![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/598.../?redirected=1
75 years later, new findings reshape the Jackie Robinson rookie card discussion By Michael Salfino Dec 10, 2024 Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949? Collecting chaos. That’s the issue now with the 1948 Leaf baseball cards, which had been the exclusive rookie cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige. And they were given co-rookie card status with the 1948 Bowman cards of Stan Musial, Warren Spahn and Ralph Kiner, among others. It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright. But Brian Kappel, author of the book “re: Leaf: The story of a collector, a candy company, a stack of baseball cards and a search for answers,” has done ample research — even looking at court documents from the period in question — and concluded that no Leaf 1948 cards were shipped until 1949. That’s at most a couple of months before the 1949 Bowman cards shipped. ![]() Jackie Robinson’s first Leaf baseball card. (Photo: Sotheby’s) That could mean that the 1949 Bowman Robinson and Paige deserve rookie status previously only awarded to the Leaf issues. And even more consequentially, the 1948 Bowman Musial would thus be the only Musial rookie card, no longer sharing that designation with the 1948 (really 1949) Leaf issue. That Leaf card, if reclassified, would be a second-year card no different than the 1949 Bowman Musial. According to Kappel, the smoking gun is the 1949 court filing forwarded to him by a collector in researching his book. The filing addressed Bowman contention that Leaf violated its exclusive player contracts. In the response, Kappel says, “Leaf states in plain English, when the first cards left the factory (March 14, 1949), as well as acknowledging that when the paperwork was processed (March 30), the cards had been in stores for a few weeks.” The parties agreed that Bowman, as of March 1949, had not yet issued its comparable baseball card product for that year. Kappel forwarded to The Athletic a Leaf advertising flyer announcing its baseball cards with a 1949 copyright on it. Typically, all first cards of professional players issued in the same year are considered the player’s rookie cards, regardless of which company issued the card first that year. Jason A. Schwartz, Co-Chair, Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) Baseball Cards Research Committee said, “Without a doubt, I classify the Leaf set as ‘1949 Leaf’ based on definitive evidence that no cards were distributed prior to March 1949.” He added, “I make no distinction between Leaf and 1949 Bowman as far as rookie cards are concerned. The situation is analogous to comparing the 1983 Topps, Fleer, and Donruss cards of Tony Gwynn.” This is tremendously important when it comes to card value, as rookie cards are most prized by collectors and generally generate the largest investment returns. For example, the Leaf Musial that today is considered a 1948 issue/rookie card sells for $2,400 decently centered in PSA 3 (very good) condition. The 1949 Bowman, because it’s considered a second-year card, sells in the same condition for just a fraction of that in the same condition — about $500. The number of graded Leaf and 1949 Bowman Musials are about equal. The 1948 Bowman Musial, considered less desirable aesthetically for their smaller size and black-and-white image, sold recently for just $725 in the same “very good” condition. But if the Bowman card is now the only true Musial rookie, given it was issued about a year earlier, it stands to reason the price of that card would increase. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Musials as the Leaf Musials, according to GemRate, which tracks graded card populations. Rookie card status can impact value more than population numbers. Consider that the 1948 Bowman Yogi Berra, his unquestioned rookie card, sells for more than twice the amount of the 1949 Bowman, in the same condition. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Berra cards as 1949 Bowman Berras. “If a player has a card in 1948 Bowman, then there is no basis for regarding the Leaf card as a rookie,” Schwartz said. The biggest card in both the Leaf and 1949 Bowman sets is Robinson’s, which, according to Schwartz, should share rookie-card designation. An SGC 3 of the 1949 Bowman card sold recently for $4,151.51. But an SCG 3 of the Leaf Robinson recently sold for $11,400. The populations of both the 1949 Bowman and Leaf Robinsons are nearly identical, according to GemRate. ![]() Jackie Robinson’s 1949 Bowman baseball card. (Photo: eBay) “I am not sure I would completely reclassify the ‘48 Leaf (Robinson),” said Jason Eggert, a top collector of Robinson cards and memorabilia. “To many, it will always be his rookie card. Kind of like modern cards, I have no problem having several different early cards be considered rookie cards.” The Paige card is a short print in Leaf but that, in addition to its rookie status, gives that card a value of about $40,000 in SGC 3. The Bowman 1949, considered a second-year card, goes for about 1/10th that amount. GemRate says there are about six times as many graded 1949 Paige Bowmans than Leafs, so the “rookie” designation of the Paige Leaf card is still a considerable part of its value. “We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.” Brian Dwyer, president of Robert Edward Auctions, says collectors will impact the future value of the cards. “How prices for these Leaf and Bowman cards fluctuate in the months and years ahead will be determined by the collectors themselves, but we wouldn’t be surprised to see a noticeable uptick in the interest of these cards,” Dwyer said. “While some may perceive them differently now, there are passionate fans and collectors of these sets (who) will continue to view both sets as 1948 issues for rookie card collecting purposes.” |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:
![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
When I first saw the post, I actually thought the story was in reference to this video posted 2 days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x3wC9QoSc |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The most knowledgeable collectors in the Hobby have been on board the 1949 train for a while and have decided what Jackie’s rookie card(s) is/are based on the criteria they deem relevant. However, the majority of collectors put their trust in PSA or other Hobby authorities to figure such things out for them, and this is where PSA has been and remains: ![]()
__________________
Thanks, Jason Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/ |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I personally think that the 49' Bowman baseball cards are a great buy right now. The gap between both sets (Bowman and Leaf) will start to close over the years. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 12-18-2024 at 03:01 PM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]()
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Portrait IS his rook.....now you tightwads out there, start paying up!
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
What issue is this?
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
While I like rookie cards because they depict the youngest version of the player when they have so much potential ahead of them, I love a player’s last issue card because it memorializes their career in achievements and stats.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That is the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait. It was the first depiction of Jackie in a major league uniform. The rest of the Jackie set was released after the portrait, which was used as a promotional item.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Gracias.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. Last edited by Balticfox; 12-19-2024 at 02:50 PM. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.
Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith? ![]()
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. Last edited by Balticfox; 12-19-2024 at 04:26 PM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant. Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it. Last edited by OhioLawyerF5; 12-19-2024 at 07:33 PM. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#22
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man. Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity. Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Source? Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere. ![]()
__________________
That government governs best that governs least. Last edited by Balticfox; 12-19-2024 at 11:21 PM. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card. As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/user/JStottlemire1 I just love collecting, trading and discussing the hobby. I PC and enjoy collecting Jackie Robinson. Currently working and prioritizing Jackie Robinson Bond Bread set. Last edited by Jstottlemire1; 12-19-2024 at 08:47 PM. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
And it was all about the survival rate of those cards. Kids typically collected as kids for maybe 3-4 years. Yes, there were outliers like me and probably a bunch of others here who never really stopped. And the occasional purge of "stuff" by mom was a thing. Sometimes a favorite card or two would be saved, but most got thrown away or given away. So for example, a kid gets a 54 Aaron. Bit loses interest in cards a bit into 55. By spring cleaning 56, he's not really interested. Maybe isn't a Braves fan, and probably not a fan of then kid who hit a decent number of home runs but isn't flashy like Mays or Mantle and who knows if he will get any better? So the favorite player and maybe a few stars get saved, but the Aaron rookie goes in the bin with the rest of the cards. So they were less common. By the late 70's, that was less of a thing. The hobby was more advanced and popular. Not that kids collected longer, but the Rookie card thing had been established. So they got saved more often than not. By the junk wax era - yeah, it was nothing buy hype. And Beckett for better or worse promoted guidelines that said local issues couldn't be rookie cards. They had to be major nationally issued sets. I would say that for most sets since the mid 70's the rookie cards are more common than all but a few stars. But not by much. It's sort of silly for prewar cards, and even late 40's cards. A few other things influence it, mostly that people have a bit of a fascination with "firsts" . Sort of like a first edition of a book, or a card of someone who was the first to do something. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Identifying a few historical examples where the RC was not the most valuable does not prove the hobby never cared about rookie cards. Even today there are such examples, not only Mantle. Pedro Martinez' RC isn't worth a nickel. In high grade, a 71 Munson and I think too a 71 Vida Blue are worth more than their RCs. There may be others. Nobody is contending relative abundance/scarcity is entirely irrelevant. Do people care now more than ever about RCs, perhaps, but again that does not show there was a time they did not.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I love my Ken McMullen rookie card.
![]() |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I collect all major sports and there is only ONE RC I refuse to own because it's so hideous -- Moses Malone 1975 Topps. Opted for a 1976 instead.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo... |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would have some respect for PSA if they instead announced that they don’t care about facts, because what matters is juicing the investment and the 1948 date lends itself to better investment gains than the truth, and that they are happy to lie because customers will never hold them responsible or expect them to be honest or competent, as in their desire to profit the customers will continue to submit to PSA no matter what PSA does and how transparently incompetent or unknowledgeable about the items they sell their alleged expertise on they are. Probably wouldn’t even hurt their business! At least it wouldn’t be an incredibly obvious lie.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Delete.
I'm not sure what happened to my response, but it looked like absolute nonsense when posted. Mark Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Last edited by dealme; 12-20-2024 at 08:47 PM. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.
Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Leaf had zero agreements in place with players or teams. You can read a ton about their approach to photos and images here. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2024/...leaf-us-alone/
__________________
Thanks, Jason Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/ |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.
__________________
Thanks, Jason Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Leaf Baseball Card set, most often referred to as the 1948 Leaf Baseball Cards, has always befuddled me for the most part as why it is considered a 1948 issue in the first place and not a 1949 issue. Is this designation a Misnomer?
I just read the book “re:LEAF written by Brian Kappel. Who support this Premise. Many wonder why the series is “skip numbered” listing the 1st series (49 cards) as well as the 2nd series (49 cards) (SP) referred to as “Single Print”, as its distribution was much less than the 1st series, in a quantity of 98 total with numbers skipping from 1 thru 168. I believe the cards are a 1949 issue. I have looked and read all the backs of these 98 cards and 96 of them all reference player records inclusive of the 1948 season. 1948 is either called out or implied as statistics mentioned are for the 1948 season. There are 66 cards showing a copyright date of 1948 and 32 showing the date of 1949. Both the 1948 and 1949 dates appear on the 1st and 2nd series cards. My thinking is they started writing the narratives for the card backs after the 1948 season and about 2/3rds were written in 1948 while the remaining got written in early 1949 before going to printing and distribution in spring of 1949. The two cards that don’t reference the 1948 season are the #3 Babe Ruth and #70 Honus Wagner, both of whom were retired and in the Hall of Fame well before 1948. So why on earth this is considered a 1948 issue is beyond my reasoning. I have a copy of the first “Card Collector’s Company of Franklin Square N.Y. Checklist book issued inclusive if the 1962 Topps set and in it, they refer to these cards as 1948 but their checklist only includes the 1st (49) cards and mentioned more cards had just been found. The second series single print cards. As Leaf was a Chicago company, I guess it took awhile for them to end up in New York state. Perhaps The Card Collectors Company set the direction for all others to follow calling the cards as a 1948 issue. I think the fact that there are only (98) cards not counting the 3 variations within the 1-168 numbering from Joe DiMaggio to Phil Cavaretta means there were initially planned 4 series of (49) cards each for what would have been a total of 196 cards. The 7x7=49 sheets would have produced this if it was not for what appears to have been many quality problems and what is mentioned by the Card Collector’s company as legal difficulties. The set is the only issue that Joe DiMaggio ever appeared as an active player post WWII except for the Callahan Hall of Fame series issued from 1950-56. There were no Bowman or early Topps issues so I bet Leaf had some exclusive rights to his gum card that may have carried as far as the 1960/61 Fleer Baseball Greats that never had Mr. DiMaggio. Leaf was still around at the time and did their 1960 set with two marbles in each pack instead of gum. Some 20% of these cards are for the Chicago based White sox and Cubs and their card back narratives seem to have been written by a salty Chicago newspaper sportswriter most all in the same direct style. In would be interesting to somehow uncover who that was. I believe the Leaf football issue of 98 cards was indeed a complete 1-98, 1948 issue as a summary review of their backs show reference to either NFL or college seasons of 1947 or before with card #91 of Leon Hart referencing a spring 1948 practice. I have not reviewed the backs of all 98 cards, however, like I have done with baseball issue. It is obvious to me that this football series of complete 98 cards proceeded with the baseball offering. The 1949 version of football cards look to end with skip numbers like baseball offering possibly with original plan for 196 cards that was cut short. Lastly, I remember reading a long time ago that Leaf found that the album they offered on the back of some cards for 25 cents did not have the slots quite fit the cards and that they cut the width of later produced cards to allow them to better fit. Fact or myth it would be interesting to know how many of the cards were given the “A” for authentic but altered classification. I have two of these cards that are a little lean on published width too. There is such album that has been on eBay for some time now for about $4,000. The seller has told me there are 98 slots and they look to be the right size for the established card dimensions In any case the location of the Leaf Gum Company located at 1155 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago is long gone. Don Carpente |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
--1947-49 Aarco issues (Bond Bread, square corners, 'exhibit') --Sports Exchange W603 --R346 Blue Tint --Swell Sports Thrills --R302-2 MP & Co. --1951 Berk Ross And his Callahan was issued in 1954 as part of that year's update, and is a SP. But other than that...
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 08-17-2025 at 07:27 PM. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Don't forget the 1955 Canadian Exhibits. DiMaggio is in that set also,
__________________
Fr3d mcKi3 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you buy into the Leaf being a '49 issue, I suppose that makes the '49 Bowman Jackie's rookie card as well. Maybe?
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Cards as an active player, guys.
John, yes it does.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 08-18-2025 at 09:22 PM. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Geoff Spending my lunch money on Baseball Cards It all just goes back into the PC https://www.ebay.com/str/premiercardcollectors Over 7500 successful transactions. Curating an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years. T206, 19th Century, Pre-War, HOFers, Jewish Athletes Member of SABR - Dead Ball Era/Baseball Card Research/19th Century |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New York Times Article on the Scandal | STL1944 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-14-2019 10:37 AM |
Major "New York Times' Article on Jefferson Burdick | GregMitch34 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 05-22-2012 06:20 PM |
NY Times Article on WS Programs | ibuysportsephemera | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 0 | 10-19-2011 01:27 PM |
New York Times article about a Josh Gibson documentary - interesting reading | RichardSimon | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 3 | 10-19-2009 04:07 PM |
Japan Times article | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 39 | 01-09-2002 03:44 PM |