Babe Ruth Rookie

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

noone in their right mind would consider a ruth goudey his rookie...I don't care what silly logic you use. dozens and dozens and dozens of earlier ruth cards exist...not all of which are "promotional" whatever that means.

I think there are pretty good standardizations for those who collect rookie cards...granted there are exceptions where collectors disagree in some cases...or there are multiple cards considered rookies...BUT...the only question regarding Ruth's rookie is whether it is the sporting news and the likes or the balt news.

Someone is really going to call a card issued 2 years prior to ruths retirement his rookie? that's just dumb and incorrect!

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider his rookie card?

[MetsBaseball1973]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

Except it wasn't nationally distributed. For example, being available only in San Francisco and not in Los Angeles or anywhere else in the state of California doesn't make the set distributed in California.

The cards were bought as complete sets from the printer by a few individual business and given away as premiums in a few locations. It does not meet the definition of nationally distributed or rookie card.

As far as "your definition" of rookie card, I guess that you don't think the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera is a rookie card, but the 1975 SSPC George Brett is.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I think the M101 is Babe Ruth's rookie card, is what I think. Curious what you believe bets fits that slot?

[MattyC]

Mets, my man, you are just gonna drive yourself crazy locking horns with people on the internet. It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it. Why waste time arguing semantics over what terms like "nationally distributed" means with strangers? Though last I checked SF was in California. The M101 is his first MLB appearance on a card. For the huge majority, that suffices. It's impossible for all humans to agree 100% on anything, let alone a hot-button topic as toxic and contentious as baseball cards, LOL.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it.

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true. LOL.

[1880nonsports]

an apt comment that has multiple applications here and elsewhere. Beware what the coming digital era will bring.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

From what I have heard, this whole collecting rookie cards didn't even exist in the hobby until the 70s/80s where it was perpetuated by some card dealers in order to increase business. So, it's not like kids in the 1930s were jumping for joy after opening a 1933 Goudey pack and find Babe Ruth's "rookie" card, and then sending the card into their favorite TPG to be properly entombed. So whatever "long held hobby definition" of rookie cards that there has been, really hasn't been held for that long of a period.

[MetsBaseball1973]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest solo card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Put me with guys who prefer solo cards over group/team shots. I should edit my last post to say "solo" card, to be more precise. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

He never has offered his opinion-- it has been asked of him multiple times, as has his definition of a rookie card. He does not because he cannot. Similarly, he has not offered the names of long-time collectors or dealers who share what was the "long-held" hobby opinion of some other Ruth rookie from the so-called old days. He is a troll.

What part of being available through a National publication and thus mailed throughout the entire country (at least) he does not understand is beyond me. And has been pointed out to him previously, many m101s were doled out one at a time--look at the very Standard Biscuit ad I quoted. He does not offer that Goudey gum was even available in California in 1933, or that it was found West of the Mississippi for that matter, yet apparently concludes that it was, well, just because.

So yes, continue to call him out on it-- he is the one claiming it is not a rookie, while offering absolutely nothing to support his claim nor ever offering an alternative or an explanation as to what is the long-held hobby definition of Ruth's rookie. His view is no more meaningful than that of Peter Chao.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

He is a troll.

.

Not so, trolls are anonymous and Rats is Flo.yd Pa.rr


And as a reminder everyone who gives an opinion of a person or company needs their name by their post or in their sig line. And that goes for any kind of snarky comments too. Nothing personal, just the rules.

[LincolnVT]

Originally Posted by glchen

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

But with Ruth as a mere component of a team picture...sorry Ethan....the 1916 "solo" Ruth is his rookie card!

[LincolnVT]

I can agree to the 100 or so M 101s being "listed" as his rookie card. The first card that he appears on alone issued in 1916. That being said, he appears on a card, in uniform as a professional a year earlier. Only a handful of people can claim ownership of the RPPC...

[MetsBaseball1973]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

But with Ruth as a mere component of a team picture...sorry Ethan....the 1916 "solo" Ruth is his rookie card!

Yes, indeed!

The Team card is very cool, and few abound-- but nowhere near the demand for that piece as compared to the M101.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

Rarity has nothing to do with it. There are approx. 60/70 known T206 Wagners and it still stands as the hobby's holy grail and most valuable/desirable card. In fact, sometimes extreme rarity can actually "hurt" a card with the expression "out of sight, out of mind" ringing true. There are THOUSANDS of 52 Topps Mantles and they continue to soar in value every day. Comparitively, roughly 100 graded 1916 Ruth's provide a reasonable number of specimens to keep people "in the hunt", yet a limited supply to augment the value..... a strong balance between relative scarcity and overwhelming demand.

Joe

[Leon]

Demand is always the main factor in value, not scarcity alone. There are a lot of Ruth cards way more rare than his rookie or his rookie Postcard (though it is rare).

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Rarity has nothing to do with it. There are approx. 60/70 known T206 Wagners and it still stands as the hobby's holy grail and most valuable/desirable card. In fact, sometimes extreme rarity can actually "hurt" a card with the expression "out of sight, out of mind" ringing true. There are THOUSANDS of 52 Topps Mantles and they continue to soar in value every day. Comparitively, roughly 100 graded 1916 Ruth's provide a reasonable number of specimens to keep people "in the hunt", yet a limited supply to augment the value..... a strong balance between relative scarcity and overwhelming demand.

Joe