Defining pre-war rookie cards! Ahhh.....

[DanP]

I know the last topic many of you want to re-hash is the RC definition. Feel free to skip this thread if your tired of the discussion.

As I sit here watching the History Channel tell us why the world is going to end in 2012 it's hard to believe my focus is on baseball cards. However, while watching TV I decided to do some research into the N54 archives about rookie cards (even back to the Hal Lewis days).

Before we get into the detail, here's how I define rookie cards (feel free to define them however you wish, no argument here):
For both Pre-war and Post-war:
1. they have to be cards (no pins, photographs, newspaper pic's etc.)
2. No minor league, pre-rookie, etc.
3. No team cards (other multi-player cards OK)
Post-war; very simple, the first mainstream cards issued
Pre-war; the earliest card issued; If there's a date range for the issue any card issue within the date range is OK (for example: 1907-1909 any cards from any issue within that period is their RC, unless it can be proven a specific player's card within an issue issue was actually from 1907)
Oh, and one last note: If there's only one card (i.e. Just So ..) then I'm OK with the next issue being their RC (I have to be).

This rant is all in fun. One thing I love about RC collecting is that you need to learn about many different card issues. You need to do some research, there's more of a challenge than just "checking off a checklist".

OK, now to the point:
I just noticed the thread from last winter (I was busy in 2010 and didn't do much with N54 or collecting) from Kevin regarding his research about why the 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery were really issued in 1910 or 1911. What??? Just a few days ago I just missed out on Speaker's NC at $2k!! I would have been in even more shock if I just realized that I spent $2k on a card that maxed out at $763 in the ebay auction (seller had a reserve) was not a better RC than what I already have!!

To complicate things even more, the next card in line for Speaker's RC is the E91's (08-10). I hate the fact that these cards do not even attempt to illustrate the player and the same character is used for multiple players. Can these E91's really be a players RC when they don't even depict the player? I may cross E91's off of my RC list!

End result, I'm back to calling the T206 or Turkey Red acceptable RC's for Speaker and I saved $2,000 not making a larger offer last week.

This time it worked out for me.


Dan

[familytoad]

Hi Dan...
I cant dispute your rationale of the Speaker Novelty Cutlery example you wrote about...in fact while I am a HOF collector by nature, even more so than all of the sets I have worked on, I don't usually factor in rookie status at all in my purchasing decisions.
That being said, if you consider Spoke's RC to be T206...who else in that classic set would you say has his HOF RC?
Just curious
(oh and since my favorite set is T 205 are there any in there?...I cant think of any that wouldnt have already been in 06)

[DanP]

Originally Posted by familytoad

That being said, if you consider Spoke's RC to be T206...who else in that classic set would you say has his HOF RC?

Hey Brian,
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question...
If you're asking who else could have their RC in the T206 set? I think you could argue the Walter Johnson's T206 is his RC (although I'm shooting for his Ramly). Cobb & Evers are in the Dietsche Postcards, most other early players were in the E107, Fan Craze, E91-A. I don't know of any HOF'ers with a RC in the T205 set.

Dan

[Robextend]

I believe Zack Wheat's RC is in the T206 series.

[jimivintage]

Isn't Marquard's RC technically in the T206 set, too, since his 1908 Indianapolis PC could be considered a pre-rookie according to your standards for HOF RCs?

[DanP]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Isn't Marquard's RC technically in the T206 set, too, since his 1908 Indianapolis PC could be considered a pre-rookie according to your standards for HOF RCs?

Jim:

If we rule out the E91B's (1908 - 1910) because they are not displaying the players that are named on the card, then Marquard's RC is his T206.

Dan

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I believe Zack Wheat's RC is in the T206 series.

Yes! I forgot about him. Thanks, Dan

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DanP

If there's a date range for the issue any card issue within the date range is OK (for example: 1907-1909 any cards from any issue within that period is their RC, unless it can be proven a specific player's card within an issue issue was actually from 1907)

One thing to note (you can decide if it makes a difference for your collecting rules) is that cataloged date ranges are the result of one of two scenarios. Either the cards were issued over a spread of several years (like the W600s) or we're not sure the date the cards were issued (e.g. the Novelty Cutlery PCs).

[bcbgcbrcb]

Regarding the Marquard Rookie, the 2010 SCBC lists the Hall's Studio NY Giants Cabinet Cards as a 1908 issue which would make it the undisputed Marquard Rookie (assuming you accept cabinet cards as Rookies). However, a look at Marquard's 1908 season indicates that he pitched exactly one Major League game during the last week of the season. Is it realistic to believe that Hall's Studio would have produced a Marquard cabinet in 1908 or would a 1909 date make more sense?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks to extensive research done primarily by Kevin Struss, the OldCardboard website pretty well documents the W600's that might qualify as Rookie Cards for Hall of Famers as the earlist possible issue date is provided rather than just the standard 1902-11 range.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Thanks to extensive research done primarily by Kevin Struss, the OldCardboard website pretty well documents the W600's that might qualify as Rookie Cards for Hall of Famers as the earlist possible issue date is provided rather than just the standard 1902-11 range.

Phil, thanks for the info. I guess this is the link for the documentation you are talking about:
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w600/w600list.asp

So if I'm reading this correctly, Willie Keeler's RC is:
(348) 237a William Keeler 1902 1 Outfielder Brooklyn N. L. 1899-02 Suit
(349) 237b William Keeler 1903 New York A. L. 1903-09 Suit

It would pre-date his E107. Correct?

Thanks again.
Dan

[paul]

Some W600s say "1902" right on them in the caption. I think those have to be considered a 1902 issue.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by DanP

Phil, thanks for the info. I guess this is the link for the documentation you are talking about:
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w600/w600list.asp

So if I'm reading this correctly, Willie Keeler's RC is:
(348) 237a William Keeler 1902 1 Outfielder Brooklyn N. L. 1899-02 Suit
(349) 237b William Keeler 1903 New York A. L. 1903-09 Suit

It would pre-date his E107. Correct?

Thanks again.
Dan

Keeler's first W600 was listed in an ad in October 1902, so it was available prior to the issuance of the E107. Feel free to send all the E107 Keelers this way and I will happily file them for you. Nobody really likes those little cards anyway.

[terjung]

The Old Cardboard list is certainly valuable, but I don't know that I would trust it for being complete or 100% accurate. It may be close, but I have seen at least one listing that I disagree with.

John McGraw had at least 3 versions issued, but only 2 are listed.

(431) 295a John J. McGraw 1902 1 Infielder New York N. L. 1902-06 Suit
(432) 295b John J. McGraw 1902 4 Manager New York N. L. 1902-06 Suit

The first listing is fine. The second one should read 1903? 3 Manager, IMO (since it also shows his more youthful portrait and is on a Type 1 mount). A third one was released with an older looking McGraw portrait on a Type 4 mount. I don't think that one would be a 1902 issue, though. Kevin Struss may be able to provide more insight on the date ranges for each of the mount types. Perhaps he or Scott B. will weigh in with some of their knowledge of the set.

This is not meant to pick on the very valuable resource in O.C., but just to highlight that I suspect the dates vs. mounts on its listing may not quite be 100% accurate.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Regarding the Marquard Rookie, the 2010 SCBC lists the Hall's Studio NY Giants Cabinet Cards as a 1908 issue which would make it the undisputed Marquard Rookie (assuming you accept cabinet cards as Rookies). However, a look at Marquard's 1908 season indicates that he pitched exactly one Major League game during the last week of the season. Is it realistic to believe that Hall's Studio would have produced a Marquard cabinet in 1908 or would a 1909 date make more sense?

I knew it would just be a matter of time before we heard from you! First, if I could buy his Hall's Cabinet card for a reasonable price I probably would buy it (and consider it his RC). Because I'll probably never buy one I'd have to say that unless someone could prove that it actually was produced prior to his 1909 season I think I'll stick with his T206 as his RC. Isn't it funny how I manipulate the rules to accommodate my ability to purchase some of these cards??! LOL. Thanks Phil.

Dan

[rman444]

Originally Posted by DanP

I just noticed the thread from last winter (I was busy in 2010 and didn't do much with N54 or collecting) from Kevin regarding his research about why the 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery were really issued in 1910 or 1911. What??? Just a few days ago I just missed out on Speaker's NC at $2k!! I would have been in even more shock if I just realized that I spent $2k on a card that maxed out at $763 in the ebay auction (seller had a reserve) was not a better RC than what I already have!!

Dan

Actually, I don't think Kevin's research proved that the set was not produced from 1907-1909. I think what he showed was that 6 of the 26 cards in the set could not have been produced before 1909.

Since that actually falls within the historically accepted production dates of 1907-09, I'm not sure how that changes anything.

[familytoad]

Guys,
Although Dan thought otherwise, I does appear that we don't mind talking about RC designations every now and then.

I may have written cryptically in my earlier post...I guess I simply meant, which HOF players would you consider as having RC's in T206.

So I think we have nominations for Wheat, Speaker, W. Johnson and Marquard...interesting group.

I also find it interesting that no HOFer debuted in T205.

Now, back to telling us more about the W600's.........

[Matt]

Originally Posted by rman444

Actually, I don't think Kevin's research proved that the set was not produced from 1907-1909. I think what he showed was that 6 of the 26 cards in the set could not have been produced before 1909.

Since that actually falls within the historically accepted production dates of 1907-09, I'm not sure how that changes anything.

When dating sets, we always assume they were produced at 1 time, unless we have proof to the contrary. The original 1907-1909 designation for the NC PCs was due to previous folks not being able to narrow the date; Kevin showed that 1907 or 1908 were not possible. Otherwise, you could claim a wide time frame for any issue - e.g. prove to me the E102 issue wasn't produced over many years from 1908-1912?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Matt

When dating sets, we always assume they were produced at 1 time, unless we have proof to the contrary. The original 1907-1909 designation for the NC PCs was due to previous folks not being able to narrow the date; Kevin showed that 1907 or 1908 were not possible. Otherwise, you could claim a wide time frame for any issue - e.g. prove to me the E102 issue wasn't produced over many years from 1908-1912?

I have received requests by a couple of collectors for my thoughts on the dating of the Novelty Cutlery postcards (which I feel is 1910) so I decided to post them here.

The 1982 Sport Americana Baseball Memorabilia and Autograph Price Guide by Jim Beckett and Denny Eckes list both the PC796 Sepia Postcard set and the Novelty Cutlery Postcard set as being from 1910. The PC796 checklist shows 25 players, including Sam Frock. The description of the 1910 Novelty Cutlery set notes that the pictures and subjects of the set are the exact same as the PC796 set except that the images were cropped smaller to fit within the more ornate borders of the Novelty Cutlery cards. For some reason, Beckett did not include these issues in their normal yearly Price Guides and many, if not most, baseball card collectors are not even aware that they were checklisted in this book.

The 1975 edition of The Sports Collectors Bible by Bert Sugar lists the PC796 Sepia Postcard as being from c. 1910. It does not include a checklist. It did not have an entry for the Novelty Cutlery set. Same thing for the 1977 edition. It was not until the 1979 edition that the Novelty Cutlery set was included. The Sports Collectors Bible gave the Novelty Cutlery set the designation PC805 and dated it as being from 1907. They make no comment as the set being related (or in this case identical) to the PC796 Sepia set. This is ironic because the book cross-referenced many other sets, such as the M101-5 and M101-4 sets with the different sets that shared their images.

It should also be noted that the Bible listed the checklist for the Novelty Cutlery set (they did not for the PC796 set) and misspelled the name of "Frock" as "Flock." Obviously, this is where all of the different checklists came up with the name "Flick" which they felt was just "Flock" misspelled.

Over the years, the 1907 date and the name "Flock" has been used by different price guides. Obviously, these price guides cannot do extensive research on every set that they include and instead use whatever public information that they can get their hands on. Unfortunately, when a mistake is made (1907 dating and "Flick") is it copied as well.

Even today, the 2011 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards by Bob Lemke has 26 subjects in the Novelty Cutlery set with both Flick and Frock included, but only 25 subjects in the PC796 set, with only Frock. They use the correct 1910 date for the PC796 set, but still use the 1907 date for the Novelty Cutlery set, though they now call it "1907-1909" so that the players who could not possibly have had a card in 1907 or 1908 can be explained.

My feeling is that the Bible erroneously came up with the 1907 date and was not even aware that the set mirrored the existing 1910 PC796 set. I think that both sets date from 1910. In addition to the info that I originally posted here,

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128350

there are other clues that lead me to believe this:

Some are common sense - why would Speaker have been included in a 1907 or 1908 set? He was a full time minor league player at the time. He only played in 38 major league games during those two years and barely managed a .200 average. Would it not have made more sense for the set to have been produced in 1910 after his breakout rookie campaign of 1909?

Second, I have never seen a Novelty Cutlery Postcard with a postmark before 1911, let alone 1907, 1908 or 1909. I have seen two PC796 postcards with postmarks of 1910. Who knows, maybe Novelty Cutlery used the images in the PC796 set and did not produce the set until 1911.

Also, how can the card of Cobb and Wagner (not my card) be explained? I assume that the picture used was taken during the 1909 World Series. If so, then the earliest that this photo could have been taken was October 8, 1909. I doubt that they could not have produced a postcard with this image until 1910 as these were not Real Photo Postcards.

Any other thoughts or viewpoints would be appreciated.

[DanP]

Kevin, tremendous research!! Thanks.
Now, can you solve the question regarding the 1916-20 W-UNC Strip Cards? I spent a few hours one night trying to prove they weren't from 1916. I'll have to look back through the N54 archives.

Thanks,
Dan

[DanP]

Would we all agree that if a player's first card was in both the 48 Bowman and the 48 Leaf set that their 48 Bowman is their true RC since the 48 Leaf cards are now believed to have been issued in 1949?

Dan

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DanP

Kevin, tremendous research!! Thanks.
Now, can you solve the question regarding the 1916-20 W-UNC Strip Cards? I spent a few hours one night trying to prove they weren't from 1916. I'll have to look back through the N54 archives.

Thanks,
Dan

Dan - you can check the archives, they're definitely not 1916 and almost certainly not 1917 either; most likely a 1919 issue, but 1918-1921 is the range of reasonable issue dates for the big heads.