The First Baseball Card?

bn2cardz · #1 02-26-2013, 11:09 AM

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

GaryPassamonte · #2 02-26-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

That nasty five letter word- MONEY.

bn2cardz · #3 02-26-2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Why does it matter if something is designated as a "card" or not?
It has a baseball icon on it and it is a good size for displaying. It has a nice image that predates most baseball collectibles. Does it really matter if it is called a card or not? Does it change it's importance in the hobby?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

That nasty five letter word- MONEY.

I guess that is my confusion. Why would it bring more money? Why do people care if it is called a "card" or not.

GaryPassamonte · #4 02-26-2013, 11:41 AM

Greater minds than mine have tried to solve that conundrum.

z28jd · #5 02-26-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I guess that is my confusion. Why would it bring more money? Why do people care if it is called a "card" or not.

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount.

Here is a personal example. I like Carlton Fisk, his rookie card has a tiny picture with two other players in the 72 Topps set. Why is that better than his solo 1973 card with a trophy on it or his 74 Topps, which has a great action shot and is my favorite looking card of him. There is a big % difference in price, but they are all easy to find cards. People like firsts and being the first baseball card ever is a huge first.

bn2cardz · #6 02-26-2013, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z28jd

Would you rather have something called the first baseball card or a cricket ticket. Just doesn't have the same effect. Definitely a big difference in owning one over another. It's like asking why are rookie cards worth more than other cards, especially for newer cards if they made the same amount. .

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

z28jd · #7 02-26-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

bcbgcbrcb · #8 02-26-2013, 01:32 PM

As I have mentioned a number of times before, when discussing "Rookies" of different players, when you have an item such as an 8 3/4" X 11" supplement that is obviously not a "card", let's just call it a Rookie (earliest item picturing the player in a major league baseball uniform) and move on. The term "Rookie" does not have to be followed by the word "Card" when it is not appropriate. If the "Rookie" also happens to be a "card", all the better to use the term "Rookie Card" then.

bn2cardz · #9 02-26-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z28jd

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.

I know I am in the minority. I didn't claim I wasn't. I also don't care about paying more for a HOF if I can have a minor player for less expensive from a set. My point is why would you let a designation determine what you will buy? If you like the item should it matter if someone else calls it a RC or not or even a card? Why do you allow your collecting be dictated by semantics?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A Baseball Card Social Network & Vintage Card Encyclopedia	Collect Equity	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	21	12-29-2018 05:40 PM
Is there a baseball card, post card or supplement	pitchernut	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	08-17-2009 07:18 PM
What baseball card is considered Eppa Rixey's rookie card??	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	10-03-2008 03:12 PM
Show me your grumpy faced baseball card and/or non-card images	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	06-02-2006 11:37 PM
A. Riemann, Confectionery Card - Is this a 19th Century baseball card?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	05-10-2006 05:00 PM