Cap Anson Rookies

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would like to get a concensus of opinion on what everyone thinks Cap Anson's Rookie (notice I did not say Rookie Card) should be amongst the above four options

[Bicem]

Rookie photo... (not mine of course)

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/images_items/item_4218.jpg

[benjulmag]

I thought by 1874 Philadelphia cabinet what was referred to was the individual player image. If team images are to be considered, Anson's first professional team image would the 1871 Forest Citys. His earliest known baseball image (pre professional) would be the c. 1868 Marshalltown (Anson standing far right).

[barrysloate]

I would vote in this poll, but as Corey pointed out there are several very important issues left out. As such, I vote none of the above. Maybe the survey should be redone.

[Leon]

His real rookie :).

[Bicem]

Leon, you forgot about this Anson find...

http://billtammeus.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515f9b69e20115702b02bc970c-800wi

[Leon]

Leon, you forgot about this Anson find...

http://billtammeus.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515f9b69e20115702b02bc970c-800wi

I saw that. The ears don't match.

[bcbgcbrcb]

You're right, Corey. The poll was designed for individual items only, not team photos as the vast majority of collectors would not consider team items as Rookies.

[barrysloate]

Based on the four choices, I went with the 1874 cabinet. But I see no point excluding the 1871 Forest Citys CdV as that is what I believe is Anson's true rookie card. I realize the Marshalltown photo depicts a town team and one could reasonably disqualify it. However, I see no reason to eliminate the other one. I suppose it's subjective.

[E93]

I think the question needs its terms defined. If the question is simply first known image of Anson on a paper product, that is one thing. If it is first card, that is another. If it is first baseball image depicted as a professional, that is another. The academic in me wants the terms defined before the discussion begins. :)
JimB

[barrysloate]

I think the question needs its terms defined. If the question is simply first known image of Anson on a paper product, that is one thing. If it is first card, that is another. If it is first baseball image depicted as a professional, that is another. The academic in me wants the terms defined before the discussion begins. :)
JimB

Exactly!

[oldjudge]

Rookie cards = A subclass of cards so designated for the sole purpose of enticing a few knuckleheads to overpay for what they are getting. Possible subclass criteria include: 1. First professional card, 2. First professional card with wide distribution, 3. First appearance on a collectible product, 4. First card by a particular manufacturer (see '52 Topps Mantle rookie). The criteria is most often selected based upon the particular card that the dealer/auction house has in stock.

There ya go Jim

[barrysloate]

Jay- my definition is: if you own it and are trying to sell it, it's a rookie card; if the other guy owns it and you want to buy it, it's not.

[E93]

The criteria is most often selected based upon the particular card that the dealer/auction house has in stock.

There ya go Jim

Precisely. Thanks Jay. ;)
JimB

[Joe_G.]

I also didn't vote, but for what its worth, Anson first appeared in both the N28 & N172/N173 sets during 1888 while his Buchner dates to 1887.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, it looks like the concensus here is opting for the 1874 card although it may be a unique example. I'm kind of surprised by that but the majority rules so that should be considered Anson's true Rookie Card.