Jackie Robinson RCs taking off

G1911 · #1 06-18-2020, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

It is believed that half the Bond Bread cards were issued after 1948. We know some of the photos were taken during the 1949 season. So there is some debate as to issue date. PSA has only graded more than 20 of 2 of the 12. The promo is believed to be a giveaway card, PSA has graded 109 of these. PSA doesn�t grade the regular Bond set. The Swell card is more a highlight card than a standard baseball card. Is the 1960 Topps World Series game 5 card Maury Wills RC? PSA has graded 156 of the Swell cards. PSA has graded 1344 of the 1949 Leaf cards. We can see by the numbers available that the Leaf cards were more of a national issue and the others regional. It is also from a traditional set with 98 different players, not a set only featuring 1 player or a set of highlight cards. That is why the hobby considers Leaf a RC instead of the others.

Jackie is a Round cornered Bond, a 1947 issue. The square corner lower quality cards were 1949 or later. The 1947 round corner is not a rare card, there are 6 on eBay right now. See the large composite thread on these. There are 10 of his Swell listed on eBay right now. These are not difficult cards to find, and PSA not grading one of them of course means the pop report is not a good tool here. Are Leaf 2nd series cards not rookies, because they were distributed in only a couple regions very briefly and are rare? The standards here flip flop depending on the player to call whatever is desired a rookie card.

The Swell set has many past players, and Jackie�s card does commemorate his rookie season. It is a portrait photo of him and only him and quite specifically names him. This is nothing like a World Series highlight card naming another player specifically on which Wills is not the focus.

Again, I�m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

ALR-bishop · #2 06-18-2020, 11:38 AM

Invest---agree with you on 52 Robinson and 51 Bowman Mantle. The 54 Topps is good too....and then there is the 1973 Topps 1953 Reprint, which is a fairly scarce card from a very mysterious set

mrmopar · #3 06-18-2020, 09:03 PM

It seems that because people really didn't necessarily card about "rookie" cards until much later, trying to pinpoint a "rookie" among the various issues that predated the players debut well after the fact has become a favorite debate.

Originally, we just had the "major" card makers, a few oddballs and some regional sets. Then in the 80s we saw XRCs because those cards were only sold in sets. Not sure why a card only sold in a set would be any LESS of a rookie card than one from a pack, especially if they were available to anyone, not just people in a certain part of the world.

Then, once you think you have it all figured out, introduce the basketball card dilemma. A few sets issued along the way in the 40s, 50s and 60s before Topps established a regular card market. All those guys who played in the mid to late 60s with nothing until Topps shows up, or reappears actually, after a long hiatus. Then it happened again when Topps shut it down again after the 81 set! All those guys after 81 until Fleer started producing the primary sets of the time in 86...unless you count Star, but those were sold as bagged sets so they don't count or are XRCs (says many people).

I would tend to think the true rookie item is the item issued the earliest, dedicated to that player. By that I mean, some modern star as a kid in the background of another players card is not a rookie. A guy pictured on a world series card is not a rookie card. A guy pictured on a 4 player exhibit card could very well be considered a rookie card. A guy on a food issue, when no other major issues were available, could be considered a rookie. Just my personal opinion.

mrmopar · #4 06-18-2020, 09:05 PM

By the way, this thread caught my eye because my Leaf Robinson has always been my go to when someone asks what my best card is. Now, I can probably assume that it is, at least for the time being, by far my most expensive card too.

rats60 · #5 06-19-2020, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Invest---agree with you on 52 Robinson and 51 Bowman Mantle. The 54 Topps is good too....and then there is the 1973 Topps 1953 Reprint, which is a fairly scarce card from a very mysterious set

It is really interesting to see different people's opinions on cards as they can vary so much. My favorite Jackies are the 1950 Bowman and 1955 Topps. My least favorite are 1954, can't stand the use of black and white photos on color cards, and 1953, I think they are poor quality paintings. I have always felt cards are like art and we all have our different preferences.

ALR-bishop · #6 06-19-2020, 07:27 AM

Agreed. Whether the topic involves a card or set, preferences and opinions vary greatly. I guess no one can be wrong in their personal views on such matters

The rookie card debate ( which is the real one) is often a passionate and sometimes, to me, overly contentious debate. There is no hobby arbiter on such issues other than general hobby consensus if it exists. Differing views are part of what makes such topics interesting to me.

rats60 · #7 06-19-2020, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, I�m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?

Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.

G1911 · #8 06-21-2020, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?

Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.

I agree some players don't have rookies. If no card was made in early career, there is no rookie card. I have no clue what "so how is a post career card a rookie?" could possibly have to do with what is being discussed. 1947 Bond Breads and 1948 Swells are not post-career cards? Nowhere am I arguing, in any way, shape, or form that post-career cards are rookies. I do not see how it is possible that one could construe that from anything I have said. I'm not sure why photos, post-career cards, cards of other players who are in the foreground of a card focused on someone else etc. keep getting brought up into this, as none of these have a single thing to do with Jackie's rookie.

The Bond Breads, as several others have explained already, were not obscure regionals and had a broad geographic area of distribution. They were the MOST available cards of 1947, are readily found for sale, and are easily available. Yes, there are not as many as there are 1949 Bowman's, but that seems a strange standard to set. What is the print run required to qualify?

If this is our standard, then only certain parts of certain sets can be rookies, at best. The 1949 Leaf second series sure can't, as that was only issued in a few small regions. Topps high numbers sure weren't nationally issued and many areas never saw them at all. I guess the players next first series Topps card becomes the rookie then? Heck, were even the first series truly issued everywhere? I guess the 75 Topps Mini Brett isn't a rookie either, as it wasn't sold everywhere.

This feels like splitting hairs, and relies on vague definitions that exclude many series of even Topps and Bowman sets, based on distribution and print runs that can be estimated or told from the anecdotal but not positively known as the documentation does not exist or has not been discovered for any of the vintage sets.

"Collect how you like, but let others do the same." Who am I stopping from collecting anything? Couldn't this same sentence be said of anyone who disagrees with me on the exact same logic, if to disagree with your definition is to stop people from collecting what they want? This is clearly absurd.

#9 06-21-2020, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree some players don't have rookies. If no card was made in early career, there is no rookie card. I have no clue what "so how is a post career card a rookie?" could possibly have to do with what is being discussed. 1947 Bond Breads and 1948 Swells are not post-career cards? Nowhere am I arguing, in any way, shape, or form that post-career cards are rookies. I do not see how it is possible that one could construe that from anything I have said. I'm not sure why photos, post-career cards, cards of other players who are in the foreground of a card focused on someone else etc. keep getting brought up into this, as none of these have a single thing to do with Jackie's rookie.

The Bond Breads, as several others have explained already, were not obscure regionals and had a broad geographic area of distribution. They were the MOST available cards of 1947, are readily found for sale, and are easily available. Yes, there are not as many as there are 1949 Bowman's, but that seems a strange standard to set. What is the print run required to qualify?

If this is our standard, then only certain parts of certain sets can be rookies, at best. The 1949 Leaf second series sure can't, as that was only issued in a few small regions. Topps high numbers sure weren't nationally issued and many areas never saw them at all. I guess the players next first series Topps card becomes the rookie then? Heck, were even the first series truly issued everywhere? I guess the 75 Topps Mini Brett isn't a rookie either, as it wasn't sold everywhere.

This feels like splitting hairs, and relies on vague definitions that exclude many series of even Topps and Bowman sets, based on distribution and print runs that can be estimated or told from the anecdotal but not positively known as the documentation does not exist or has not been discovered for any of the vintage sets.

"Collect how you like, but let others do the same." Who am I stopping from collecting anything? Couldn't this same sentence be said of anyone who disagrees with me on the exact same logic, if to disagree with your definition is to stop people from collecting what they want? This is clearly absurd.

The bottom line is owners of the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson get bent when evidence comes along strongly suggesting that what they own is not really his RC (same with 1952 Topps Mantle owners). Fortunately for them 95% of collectors believe that the '48 Leaf is his RC so it will always retain its value even though the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait w/ facsimile is undeniably his first true baseball card and is not simply a "regional issue" as it was originally thought. Good news is there's room enough for both in this robust market, even though there's probably 10 times as many Leafs in circulation. If in doubt, own them both. They're each great cards

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: 1952 Star-Cal Decals Jackie Robinson and Jackie Robinson / Roy Campanella	CharleyBrown	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	03-12-2020 08:38 PM
WTB: 1955 Exhibits Post Card Back Jackie Robinson and 1950 R423 Jackie Robinson	CharleyBrown	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	03-23-2016 12:15 AM
Jackie Robinson Signed GPC "Best Wishes Jackie Robinson" w/Full PSA/DNA - SOLD	canjond	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	8	09-24-2012 12:44 AM
1953 Topps Lot (78 cards): 2 Jackie Robinson's / Campy $390 Another Jackie added	sycks22	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	14	11-01-2011 09:47 PM
WTB: 1950 R423 Jackie Robinson / Strip with Jackie Robinson	CharleyBrown	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	09-15-2011 04:53 PM