a player's career be equally valuable, and if not why not? I'm not saying rookie cards set all this in stone, and in fact alot of factors play off eachother to create a sense of desirability for an issue, but the initial layering of rookie year helps establish a perspective for many collectors.<br /><br />I personally love the concept of rookie, prookie too, and first card to boot. All give me a sense of space and time for a player's career and life and help but not bind my collecting perameters.<br /><br />And postcards don't make it as baseball cards for me, as their primary use was commercial - not collecting - though no doubt many people started collecting because of the artistic merits of the designs.<br />Exhibits are cards, as they were undoubtedly created for the sole purpose of collecting.<br /><br /><br />Daniel
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>Maybe designating something a rookie gives someone a sense of order. But the card is the same, from the same year and has the same player on it whether you call it a rookie or not. I see it as a primarily value driven assignation that is late to the game.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Thanks Daniel, well articulated.<br /><br />I noticed when I take my son to the card shop in Denver, that if he has to choose one card of Rockies Todd Helton, Matt Holliday, etc., he wants to get the rookie card. I think it's partly market hype, but there must be something inherently desirable about that first card. I just hate paying the price.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>While some folks may not like it...<br /><br />there IS a perfectly logical explanation for<br />why "rookie" or "first" cards of players are<br />more valuable than cards issued later in the<br />player's career.<br /><br />It all stems from the fact that NOBODY knew<br />who "George Ruth" was in 1915... so nobody<br />"hoarded" up his cards in large boxes. You <br />could have traded 100 Ruth cards for ONE card<br />of whoever the star was in those days.<br /><br />As Ruth started breaking records and becoming<br />famous, however, people started craving and<br />saving his cards. Thus, the percentage of cards<br />from his later years that still exist is MUCH<br />higher than from 1915.<br /><br />How many people in 1954 were out running down<br />Henry Aaron cards? You could have given them<br />away for peanuts... or traded 100 of them for<br />ONE Yogi Berra card.<br /><br />How about Lou Gehrig in 1925? Think anyone was<br />breaking in line to get a shot at grabbing one<br />of his cards from the Exhibit Card machine? No.<br />Heck, you were probably LAUGHED at if you drew <br />Gehrig out of the machine instead of Sisler or<br />Speaker.<br /><br />1933 Goudey card of Dizzy Dean? You can have it.<br />The guy's a bum and will never win.<br /><br />It's all about supply and demand. There is a big<br />demand for those early cards... and a small supply.<br /><br />
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>All good points Hal and I agree. The demand party outweighs the supply because of the demand caused by designating these rookie cards.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>For the 2nd time today, I have to disagree with you. In the summers of the 1950's we would<br /> come back from Asbury Park (NJ) after a great day at the shore with stacks of Exhibit cards<br /> that we got for our pennies from the vending machines on the boardwalk.<br /><br />The next day in the schoolyard we would trade....and FLIP them for other BB players we did<br /> not have.<br /><br />Let's face it guys and gals, the term ROOKIE was first applied to post-WWII cards. The<br /> 1952 Topps Mantle card (mistakedly) was the card that started it all. And, once this "rookie<br /> fever" caught on, it was contagious and permeated throughout the BB card hobby. The<br /> classification of post-WWII cards is well understood. However, Rookie or 1st cards of the<br /> pre-War era, in many instances, are not so easily identified since accurate dating on many<br /> issues has not been clearly defined.<br /><br /> For example, there are E-type sets that the Grading Industry have incorrectly dated on their<br /> labels. Many of these sets are labelled 1908, when players in these sets where traded to<br /> their (identified) teams in 1909. And therefore, these sets were actually issued in 1909 or 1910.<br /> Yet many collectors of graded cards do not realize that they are being misled.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Bill Todd</b><p>Maybe I'm missing something here, but to be a "rookie" card, wouldn't it have to be issued <br />when the player was...a rookie? Otherwise, it's just a "first card."<br /><br />(Of course, then you could end up with the Lou Piniella situation, where he was on Topps Rookie Stars cards in four separate years, with four different teams--including two he never actually played for.)<br /><br />Bill (not the one from Cape Cod)
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You make a great point with your example of Ruth cards......but, my contention is that<br />1st cards were not really sought after till the late 1970's. Most collectors I knew before then<br /> were primarily interested in completeing sets or acquiring as many BB cards of their favorite<br /> player or team.<br /><br />Excuse, my repetition of using the 52T Mantle card, but in the Fall of '52 when the Hi# series<br />was available this card was highly sought after. The media (and NY) hype on Mantle in 1951<br /> was enormous. And indeed, Topps anticipated this by Double-Printing Mantle (along with <br />Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson).<br /><br />So, although your point is well-taken....it does not apply to what is probably known as...."the<br /> most popular Rookie card" in the hobby.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I know some of you guys hate it when PSA statistics get quoted (yes I know they can be misleading because more valuable cards are more likely to get slabbed and so on), but:<br /><br />1963 Topps Pete Rose in NM 7: population 564, SMR value 725 (rookie)<br />1964 Topps Pete Rose in NM 7: population 340, SMR value 200 (second card)<br /><br />1954 Topps Hank Aaron in NM 7: population 286, SMR value 1250 (rookie)<br />1955 Topps Hank Aaron in NM 7: population 371, SMR value 350 (second card)<br /><br />I don't think scarcity is driving the price premium on those rookie cards.<br /><br />In Rose's case, the second year 1964 card is much more desirable aesthetically IMO (it has a nice portrait of him instead of the tiny little head that appears with the other three players on the 1963) and it even says "All-Star Rookie" on it. Still, the rookie card commands more than 3 and a half times the price.
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I just wanted to say... <br /><br />that in my prime - I could not be beat at flipping cards.<br /><br />Windy days / still days / rain or shine... I was the flip-master of the school yard! <br /><br /><br />Ah... the glory days.<br /><br /><br /><br />I must be rusty now.... but I wonder how good I would be flipping the slabs<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Judson Hamlin</b><p>I never understood the great fascination with rookie cards myself. I can remember as a kid being more interested in the cards of players that had long major league records and stats (I needed a microscope for the 1977 McCovey) than the 4-in-1 rookie cards with no minor league stats. Between the hype of every player from Rose and Ryan to Dale Murphy and Joe Charboneau (How do you spell that?), and the further production of all those minor league sets that became "pre-rookies" of everyone from Neil Allen to Bob Zupcic, I feel like it became farcical.<br />At least with the vintage market, I feel like it never caught on due to so many other factors- set popularity, rarity, and a general sense of calling shenanigans on the whole concept. <br /> <br /><br />Joe-- Lets bring a stack of 1990 topps to the New York Dinner II or III or II 1/2. May the best flipper win...
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>I don't consider Exhibit's "cards", when taking about "Rookie Cards"!<br /><br />I'd classify Exhibit's the same category with Postcards. <br />My I wrong to think this way <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>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.
|
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">
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 PM. |