Babe Ruth Rookie

[oldjudge]

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

[MetsBaseball1973]

I can only speak for myself but I think when people want to focus on collecting a player, or having a card represent a player in a collection, they find most ideal an early depiction of the subject-- an image from the embarkation point of a great career. The start and origin, if you will. Hence why cards issued earliest are generally more sought after in the hobby.

With the News being a minor league card, it is surely desirable as an early and rare card, yet minor league depictions are something unique and separate from the majors.

With respect to population supply, I suppose it's all relative to demand. There could only be one existing card of some common player or even semi star, but if no one is after it, not much value there. In contrast, there could probably be a hundred more Ruth M101s and collector demand would gobble them up at a high price point-- Ruth's enduring popularity seems more than up to the task when it comes to generating demand to absorb supply.

[TanksAndSpartans]

There was an episode of History channel's Pawn Stars and I'm pretty sure someone brought in a Baltimore News Ruth that turned out to be either a fake or a reprint. What was interesting is the expert that came in actually mentioned that the Goudey Ruth was the one most desired by collectors. I searched the internet for a clip, but unfortunately couldn't come up with one and I can't remember who the expert was.

One other thing I thought, non-company issued PSA registry sets, sometimes ones that don't even have the word "rookie" in it often include a very early mainstream card of the player as the one required. Red Grange comes to mind on the football side. The 33 Goudey SK is the Grange card in all the sets, but there are a number of earlier cards of Grange.

Finally, the prior poster made a good point - a lot of collectors do have a desire for that "origin card" - the card before whoever was a big star - often the player looks a lot younger than the image we have in our heads, the write up on the back doesn't recognize him as a big star, maybe the position isn't even one he wound up playing, etc. That's part of the historical research aspect of collecting to me.

For me, I have no problem calling the earliest card the rookie even if that makes it out of my reach financially. One thing that hasn't come up yet, as a card collector, I wouldn't feel bad about excluding a matchbook, or a pin, or whatever - I'd want it to be a card, but I'm sure we don't all agree on that either or even what a card is.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

[Orioles1954]

It seems very obvious to me. A "rookie" card is a card from the player's rookie season, no more or less. For that reason, not every player in a respective sport has a "rookie" card.

1951 Bowman Mantle? Rookie Card
1952 Topps Mantle? Not a rookie card
1979-80 Topps Wayne Gretzky? Rookie card
1981 Donruss Golf Jack Niklaus? Don't make me laugh
1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan? Not a rookie card.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

I actually do agree that while rookie cards are part of the hobby, their role is not as substantial or important as they once were. It seems more like the fore-mentioned construct from an earlier age in the hobby.

[bcbgcbrcb]

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

I agee. However, I work with many clients in the industry and have yet to find one who is actively pursing football, basketball or hockey Hall of Famers. Even those who collect baseball rookie HOFers seem to be dwindling. I may be in the vast minority, but as a collector, the prospect of paying several thousand dollars for Babe Ruth as a Red Sox pitcher is not very appealing....even though it is his first mainstream issue. By the way, we should cut the nonsense of national vs. limited distribution. If the card has an ACC designation, it can be a rookie.

[trdcrdkid]

I've never really cared about rookie cards either, maybe because I'm old enough to remember that when I started collecting in the 1970s, the concept of a "rookie card" didn't really exist, or at least wasn't a term than anybody used or cared about. The card that popularized the term around 1980 and the years immediately after was the 1952 Topps Mantle, ironically not his actual rookie card by nearly any modern definition. I remember hearing the term for the first time around then and thinking it sounded kind of strange, like an artificial construct somebody came up with to create demand.

From Dave Jamieson's "Mint Condition":
"As more card sets and hobby publications poured into drugstores and card shops, a new term emerged among schoolboys: "rookie card". In years past, collectors had never made much of a fuss over whether a particular card was the player's first to appear. Things changed in the early '80s after Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps rookie card sold for around $3000, then a staggering sum for a postward piece of cardboard. Such sales marked the beginning of a long nostalgia boom, as the boys who'd collected those early Topps sets grew into professionals with incomes to throw around."

[glchen]

I don't think the concept of collecting rookie cards will ever go away in the hobby. Collectors by definition like to organize and categorize. Therefore to categorize and collect players by their cards from their rookie year makes too much sense. Also, if a baseball fan, but not a collector, asks a hobby friend, hey, I'm a big fan of this star (like Derek Jeter), and I'd like to pick up a card from him, but there are 10,000+ different cards for Jeter, what do you recommend? That friend will probably tell him to buy Jeter's rookie card. It's a lot easier to explain why you should buy a rookie card than to say, you know, most people buy Michael Jordan's 1986 Fleer rookie card, but I recommend you buy his Green Metal card. That's tougher to explain to a casual collector.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Still no Ruth Rookie sightings here! Who won the $200,000 example in REA. Come on, bring it out ---- some of us actually love seeing awesome cards.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

Phil: Many things are part of the hobby that I don't agree with. I don't tell others what to collect--if they want to collect rookie cards good luck to them. I just said to me it makes no sense and therefore I would never collect them. As for the Old Judge pose variations, LOL virtually no one collects them all. However, they are part of an established set. Rookie cards are part of a "constructed" set. This is a big difference. Secondly, rookie card collectors can't even agree what the rookie card of a particular player is. No such problem with Old Judge poses. BTW, how is your book coming?

[bcbgcbrcb]

My book has been completed and is ready to print. However, I have not been able to garner sufficient advertising to help cover the printing costs so it is on hold right now.

[ZenPop]

While all you blow hards talk the talk, I've actually acquired proof that you're ALL wrong. Just got this back from PSA. Babe Ruth ROOKIE CARD. CONFIRMED.

[h2oya311]

We have all been put to shame! Thanks zenpop for lightening the mood.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ZenPop

While all you blow hards talk the talk, I've actually acquired proof that you're ALL wrong. Just got this back from PSA. Babe Ruth ROOKIE CARD. CONFIRMED.

That's some serious photoshopping there John. Great job!

[CW]

Perfect, John! Too funny... I was going to post that same childhood image of Ruth and claim it was his "rookie", but your actual OJ card is SO much better. Nice!

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That's some serious photoshopping there John. Great job!

+1 how long did it take you to make that?