|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
Dear Guys, |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: cmoking
If they did that, they simply have no clue what they are doing. I love the Goudeys, but the Ruth cards are not close to being his rookie cards. I doubt their mistake will change the marketplace much. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Steve Dawson
In a nutshell, it seems to me that Beckett feels the "RC" (rookie card) designation can only be given to a card from a "mainstream, nationally issued" set. They evidently feel that all the E, M, etc cards are not nationally issued, and were only regional issues. Therefore, no cards from these sets can be officially recognized as "rookie cards". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: John Kalafarski
I wonder who first came up with the idea that a rookie card is something special? A rookie card should be issued in the same year a player makes his debut in the major leagues. Stan Musial came to the Cards in 1941 (12 games) and 1942 (140 games), yet his rookie card is thought of as the 1948 Bowman. This is meaningless. It's his first card, not his rookie card. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
John, |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Todd Schultz
classifying the '33 Goudey as Ruth's rookie is simply a flat-out mistake. Hell, Ruth had very few cards after 1933, with a dozen or more beforehand, especially if you count back variations. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: leon
As much as I like the Beckett folks no matter what they call a '33 Goudey Ruth it will never be generally accepted as his rookie by anyone other than collectors that don't collect Pre-War material. Just because someone calls a dog a cat, it doesn't make it one..... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Bryan Long
Collector: Are you a expert on vintage cards? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Bobby
A lot more then a dozen cards for Ruth before 1933 Goudey including variations...here is what I have 119 and does not in other sets he is in during the 1933 year. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Chad
That's a lot of cards. Babe was kinda popular I guess. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Denny
Most Interesting Find! I wonder if Beckett New about this one? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: leon
That team "card" is a photo, imo, but the '14 Ruth Baltimore card is what is considered by many to be his rookie card...along with his M101-4/5's. The team card will be overly hyped as a card by the auction house but I don't blame them for doing it. Cards sell for more than photo's, for the most part. regards |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Bobby
Just go to my site and do a search for any player and you will get a list of all the cards they are on in chronological order. We have most sets in there and working on adding more all the time especially the cuban issues. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Denny
Leon, I just thought Beckett to be way off the mark. The 1914 Card of Ruth's is a beauty and I can only sumbit that you're absolutely right! REA did a grand job with this find, but none the less - The Photo (card?) is quite the piece. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Richard
Bobby - |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Bobby
Got post the theoretical until it is proven wrong...right and if so then it will be easier for me to delete it from the list then adding it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Todd Schultz
If you want to identify all the possible m101-4 and m101-5 backs, then add 1916 Altoona Tribune, Burgess-Nash, Morehouse Baking and Standard Biscuit D350-1 (one each for m101-4 and m101-5), add Famous & Barr to include both m101-4 and m101-5, and delete reference to m101-5 Sporting News, leaving blank back only. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Mark
Is Beckett's stance really different from saying a 1947 Bond Bread Robinson is not a rookie (which nobody disputed)? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Todd Schultz
I don't understand what you're saying. Ruth was distributed in the m101 sets as of 1916, and these sets were clearly distributed on a national level. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
Todd, |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Todd Schultz
then every card in the '33 Goudey set is that player's rookie card except for Collins, Speaker and Lajoie(I assume even Beckett would acknowledge t206), since there were no "major card companies" before and it was Goudey's first offering. If that is their yardstick, it is worse than worthless--it is deceptive. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
Todd, |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Steve Dawson
Actually Todd, Beckett evidently does NOT recognize T206's as rookie cards. One of Beckett's criteria is that the set must be a "single-year" issue, and since T206 was issued over a 3-year period (1909-1911), they won't recognize any of the cards as rookies. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
Steve, |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Mark
Todd, |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: leon
I would guess that the Sporting News backs were distributed nationally but am not positive.... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
I can assure you that the claim that the 33 Goudey set is suddenly full of 'new' rookie cards will not cause the value of these cards to go up one nickel. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: Todd Schultz
The Sporting News backs would have been distributed nationally. By the way, what evidence is there that Goudey was distributed nationally? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies
Posted By: peter chao
Jeff, |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goudey Ruths | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 03-22-2009 08:50 PM |
2 more fake Goudey Ruths...on ebay | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-16-2007 08:04 PM |
1933 Goudey Ruths? | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 09-16-2007 05:00 PM |
Looking for '33 Goudey Ruths in PSA1/SGC10 | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 05-16-2006 03:51 PM |
2 "33 goudey ruths | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-04-2006 07:08 PM |