PDA

View Full Version : Most overrated pre-war card?


Sean
12-10-2014, 09:28 PM
Tom Reed started a thread on the post-war side that asks for the most overrated card (most people voted for the 1952 Mantle). I liked the question, so I'm asking the pre-war guys: what's the most overrated pre-war card?

My answer is the T206 MAGIE. It is essentially a typo. The player isn't famous and his card is plentiful. But the error somehow makes the card more valuable than cards for C. Young, Speaker, Mathewson, W.Johnson, or even Cobb (unless one of those cards also features a rare back).

I know that the MAGIE is rare, but so are other cards that don't sell for nearly as much. So I guess my point is: if this error card was in a set other than T206, would it be an iconic card? That's why I consider it overrated.

So what do you guys think? What other pre-war cards do you think are overrated?

4815162342
12-10-2014, 09:33 PM
Any T206, but especially the Wagner.

Peter_Spaeth
12-10-2014, 09:37 PM
Scraps and freaks. :D

packs
12-10-2014, 09:50 PM
Strictly speaking about value ratio to subject, I think the Ten Million Obak is really overrated. Don't get me wrong though. I want one.

ullmandds
12-10-2014, 09:53 PM
It would have to be the t206 wagner.

ullmandds
12-10-2014, 09:53 PM
Strictly speaking about value ratio to subject, I think the Ten Million Obak is really overrated. Don't get me wrong though. I want one.

true true...but I don't want one!!!

bbcard1
12-10-2014, 10:01 PM
I think a lot of the Buck Weaver issues are priced very strong considering. He was a good infielder with an interesting backstory, but seems like a lot of pay for his cards considering.

mrvster
12-10-2014, 10:25 PM
:eek:;)..................


THE FREAKS...and Especially Scrap T206

are still very much UNDER RATED :)

btcarfagno
12-10-2014, 10:42 PM
Tom R. started a thread on the post-war side that asks for the most overrated card (most people voted for the 1952 Mantle). I liked the question, so I'm asking the pre-war guys: what's the most overrated pre-war card?

My answer is the T206 MAGIE. It is essentially a typo. The player isn't famous and his card is plentiful. But the error somehow makes the card more valuable than cards for C. Young, Speaker, Mathewson, W.Johnson, or even Cobb (unless one of those cards also features a rare back).

I know that the MAGIE is rare, but so are other cards that don't sell for nearly as much. So I guess my point is: if this error card was in a set other than T206, would it be an iconic card? That's why I consider it overrated.

So what do you guys think? What other pre-war cards do you think are overrated?

Magee may not be famous but he does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If that injustice were ever corrected it would actually make the card underrated.

Tom C

1963Topps Set
12-10-2014, 10:44 PM
I have to agree the Wagner card.. Especially since a lot of it's notariety is based on a fraud.. Mastro!

clydepepper
12-10-2014, 10:48 PM
Most overrated are most pitchers' rookie cards...they generally don't hold as much value over extended time as sluggers do.

Most overpriced is the 1952 Topps Mantle - which is so high, I don't see ever being able to afford it.

An earlier post made it clear that they did not think he was one of the best players of all-time...well, IMHO, that depends on how long your list is.

There is NO DOUBT, however, that Mickey Mantle is the most important player in the hobby!

lug-nut
12-10-2014, 10:58 PM
Most overrated are most pitchers' rookie cards...they generally don't hold as much value over extended time as sluggers do.

Most overpriced is the 1952 Topps Mantle - which is so high, I don't see ever being able to afford it.

An earlier post made it clear that they did not think he was one of the best players of all-time...well, IMHO, that depends on how long your list is.

There is NO DOUBT, however, that Mickey Mantle is the most important player in the hobby!

SPECIFICALLY: "There is NO DOUBT, however, that Mickey Mantle is the most important player in the hobby!"

Very much arguable and not sure how you come to that conclusion. are you talking about the 52 mantle card or mantle as a player? card, probably... player, nope.com

1963Topps Set
12-10-2014, 11:04 PM
I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

vtgmsc
12-10-2014, 11:31 PM
I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

20× All-Star (1952–1965, 1967, 1968)
7× World Series champion (1951–1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962)
3× AL MVP (1956, 1957, 1962)
Triple Crown (1956)
Gold Glove Award (1962)
AL batting champion (1956)
4× AL home run champion (1955, 1956, 1958, 1960)
AL RBI champion (1956)
New York Yankees #7 retired
Major League Baseball All-Century Team

How's that for potential? I have read that before and think its a bunch of baloney. How many players would give a right arm to even come close to what Mickey accomplished? He played hurt, he played hard, he did cool stuff.

peace, mike

Peter_Spaeth
12-10-2014, 11:39 PM
:eek:;)..................


THE FREAKS...and Especially Scrap T206

are still very much UNDER RATED :)

Indeed. :De

Jeffrompa
12-10-2014, 11:49 PM
That's easy the T206 Titus .

HOF Auto Rookies
12-10-2014, 11:54 PM
Wagner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ethicsprof
12-11-2014, 12:04 AM
T206 Titus

best,
barry

oldjudge
12-11-2014, 01:07 AM
M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

familytoad
12-11-2014, 01:13 AM
Goudey 1933 Bengough is well over-rated.

1940 play ball high numbers of long retired HoFers .

T206 Titus
T206 Shag

T201 Dougherty/Lord

Some 1914 CJ are riding the wave now, but they are pretty great cards so I'm not ready to call them over-rated , really.

Underrated= All T3 and T202.

rats60
12-11-2014, 01:38 AM
M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

sporteq
12-11-2014, 01:43 AM
T206 & 1933 Goudey cards ample amount available.. I don't see that attraction when they can be easily obtained.

Albert

Jeffrompa
12-11-2014, 03:35 AM
I also never got the big deal over the Sanella Ruth but maybe someone can explain that one to me .

glynparson
12-11-2014, 05:28 AM
The more recent run up on price with freaks and miscuts particularly as related to T206.

DixieBaseball
12-11-2014, 08:00 AM
Anything T206 is way overated. The market is abundant with examples. I see Cobb's like fireflies in the sky. Same goes for all the other HOFer's.

the 'stache
12-11-2014, 08:25 AM
Magee may not be famous but he does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If that injustice were ever corrected it would actually make the card underrated.

Tom C

I agree he should be in.

I have to agree the Wagner card.. Especially since a lot of it's notariety is based on a fraud.. Mastro!

No, the Gretzky Wagner's notoriety is based off of fraud. The demand, and the price the T206 Wagner commands, is based off of rarity, lore, and the fact that the toughest card to acquire from maybe the most famous set ever made is one of the very greatest players to ever step on a baseball field.

I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

You can feel whatever you want as far as who you feel is the most important player in the hobby. Jackie Robinson was a tremendous player, and man. I don't think he's the most important, or popular player in the hobby, though.

And missed potential? Mickey Mantle?

Since 1901, 169 players have amassed a WAR (Wins Above Replacement) metric of over 50. Mickey Mantle has the 16th highest WAR of all players in the last 113 years.

I'm not sure how he missed his potential. He had 15 broken bones during his career. He tore up his knee as a rookie (and this was in 1951, long before they had the kind of minimally invasive procedures they can do today). Well, I've torn up my left knee. I've had about 30 broken bones. And I can't get out of bed some days. Mantle not only got out of bed, he hit balls onto the roof of old Yankee Stadium. He won a Triple Crown, and three MVPs. He hit 18 home runs in the World Series, still a record.

The guy didn't miss any of his potential. Could he have 600 home runs if he'd taken a little better care of himself? Maybe. But to say he's the player with the most potential that didn't live up to it is just wrong. I'm sorry. Three MVPs. Three MVP second place finishes. A third place finish. Two fifth place finishes. He played 18 seasons, two of which he played fewer than 100 games. Of those remaining sixteen seasons, nine of them he placed no lower than fifth place in the MVP. He had a .994 OPS for the decade of the 50s. The guy was a megastar.

Peter_Spaeth
12-11-2014, 08:33 AM
Bill James rates Mantle 6th of all time. He points out among other things that he walked a phenomenal amount, and had a career on base percentage of .421.

tennisguy
12-11-2014, 09:06 AM
Magee may not be famous but he does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If that injustice were ever corrected it would actually make the card underrated.

Tom C

Tom you hit the nail on the head. I have been saying for years Magee should be in!

obcbobd
12-11-2014, 09:08 AM
Anything Black Sox related

Throw a World Series, have a movie made about you and your cards sky-rocket in value

bn2cardz
12-11-2014, 09:19 AM
Any card sold for more than $100,000. They include the same ink and are printed on the same cardboard as the other cards in a particular set. This gets me even more when it is the difference of a minimal amount of ink (looking at you Doyle t206 NY Nat'l variation: PSA 3 Nat'l = $411,250.00, PSA 3 without Nat'l = $71)

I enjoy cards but I would rather stick to cards that don't cost me the same as buying a house. I can't even think of paying off the lot car prices for a card not alone house prices.

1952boyntoncollector
12-11-2014, 09:25 AM
some paintings have a little bit of ink..like 3 lines with different colors and they are 1 million.and you can get paintings with more ink for 1 dollar...

it not about the ink man..

tedzan
12-11-2014, 09:29 AM
Strictly speaking about value ratio to subject, I think the Ten Million Obak is really overrated. Don't get me wrong though. I want one.

true true...but I don't want one!!!


I do have a Ten Million OBAK....but, I still agree with Packs' and Pete's above statements.

However, just like "Shag" Shaughnessy, Ten Million has a strong following which drives their cards way above what they should normally be worth.



http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/obakcarlisletenmillion.jpg


TED Z
.

ALR-bishop
12-11-2014, 09:43 AM
What exactly does overrated mean ? Does it refer to market value or market perception, or both, or neither ? The Wagner and Manlte sell what they sell for. They do not seem overrated to me because a lot of folks wouLd like to have one but think they are too expensive at the prices they are actually selling for. An individual seller may overvalue a card, in which case it does not sell. But if the Wagner and Mantle keep selling in auctions I do not see how they are overrated, at least in terms of market

ullmandds
12-11-2014, 10:06 AM
What exactly does overrated mean ? Does it refer to market value or market perception, or both, or neither ? The Wagner and Manlte sell what they sell for. They do not seem overrated to me because a lot of folks wouLd like to have one but think they are too expensive at the prices they are actually selling for. An individual seller may overvalue a card, in which case it does not sell. But if the Wagner and Mantle keep selling in auctions I do not see how they are overrated, at least in terms of market

i tend to agree with this rationale...so I would change my initial comments from t206 wags to something like a ten million obak...or a t206 titus...or something that has become desirable for seemingly "silly" reasons like a cool name...or facial hair!!!!

darwinbulldog
12-11-2014, 10:11 AM
T206 in general and Wagner in particular. I agree on the Ruth rookies, and I would add the E90-1 Joe Jackson, but #1 is Wagner.

As a rule, if Joe Orlando included it in his Top 200/250 Sportscards book it's overrated.

bn2cardz
12-11-2014, 10:19 AM
some paintings have a little bit of ink..like 3 lines with different colors and they are 1 million.and you can get paintings with more ink for 1 dollar...

it not about the ink man..

We aren't talking about paintings...

Even if we did want to use paintings as a reference point you would have to find two paintings done by the same painter in the same studio with the same medium in the same period that had a price difference of 579,225% due to one stroke of the brush. That is the difference paid in the Doyle situation for a card that was printed on the same sheet in the same factory by the same company with the same subject matter.

Should there be premiums paid. Sure. Yet no card, to me, can be worth over $100,000 (I could even say nothing over $13,000, when a brand new car can be had for $12,800 msrp). It is an arbitrary line, I admit that, but that is my opinion.

packs
12-11-2014, 10:23 AM
To me an overrated card is one that is expensive for dopey reasons and not expensive because it's rare or even desired.

The Wags is expensive because it's known as an expensive card. It's not because it's the rarest card ever or even that it's really all that desired. Non-collectors only want it because they know it's expensive, not because it's a card of Honus Wagner and not because it's a T206. This is evident in all the coverage sales of the card get from outlets totally uninterested in baseball cards. So to me that makes it overrated.

Peter_Spaeth
12-11-2014, 10:36 AM
I think any variation of a common player that commands a huge premium is overrated. Hoblitzel no stats for example. The Doyle. Nodgrass. and so forth

1952boyntoncollector
12-11-2014, 10:38 AM
Any time you buy something with intrinsic value, theres always a chance its 'overvalued' We aren't buying gold, heck even the US Dollar can be overvalued its just paper....I can do more with gold...

eventually I worry this is all just a Ponzi scheme and for the 3000 dollars cards..people will say its just cardboard..and not drawn by an artist..

i don't even understand why paintings go for millions but theres a market...when the economy collapses..the best of the best always have a market..but these lower condition cards .the PSA 1s-4s on the big cards i do think are overvalued..cause they will be first to go down..as the upper middle class buyers will have less money ...the PSA 8s that's a different story

Huysmans
12-11-2014, 10:50 AM
Any card sold for more than $100,000. They include the same ink and are printed on the same cardboard as the other cards in a particular set. This gets me even more when it is the difference of a minimal amount of ink (looking at you Doyle t206 NY Nat'l variation: PSA 3 Nat'l = $411,250.00, PSA 3 without Nat'l = $71)

I enjoy cards but I would rather stick to cards that don't cost me the same as buying a house. I can't even think of paying off the lot car prices for a card not alone house prices.

I completely agree. To me the most overated are the Goudey Ruths. There's 4 of them for pete's sake! While not the most expensive cards, still way too much for cards that are that abundant. And when it comes to cards in excess of $100,000, I'd rather own something more relevant to baseball history. I'd much sooner have a Ruth game used bat than a high grade Baltimore News. Ruth handled and used the bat to ply his trade, while the BM is just a piece of cardboard the happens to have his picture on it. Don't get me wrong, I love cards, but theyre not as historically significant as memorabilia to me. Just my opinion lads.

Jayworld
12-11-2014, 10:55 AM
To me an overrated card is one that is expensive for dopey reasons and not expensive because it's rare or even desired.

I like this rationale.

In my opinion:
T206 Titus - is this "coolness" solely because he is the only player depicted (to my knowledge) with a mustache in the set?

glchen
12-11-2014, 11:20 AM
I think the T207 Louis Lowdermilk card is overrated. It's not even that rare when compared to the other cards in the set according to the pop reports, and moreover, who the heck is this guy?

1952boyntoncollector
12-11-2014, 11:24 AM
I think the T207 Louis Lowdermilk card is overrated. It's not even that rare when compared to the other cards in the set according to the pop reports, and moreover, who the heck is this guy?

who the heck are 95% of the players in the T206 set..

heck most future hopeful baseball card collectors don't know who the heck 95% of the baseball players are today let alone the 1990s or 80s...

Paul S
12-11-2014, 11:27 AM
In my opinion:
T206 Titus - is this "coolness" solely because he is the only player depicted (to my knowledge) with a mustache in the set?

That, and he's being hoarded.

rats60
12-11-2014, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set View Post
I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.




You can feel whatever you want as far as who you feel is the most important player in the hobby. Jackie Robinson was a tremendous player, and man. I don't think he's the most important, or popular player in the hobby, though.

And missed potential? Mickey Mantle?

Since 1901, 169 players have amassed a WAR (Wins Above Replacement) metric of over 50. Mickey Mantle has the 16th highest WAR of all players in the last 113 years.

I'm not sure how he missed his potential. He had 15 broken bones during his career. He tore up his knee as a rookie (and this was in 1951, long before they had the kind of minimally invasive procedures they can do today). Well, I've torn up my left knee. I've had about 30 broken bones. And I can't get out of bed some days. Mantle not only got out of bed, he hit balls onto the roof of old Yankee Stadium. He won a Triple Crown, and three MVPs. He hit 18 home runs in the World Series, still a record.

The guy didn't miss any of his potential. Could he have 600 home runs if he'd taken a little better care of himself? Maybe. But to say he's the player with the most potential that didn't live up to it is just wrong. I'm sorry. Three MVPs. Three MVP second place finishes. A third place finish. Two fifth place finishes. He played 18 seasons, two of which he played fewer than 100 games. Of those remaining sixteen seasons, nine of them he placed no lower than fifth place in the MVP. He had a .994 OPS for the decade of the 50s. The guy was a megastar.

I just want to add that I never liked Mantle growing up, I wasn't old enough to see his prime, just his last 5 years or so and I thought he was overrated. Looking back, I really think his place in the hobby is deserved. From 1955-64, he should have won 8 MVPs in my opinion. He was the best player in the AL over that period and the Yankees won the pennant every year except 59. Those 10 years stack up against any player in baseball history. Injuries cut his career short by a few years, so his counting stats are lower than they could have been.

As far as Jackie Robinson, I think he (and Aaron) are vastly overrated in regards to baseball and the hobby. Jackie Robinson is one of the most important people in American history for what he did to integrate the game and for civil rights. However, there are only ~8% of players that are black compared to ~28% latin, so to me Roberto Clemente was more important to the game, enduring "double racism."

As far as overrated cards, to me no cards from T206, 33 Goudey or 52 Topps are overrated. Those are the 3 iconic sets in the hobby that any serious collector should collect. As the backbone of the hobby, the demand for those cards justifies the prices.

sycks22
12-11-2014, 01:01 PM
T206 O'hara / Demmitt Polar Bear

drcy
12-11-2014, 01:45 PM
When some random studio CDV is suddenly labelled a baseball card and baseball card collectors bid it up to $20,000-- that's often overrated. Or overpriced, if that's something different.

For the record, I also think the 1952 Topps Mantle is overrated. I have nothing against Topps cards or Mantle and understand why its a popularly collected card. I just think it is overrated. I've always defined a collecting 'Holy Grail' as being rare, and the card is far from rare.

I also think the T206 Wagner is overrated, but still considered it 'the' card in the hobby. Unlike the Mantle, it is limited in number and is a cultural legend like Elvis and the Mona Lisa. Nothing wrong with having popular icons.

The Gretzky Wagner is definitely overrated as a baseball card itself-- but has an interesting story. Anything covered by ESPN is bound to be overrated.

These are all just my idle opinions. Feel free to ignore.

Runscott
12-11-2014, 01:54 PM
I completely agree. To me the most overated are the Goudey Ruths. There's 4 of them for pete's sake!

Big +1, but they are high-quality and beautiful, especially the yellow background one.

Also high-grade M116 Sporting Life. You could order these pristine in sets - they had none of the worries of cards packed in cigarette packages or candy boxes - plus their designs are about as basic as you can get outside of a strip card.

Strip-card Ruth 'cards' are also way overpriced in my opinion.

Cozumeleno
12-11-2014, 03:56 PM
Agree with someone's earlier post on the Bengough 1933 Goudey. Also, it's not as valuable, but I'd throw the Moe Berg card in there, too, since I posted about it recently.

Just irks me to no end that that card is right up there in value with legit Hall of Famers like Mel Ott, Rogers Hornsby, Paul Waner, Mickey Cochrane, etc. WWII spy - I get it. Kinda cool. But his card's value shouldn't be nearly that high IMO.

bbsports
12-11-2014, 04:51 PM
In the T206 set, besides the hoarded Titus, how about Red Kleinow catching pose of Boston. People say it's the tougher version in the T206 set, but I think there just as many New York versions as Boston versions. In vintage cards, how about the 1952 Topps #1 Andy Pafko card. Just because it's the #1 card in the set why should this card as expensive?

atx840
12-11-2014, 04:55 PM
the 1952 Topps #1 Andy Pafko card. Just because it's the #1 card in the set why should this card as expensive?

I was shocked to see the offers I received when I sold my fathers PSA 5, the explanation I received was that it would take a beating/elastic wear being at the top of a kids stack...fewer high grade examples out there :confused:

MattyC
12-11-2014, 05:58 PM
Tom Reed started a thread on the post-war side that asks for the most overrated card (most people voted for the 1952 Mantle). I liked the question, so I'm asking the pre-war guys: what's the most overrated pre-war card?

My answer is the T206 MAGIE. It is essentially a typo. The player isn't famous and his card is plentiful. But the error somehow makes the card more valuable than cards for C. Young, Speaker, Mathewson, W.Johnson, or even Cobb (unless one of those cards also features a rare back).

I know that the MAGIE is rare, but so are other cards that don't sell for nearly as much. So I guess my point is: if this error card was in a set other than T206, would it be an iconic card? That's why I consider it overrated.

So what do you guys think? What other pre-war cards do you think are overrated?

Actually, in that post war thread, the most votes were for the Pafko and for high graded cards, but there was no clear consensus. Rookie cards were also brought up, as was the Herrer and the George Bush card.

I couldn't disagree more with anyone saying that Ruth or Mantle, as players or their collectibles, are "overrated." That term in itself is also a slippery one-- overrated. How is it being defined, exactly?

Ruth is a legend. Mantle was a hero and icon to so many. True, Mantle could have even been so much more if not for his character flaws. But the admission of those flaws as an older man endeared him to so many people, and that is an intangible that goes beyond mere statistics. On a bum knee and hungover, at the very end in 1967, the man still posted a .391 OBP while batting only .245. That was the man at his worst. As to his peak-- few who played the game had one higher.

Ruth and Mantle performed on the game's biggest stage and delivered thrills to millions. There is just no debating this. The demand for their cards will always be great, no matter the pop reports. Those two names will always be among the very top in the baseball card collecting world. And finding eye appealing examples of their cards makes the collectors' hunt even more challenging.

MattyC
12-11-2014, 06:27 PM
M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

This is the one I'd pick. It was just another Ruth until people hyped it as a rookie card.

Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Runscott
12-11-2014, 06:32 PM
Gold was just another rock in the ground until someone "hyped it."

It's Ruth's first card in a major league uniform and thus his rookie card.

Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Yeah, but gold is soft and lustrous and beautiful - unlike any other rock.

I would go more with tulip bulbs. Perhaps this Ruth card will eventually follow suit.

MattyC
12-11-2014, 06:35 PM
One can dream.

Runscott
12-11-2014, 06:53 PM
Yeah, I don't know why I keep following Ruth 'rookie card' auctions. I keep hoping one will slip through the cracks. At least I can still buy tulip bulbs.

conor912
12-11-2014, 07:42 PM
The entire t206 set.

edjs
12-11-2014, 07:49 PM
Everyone here has been dead on in their stated opinions of over rated cards. So if any of you have those cards, you should send them to me free of charge, I will take the hit and keep all these over rated cards for you. :D:D:D. I know, I'm being a martyr here, but I am just that kinda guy! Anything to help you guys out.

atx840
12-11-2014, 07:54 PM
The entire t206 set.


http://i.imgur.com/SrvnXoL.jpg

Runscott
12-11-2014, 08:05 PM
Conor, you're killing me!

See you in the Spring.

Peter_Spaeth
12-11-2014, 08:33 PM
Heresy perhaps but I have never been a fan of the Baltimore News Ruth in terms of the value it commands. Or the T210 Jackson, for similar reasons. Also the E90-1 Jackson is just plain ugly.

lug-nut
12-11-2014, 08:34 PM
T206 in general and Wagner in particular. I agree on the Ruth rookies, and I would add the E90-1 Joe Jackson, but #1 is Wagner.

As a rule, if Joe Orlando included it in his Top 200/250 Sportscards book it's overrated.

Like financial analysts do when they downgrade a stock, it obviously drops...so they can buy it at a better price :eek:

paul
12-11-2014, 09:30 PM
Nobody has mentioned the 1940 Play Ball Joe Jackson. It was issued 20 years after his retirement / banishment, but is priced like he was an active player.

mrvster
12-11-2014, 09:51 PM
T206 Titus:D

a common T206 going for ridiculous bux:D

how about a Titus scrap??? 1 million dollars:D

Vintageclout
12-12-2014, 11:54 AM
M101-4/5 Ruth. One of the most common Ruth cards, especially the undesirable blank back versions.

Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

darwinbulldog
12-12-2014, 12:08 PM
Also, no matter the overall population reports, when a collector tries to find a nice one, he sees how tough it is. Most have serious eye appeal problems.

Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

Runscott
12-12-2014, 12:28 PM
Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

Vintageclout
12-12-2014, 12:30 PM
Joe, when you are talking about cards with a population that close to zero, everything else being equal, there is an exponential decrease in value for larger population cards. You could counter with the Mino Wagners, but then you run into things like 'set popularity', mystique, story value (Gretzky, trimming, etc.), so all things would not be equal. Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.

Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

atx840
12-12-2014, 12:38 PM
Still, the T206 Wagner is fairly scarce as HOF'er cards go and is the rarest in the most popular pre-war set.


+1

Runscott
12-12-2014, 12:42 PM
Point well taken Scott, but that exponential decrease is significantly minimal when you are talking about the rookie card of baseball's greatest icon.

Agreed. I know it's not the point of this thread, but I don't have a problem with the value of any card - they are commodities to an extent, so if you really want any particular one, you can always wait for a price that will allow you to relinquish it if you ever need to.

packs
12-12-2014, 12:59 PM
I think every common E107 is grossly overrated. I understand the rarity of the set and the important place it occupies in the baseball card timeline. But come on. $500 to $1,000 for a poor conditioned common? Not to mention a lot of the cards have guys who aren't even in uniform.

MattyC
12-12-2014, 01:17 PM
Even the nicest one has a serious eye appeal problem. He looks like a clown with a badly broken leg.

Uniform fashions of the era notwithstanding, I love that intense, competitive glare in his eye.

conor912
12-12-2014, 01:26 PM
Conor, you're killing me!

See you in the Spring.

Sorry guys, but yeah....purely based on aesthetics, I wouldn't even put that set in my top 10. What baffles me even more are the guys who only collect that set. That's like only sex with the same woman for the rest of your li...oh wait.

rats60
12-12-2014, 01:27 PM
Ruth Rookie Overrated? Not even close. Let's use the T206 Wagner to squash that theory. Simply stated, there are currently 60-70 known examples (approx. 45+ graded) of the T206 Wagner. The Ruth Rookie including all backs currently has nearly 110 encapsulated copies (with MANY crossovers I might add), and an estimated 200 - 250 existing specimens (including raw examples). Therefore, it certainly appears the quantity of Ruth rookie cards is 4x higher than the T206 Wagner. Now pricing. A nice "VG/3" Wagner sold for nearly $1.3M two years ago (with beater "1's" now achieving $400K!), and a well-centered "VG/3" Ruth rookie fetches approximately $60K, give or take $5K. So this "so-called" overhyped card that represents baseball's unquestionable greatest player ever as well as one of the most iconic AMERICAN heroes currently achieves price tags that are a microscopic like 5% of the T206 Wagner, with the number of T206 Wagner's tallying to approx. 25% of the Ruth Rookie count!

I've never heard of anyone questioning the iconic stature of a T206 Wagner. Considering Babe Ruth ultimately towers above Wagner in overall prestige, I would safely say that the current pricing points for a Ruth Rookie card still have a long way to go before they achieve their due justice, justifying why the Ruth Rookie still stands as an UNDERRATED card in terms of value.

JoeT.

The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

cammb
12-12-2014, 01:30 PM
T 206 Titus. I still dont get it?

cammb
12-12-2014, 01:31 PM
Scraps and freaks. :D +1

MattyC
12-12-2014, 01:53 PM
The T206 Wagner is the key card in the most important baseball set made. The "Ruth rookie" is from an obscure set that is lightly collected. There is no reason for it to carry a premium over other Ruth cards and it didn't for a long time. The Wagner has been the holy grail since people started collecting baseball cards. The Ruth "rookie" hype is even more recent than the irrational rookie card craze of the 80's-90's.

We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

Econteachert205
12-12-2014, 02:01 PM
I mainly collect and love the t205 set. I have no interest in shelling out for a hoblitzell no stats. There's four versions of the same card and it's a back variation. My opinion.

packs
12-12-2014, 02:32 PM
The thing about the Wagner is that in the grand scheme of things it is a circus card. The public at large is aware of the Wagner and that it is the most valuable card. But they aren't interested in the card itself, or Wagner, or T206. They are interested because it's expensive. So to me, it is overrated because it has become something more than a baseball card.

rats60
12-12-2014, 02:51 PM
We are entering the realm of high subjectivity here. There are Post War collectors who would put up a very good argument that the 1952 Topps Set is the most important baseball set ever made. I think there is room for both those sets and more, because collecting is all about what one likes. There is just no right or wrong here, no matter how definitively some reactionary views are stated. I think it is important for all collectors to be tolerant of other styles of collecting, for the greater good of the hobby as a whole. The Ruth RC and the Wagner aren't mortal enemies and their existence and appreciation are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people who believe a player's earliest card carries a great significance that later issues simply do not. To those collectors, the Ruth Rookie will obviously be much more significant than other issues released years and decades later. And because legions of collectors believe this, that in itself is "reason" for the rookie to carry a premium over a Ruth card produced in 1933 or 1973. What you call an irrational rookie craze, many other collectors believe to be quite logical. The earlier cards are that much closer to when the player began his journey, to when neither he nor the fans knew the heights he would later reach. Not everyone needs to subscribe to this, for it to be valid. It is why a 1988 Topps George Brett sells for ten cents, and why a 1975 Topps George Brett sells for a few thousand in the same condition. But end of the day, Different Strokes...

I often see people cite how a card's past price years or decades ago was this or that, and when it breaks out and gains new fanfare, the old prices are somehow held up as evidence to undermine what is happening in the present. At some point the Wagner broke out. At some point lots of cards break out from a past historical pricing range. I think clinging to past prices can be done to a fault. Sometimes yesteryear's price stays forever in the past, and becomes nothing more than a dated, irrelevant data point.

There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

ullmandds
12-12-2014, 03:00 PM
this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

:D

darwinbulldog
12-12-2014, 03:04 PM
There's no subjectivity. The t206 is the most important. It was the first largely distributed baseball card set. It's followed by the 33 Goudey set, the first bubble gum cards. Then the 52 Topps set as Topps first major issue. Each owes its existence in part to those that came before it. Those 3 sets are the backbone of the hobby.

Ruth's first card is the Baltimore News. The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards. It wasn't a "normal" issue like t206 where you could buy a pack a cigarettes and get a Wagner or Cracker Jack/ E-cards that came with candy. The Wagner is extremely scarce within its set. The Ruth is a common card. Any post WW2 card with the same characteristics as the Ruth would be ignored by the hobby.

The Wagner never broke out. It has always been the card to have. The first catalog of baseball cards recognized it as the most valuable card and it has been so since. The problem with the M101-4 Ruth is that for most of its history it was irrelevant to the hobby. It was a common card in an obscure set. A some point, someone got the idea to hype this "fake rookie" as the Ruth card to have. All it took was two people buying into the hype to drive the price up and the hype snow balled. It is the definition of overhyped.

1. There is much subjectivity.
2. N172 was the first largely distributed baseball card set.
3. "Scrapps" are the first bubble gum baseball cards.

Anyone care to fact-check paragraphs 2 and 3?

1963Topps Set
12-12-2014, 03:06 PM
See, I just learned something. I honestly thought pre - war cards was before WW2 (1941)

ullmandds
12-12-2014, 03:31 PM
See, I just learned something. I honestly thought pre - war cards was before WW2 (1941)

Well maybe this is just me?

darwinbulldog
12-12-2014, 03:32 PM
I honestly thought pre - war cards was before WW2 (1941)

And I thought we were only supposed to collect cards from 1860, 1897, 1913, 1938, or 1949.

Seriously though, you were correct. The generally accepted meaning is that it includes all cards issued prior to the U.S. entry into WWII -- 1941 Play Ball being the last major pre-war set.

RGold
12-12-2014, 03:40 PM
1. There is much subjectivity.
2. N172 was the first largely distributed baseball card set.
3. "Scrapps" are the first bubble gum baseball cards.

Anyone care to fact-check paragraphs 2 and 3?

Shelby Gum Company is known as the originator of bubblegum. One of their laboratory employees, while trying to come up with a preservative to extend the shelf life of gum, accidentally came up with bubblegum.

During the 1930's, Shelby Gum Company issued several sets of trading cards. Hollywood Picture Stars was the most popular set, and was reprinted several times.

Gum has been around since ancient times. Many attempts to make bubblegum starting in the late 1800s were not successful and the results not marketable until Shelby Gum Company in the mid 1920s.

The 1933 Goudey Indian Gum set was followed by the Goudey Baseball set that same year, and is given credit for being the first major baseball cards issued with bubblegum.

For you youngsters, Joan Blondell, real name Rosebud Blondell, was a former Miss Dallas and runner-up in the 1926 Miss America Pageant. You might remember her as the diner waitress in Grease. :D:D:D

http://photos.imageevent.com/rgold/rgoldcollectionshelbygum/blondell.jpg

Peter_Spaeth
12-12-2014, 04:01 PM
Ron that card is overrated.

Cozumeleno
12-12-2014, 04:19 PM
technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here.


Maybe so, but the name of this thread is "Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards", so I mean ... :)

frankbmd
12-12-2014, 04:31 PM
this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

:D

Maybe so, but the name of this thread is "Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards", so I mean ... :)


ullman will be 25 years early (or late) to his funeral, but the horses wont.:D

rats60
12-12-2014, 04:34 PM
this thread is looking for the most "overrated" "pre-war" card...so 52 topps mantles...take them to another board...33 goudeys...technically not pre war...as pre war tends to imply pre WWI around here. Ruth rookie...t206 wags...nope...not warranted in my opinion.

Overrated is what we're looking for here. And while I obviously understand we are all entitled to our opinions...and interpretations...the "correct" answer is something along the lines of the doyle, nat'l card...or some other "insignificant" silly card such as this!!!!!!

:D

The M101-4/5 Ruth is insignificant when compared to the Doyle. The discovery of the T206 Doyle was a significant moment in hobby history.

I really don't understand the fascination with the M101-4/5 Ruth. A PSA 10 1975 Topps Robin Yount RC sold for 19K+. A PSA 10 1975 SSPC Robin Yount sold for 10.00. M101-4/5 is SSPC.

nolemmings
12-12-2014, 05:11 PM
The M101-4 is just another card. It's not a rookie card. It wasn't nationally distributed. It wasn't sold in any package. You can't buy a pack of M101-4 cards.
1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

MattyC
12-12-2014, 05:30 PM
It is the definition of overhyped.

By definition, it is the first card depicting the most famous name in the game of baseball in a major league uniform. It is thus the rookie card of the most famous player in the game's history. Ruth is a name that simply dwarfs the likes of Doyle, in terms their comparative places in both the game and American cultural history (not intended as a knock on the Doyle card, but in a comparative analysis, he just can't touch Babe Ruth-- not many can, though some are right there with him). It is also one of very few cards depicting Ruth pitching in a Sox uniform, which is a very important part of baseball lore and history, considering the eventual deal to the Yankees, conversion to full-time hitter, and how his homeruns took the popularity of the game we all love to new levels. End of the day, no one has to like every card, but a Babe Ruth rookie card is patently significant, no matter when the financial side of things recognized it as such.

pariah1107
12-12-2014, 05:43 PM
Any card I want, or the last card I bought :D

In all seriousness, I'm just flabbergasted by Ten Million Obak's as previously mentioned, and [I'm probably going to step on some toes here] the exponential increase of a Zeenut with a coupon attached. A tab of paper that has nothing to do with the depicted player or his career is worth that much coin?

Runscott
12-12-2014, 05:47 PM
Any card I want, or the last card I bought :D

In all seriousness, I'm just flabbergasted by Ten Million Obak's as previously mentioned, and [I'm probably going to step on some toes here] the exponential increase of a Zeenut with a coupon attached. A tab of paper that has nothing to do with the depicted player or his career is worth that much coin?

What is a 'Zeenut' anyway? I guess if the card had the coupon AND came with an original zee nut, it would be worth even more?

"Zee nuts, zee nuts!" - Tattoo, pointing to everything while waiting for the plane to land.

4815162342
12-12-2014, 06:01 PM
That made me laugh, Scott.

glynparson
12-13-2014, 04:44 AM
Pre world War II, just because one may define it differently themselves does not mean the industry standard for the term is not defined differently. Pre War when referring to Baseball cards has meant Pre WW 2 since I have been collecting, began as a 7 year old in 1979.

Leon
12-13-2014, 09:46 AM
Well maybe this is just me?

I have always thought of Pre-War to mean Pre-1945 but then again, I don't always follow too well. And the 1912 Zeenut Halla is a bit over hyped to me. (and I own one, top left)

AndrewJerome
12-13-2014, 11:47 AM
Hey Scott,

Well, you asked for it!

Andrew

ullmandds
12-13-2014, 11:54 AM
i rescind...i misspoke...I also agree prewar should be construed as pre 45...or 41...so then the goudeys can stay...but the 52 topps most certainly cannot! There can'r be many 45' issues out there?

oldjudge
12-13-2014, 02:07 PM
Todd--this whole "rookie" card thing is dealer contrived to make some extra money. The M101 Ruth never had the reputation it has had in the last ten years. It was a Ruth card, but an ugly, common one. The Boston Store/Collins McCarthy from that period was always the preferred card. The funniest thing is when some unscrupulous auctioneers hype the blank back Ruth's as the first of the M101 group. Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up.

nolemmings
12-13-2014, 02:38 PM
Jay, while I don't know why you want to start something with me, as I was just setting the record straight, allow me to disagree in large part. First, while I believe the rookie chase craze was indeed dealer contrived, that doesn't alter the fact that the m101/4 is in fact Ruth's rookie card, which is what I said. Moreover, until 10-12 years ago, the E135s were wrongfully dated as 1916 cards, giving the collector the impression that Ruth had two different rookie cards. I submit that some collectors seeking the E135 may have thought differently had they known the true facts, whatever their aesthetic preference. I also disagree completely that the card was ever ugly or common, but acknowledge that the E135 is much more difficult to find. Finally, while I too have trouble with dealers claiming that all blank-back Ruths are m101-5 when they are more likely not, I have seen no evidence at all to show that "Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up." I would love to see that evidence.

Edited to add: I recognize that 10-12 years ago many thought m101-5 was dated 1915 as well. My point is there was confusion surrounding what may have been Ruth's rookie card, which confusion no longer exists. To that extent, I modify my earlier response which stated that m101-4 always had been considered his rookie-- I was referring to the relatively recent phenomenon that the Baltimore News card should be considered as such.

oldjudge
12-13-2014, 03:12 PM
Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

Steve D
12-13-2014, 10:23 PM
Any Denton (Cy) Young card that pictures Irv Young instead of Denton Young.


Steve

rainier2004
12-13-2014, 10:50 PM
1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

iowadoc77
12-13-2014, 10:54 PM
1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

rats60
12-14-2014, 06:49 AM
This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

Just treat it as a 1934 Goudey. It wasn't printed until 1934 and was never issued in packs. 1933 Goudey set contains 239 cards.

rats60
12-14-2014, 07:13 AM
1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

As for 2 & 3, those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

MattyC
12-14-2014, 08:35 AM
Thankfully it's called a rookie now and it will be forever known to future collectors as such. As information comes to light, many collectors embrace the new knowledge and recalibrate accordingly. Being open to change is good; it helps the hobby evolve. But the good thing about collecting is that no one is forced to collect a card they don't like.

End of the day, however, whatever the card was labeled 10-12 years ago is as irrelevant as any card's price 10-12 years ago. In 2014 and beyond, it is known to be his first card in a major league uniform, which is to the majority of collectors his rookie card. Years ago doctors used leeches; not many folks long to return to prior dark ages where ignorance reigned ;)

calvindog
12-14-2014, 09:18 AM
Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

HRBAKER
12-14-2014, 09:24 AM
I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

+1

Of course they would - but where's the fun in chasing something you can't realistically get.

Peter_Spaeth
12-14-2014, 10:01 AM
I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

How is the DeLong Gehrig a fantastic image, you can't even make out his face?

Vintagecatcher
12-14-2014, 10:05 AM
The Honus Wagner T206 is certainly the most overrated baseball card ever.

Are the Honus Wagner T206 cards scarce...without a doubt... when only about 55-60 are known by the hobby. However, there are many pre-war cards that are have fewer examples remaining.

In my humble opinion, the Gretzky Wagner T206 has come to symbolize all that is wrong with the hobby. It was a card that was not shipped in a pack of cigarettes but according to hobby lore ...was cut from a sheet...then trimmed to the size of issued examples.

This altered example then became the poster child for greed when it became the first card graded by a now well known grading company. How poetic is it that the baseball card grading started with a lie...in fact, out right fraud. That's all one needs to know about the grading companies. Just follow the money.

Honus Wagner was a great all around ball player. The T206 set is a wonderful tobacco set. But when you mix in the quest for perfection, and greed enters the picture, you have the perfect recipe for disaster.

Patrick

nolemmings
12-14-2014, 01:00 PM
Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.

As for 2 [that the Sporting News was sold nationally]& 3[that the cards were available individually and in groups of twenty], those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.

Tao_Moko
12-14-2014, 01:16 PM
I wouldn't call the Wagner overrated as much as over valued. It has been good and bad for the hobby but I think mostly good. Think of how many undiscovered cards came from people digging through grandpa's attic after the publicity of the Wagner in the 80's and even to some degree earlier. HOFer, popular set, back story(true or not) and great iconic portrait.

My vote for pre-war - e90-1 Jackson

*T206 Plank may not be underrated but bang for buck is a much better deal than the Wagner.

oldjudge
12-14-2014, 04:02 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but what is now "generally accepted" as the definition of a rookie card is the first widely distributed, major league card of a player. How did this definition evolve? Remember that prior to the mid-1980's rookie card was not something talked about. The rookie card craze really started with the Mattingly rookie and the Griffey Jr rookie. This was a way for dealers to sell cards for more money. At this point it was really the first card of a player. Virtually all cards were widely distributed and virtually all cards were major league cards. It was only after this that the rookie card discussion started extending back to pre-war cards. However, for dealers and auctioneers to make much money selling these pre-war rookie cards there would have to be a good supply of a player's rookie. Widely distributed needed to be added to the definition for this very reason. If the Just So Young was considered his rookie card then how could most dealers make money on this; there weren't enough copies around. Worse still, people might not collect rookie cards if they knew they could never get some of the key players. This would hurt these dealers even more. So, widen the definition. Major league instead of just first card--same thing. Suddenly, something that never required a definition had one. If the hobby lets those with a monetary interest set the rules the end result will not be good. For me, the M101 Ruth is not his rookie--the Baltimore News is. Same for the Just So a Young, the N167 or Kalamazoo Bat Ewing and the N172 Kid Nichols.

MattyC
12-14-2014, 04:43 PM
Overrated = any card I am in denial of coveting and also cannot afford!

Huysmans
12-14-2014, 04:50 PM
I wouldn't call the Wagner overrated as much as over valued. It has been good and bad for the hobby but I think mostly good. Think of how many undiscovered cards came from people digging through grandpa's attic after the publicity of the Wagner in the 80's and even to some degree earlier. HOFer, popular set, back story(true or not) and great iconic portrait.

My vote for pre-war - e90-1 Jackson

*T206 Plank may not be underrated but bang for buck is a much better deal than the Wagner.

The one major thing the Wagner has that no other card has, and its only increasing as time goes on, is its huge hobby lore.
Its hard to put a price on that "tradition"....

sago
12-14-2014, 04:58 PM
So as not to quote Jay's post in it's entirety, the rookie card craze started, IMO, with the Rose RC, about 4-5 years before Mattingly. It's value skyrocketed from $5 to $35 between the first Beckett guide and first issue of CPU.

People started hoarding Ripken rookies, Gwynn, Boggs and Sandberg, along with others before 1984.

BicycleSpokes
12-14-2014, 05:37 PM
I started collecting cards as a kid in 1986. Rookie craze was already well under way...

IMO "rookie" card designation should be irrelevant to pre war issues. Things were not so organized back then!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rats60
12-14-2014, 06:28 PM
Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.



Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.



Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.



Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.

So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby. I'm sorry that I tried to educate you because you are such a stubborn person who doesn't care that he is wrong. Maybe one day you will go back and read hobby publications like SCD and Beckett from the 80s and actually learn about the history of this hobby, rather than true to impose your false beliefs on those who know better. Condescending? Look in the mirror.

Flo.yd Pa.rr

Tao_Moko
12-14-2014, 07:24 PM
This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

MattyC
12-14-2014, 07:48 PM
This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

+2, extra one for that photo.

Baseball Rarities
12-14-2014, 08:01 PM
The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

I have no dog in this fight, but, out of curiosity, what do you feel is this definition?

celoknob
12-15-2014, 09:28 PM
As Yogi Berra might perhaps say, "T206s are overrated but they are better than most people think."

Runscott
12-15-2014, 11:01 PM
So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

Careful - there is no consensus for most of them. Whoever owns one that is 'in the mix' will consider it to be the rookie. Doesn't matter if it's an individual player, major league or minor league, photograph, team photo, premium - it's whatever the 'rookie collector' happens to own, or is in his budget. Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

packs
12-16-2014, 09:51 AM
Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

nolemmings
12-16-2014, 10:20 AM
C'mon Scott, sure there is was/is consensus. Educate yourself--consult SCD and Beckett's from the 80's to learn about this hobby, lest you fuel the ignorance.

For those new to the forum, here's a thread from about 6 1/2 years ago when several of our members discussed the Ruth rookie--some of these ignorant tools (probably stubborn too)seemed to think it was the m101-4/5 Sporting News:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1215392177/last-1215648215/1916+Boston+Store+Babe+Ruth+Rookie-

Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

Good point. Beckett, that hobby bastion to which all true hobbyists swear exclusive allegiance, for some time listed 1933 Goudey as Ruth's rookie cards, after he'd been playing for what, 19 years? Here's a thread from a couple of years ago, and some may recall that Peter Chao brought this topic to the forum in '06 or '07:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=81278

It's a shame we mostly either forgot about the hobby consensus on Ruth's rookie card from the good old days or allowed ourselves to manipulated by the dealer-driven hype of the rookie craze. Seems our opinions on the subject--or at least mine-- are no longer of any value.

Dan Carson
12-16-2014, 03:34 PM
Is the 1911 Bohen Zeenut the most overrated or just hard to find like so many other Zeenuts?

nolemmings
12-17-2014, 01:11 AM
Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

EvilKing00
12-17-2014, 07:39 AM
I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

just wondering why you feel this way

EvilKing00
12-17-2014, 07:44 AM
The entire t206 set.

agree - I just don't see the beauty and they are a lot of them.

darwinbulldog
12-17-2014, 09:39 AM
No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

I didn't find those threads, but when I tried to figure it out for myself I noticed that Ping Bodie played only in the PCL in 1915 and 1916, so while it could technically be a 1916 issue, Bodie would have been a very odd choice for the set if it was issued prior to 1917. 1916 is more or less definitive as an earliest possible date since Baker is depicted as a Yankee. Larry Doyle played his final MLB game in 1920, so it seems unlikely to be later than a 1920 issue.

I've seen them labelled as 1916-20 (PSA and SGC), 1918-20 (Standard Catalog), and 1920-21 (Old Cardboard), but I think of them as 1917-20. If someone else finds one of the threads about this though I'd appreciate the link.

nolemmings
12-17-2014, 09:56 AM
I think this was the main one:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=120812&highlight=cadore

darwinbulldog
12-17-2014, 12:11 PM
I think this was the main one:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=120812&highlight=cadore

Thank you, Todd.