 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
12-13-2014, 08:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com 
|
|
#3
12-13-2014, 10:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hey Scott,
Well, you asked for it! Andrew
|
|
#4
12-13-2014, 10:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i rescind...i misspoke...I also agree prewar should be construed as pre 45...or 41...so then the goudeys can stay...but the 52 topps most certainly cannot! There can'r be many 45' issues out there?
|
|
#5
12-13-2014, 01:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Todd--this whole "rookie" card thing is dealer contrived to make some extra money. The M101 Ruth never had the reputation it has had in the last ten years. It was a Ruth card, but an ugly, common one. The Boston Store/Collins McCarthy from that period was always the preferred card. The funniest thing is when some unscrupulous auctioneers hype the blank back Ruth's as the first of the M101 group. Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up.
|
|
#6
12-13-2014, 01:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jay, while I don't know why you want to start something with me, as I was just setting the record straight, allow me to disagree in large part. First, while I believe the rookie chase craze was indeed dealer contrived, that doesn't alter the fact that the m101/4 is in fact Ruth's rookie card, which is what I said. Moreover, until 10-12 years ago, the E135s were wrongfully dated as 1916 cards, giving the collector the impression that Ruth had two different rookie cards. I submit that some collectors seeking the E135 may have thought differently had they known the true facts, whatever their aesthetic preference. I also disagree completely that the card was ever ugly or common, but acknowledge that the E135 is much more difficult to find. Finally, while I too have trouble with dealers claiming that all blank-back Ruths are m101-5 when they are more likely not, I have seen no evidence at all to show that "Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up." I would love to see that evidence.
Edited to add: I recognize that 10-12 years ago many thought m101-5 was dated 1915 as well. My point is there was confusion surrounding what may have been Ruth's rookie card, which confusion no longer exists. To that extent, I modify my earlier response which stated that m101-4 always had been considered his rookie-- I was referring to the relatively recent phenomenon that the Baltimore News card should be considered as such.
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President. Last edited by nolemmings; 12-13-2014 at 01:49 PM.
|
|
#7
12-13-2014, 02:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The most grossly overrated card of all time... | 1963Topps Set | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 52 | 12-16-2014 08:45 AM |
| overrated and underrated | Touch'EmAll | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 25 | 09-24-2012 01:26 PM |
| Is the 1952 Topps Andy Pafko an overrated card? | Doug | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 26 | 08-18-2011 06:28 PM |
| PSA 10's - most are overrated | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 60 | 12-08-2007 09:21 PM |
| Overrated? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 47 | 05-28-2006 12:38 PM |
Hybrid Mode
