Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC
Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.
|
Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.
__________________
...
http://imageevent.com/derekgranger
Working on the following:
HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 250/346 (72.3%)
1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 116/119 (97.5%)
Completed:
1911 T332 Helmar Stamps (180/180)
1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate (180/180)