Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This Feller card predates his 38 Goudey but I don't think it's generally recognized as a RC (or the other 37 issues).

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

If he is in that issue it's news to me.

[Yoda]

He definitely is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

He definitely is.

37 O Pee Chee yes. 37 Goudey Premium, yes. 36 WWG, please post one.

[Yoda]

Peter, you are absolutely right. I got my 30's Canuk sets mixed up. Joe D. and Lou G. appear in the WWG issue which was issued in 1936. I'll do better the next time.

[packs]

Would have been a sweet card.

[Seven]

I'll still call it, "overlooked" at least because of the fact you can still find one at a much cheaper price point, but Mantle's 1951 Bowman Issue, it's his technical RC as we all know, yet so many times the mystique of his 52 topps Issue, takes over the conversation.

Even though both have skyrocketed in price, you're still finding his true rookie to be a third of the price, his 52 topps is. Hell if were looking at release dates, and of course someone please correct me if I am wrong, Wouldn't his 52 topps technically be his 6th issue? In the following order it would be

51 Bowman
51 Wheaties
52 Berk Ross
52 Bowman
52 tip top Bread
52 topps

Just something to think about, in my opinion.

[BobC]

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

[tedzan]

Reminiscing......I got back into this "glorious" hobby....circa 1977.

If I recall correctly back then, Rookie cards were not such a big thing. Much of this started as the result of the excitement generated in 1978,
when Pete Rose challenged Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Rose's hitting streak ended with 44 games. It was amazing, Rose's rookie
card went from $5 in 1979 to $50 by 1980. And by 1983....$250.

In 1980, Mantle's so-called "rookie" card (1952 TOPPS) sold for $3000 at a an Auction in Philadelphia. His actual rookie card (1951 BOWMAN)
was listed in Beckett for only $400 that year.

-----------



Anyhow, one of my first challenges, 40+ years ago, were to acquire the 1949 BOWMAN Satchel Paige card, in order to complete this 1949 set.
A tough Hi #, but quite available if you didn't mind at that time paying $400 for it. The price for this card was (relatively speaking) pretty high,
since it was considered his "rookie" card.





In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The Paige on the left with 'An Exhibit Card' is a 1949 issue as well and has picked up steam in the last year or two as a RC.