Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JEFF

I think this is a 1st.....I am disagreeing with you. In my opinion, a qualifying "artifact" to be
considered a "ROOKIE"....CARD....is any paper/cardboard product with a BB player's image.
I'll give you a good example of this....the 1939 PlayBall Joe DiMaggio has, by many, has been
considered his 1st Major League card. But, more advanced collectors would argue that the
1936 R312 paper issue of Joe D. is his true 1st card....and, I agree with that it's the R312.

Do I understand you.....to be in the school of thought that Cobb's 1907 p/c should not be
considered his 1st BB card ? OK, then that leaves us to decide between the E90-1 or the
T206 cards ?
My research has indicated that the 1st series of the E90-1 set was issued as early as 1908.
Others may differ with my findings. And, if so, then is the 1909 T206 (150 series) cards of
Cobb (green or bat on) his real Rookie cards ?
And, if you favor the T206's.....then a further dilemna presents itself.....is his very 1st card
the Piedmont version, or the Sweet Caporal, or the Sovereign ?
My theory says the Piedmont's were first....again, others may differ.

My point here is where does this "dilemna" end....when it comes to declaring a specific card of
a BB player his true Rookie card.



TED Z