Questionable HOF RC's

[DanP]

Rick Ferrell NOT 31-32 W463 4-1 since the picture on the card is of another player (and his name is not spelled correctly).
Best (and real) RC: 1933 Goudey (1) or Worch Cigars (2)

Rabbit Maranville NOT 1912 Boston Daily American P/C. There was some research posted on N54 a few years ago that proved this issue could not have been from 1912. I believe they said it was 1914 and possibly even 1915. Unfortunately I did a quick search and could not find it.
Best RC: 1914 E145 Cracker Jack or 1914 Polo Grounds

Tris Speaker NOT 1907-09 PC805 Novelty Cutlery Postcards since it’s been proven that this set is from at least 1910.
Best RC: 1909-11 T206 White Border


Any others?

[Bicem]

What about that "The Travelers" postcard for Speaker?

[vintagehofrookies]

can Walter Johnson's T206 be pin-pointed to a specific year?

[Pat R]

can Walter Johnson's T206 be pin-pointed to a specific year?

His T206 Portrait would be 1909 if it's a 150 series.

[Baseball Rarities]

can Walter Johnson's T206 be pin-pointed to a specific year?

Yes, as Pat said, his T206 card can be pinpointed to as early as 1909.

If you consider postcards as being "cards," then his 1908 Rose Co. would be his rookie.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Big Head strip cards, originally catalogued as 1916-20 have been determined to be late teens at the earliest. This set alone knocks off some really big names: Ruth, Sisler, Rice & Hornsby.

As previously mentioned, the revised date of the Novelty Cutlery postcard set knocks off: Speaker, Eddie Collins & WaJo, some really big names there as well.

Then you have the Old Judge guys like Kid Nichols who appear in minor league uniforms although the rest of the set consists primarily of major league ballplayers. I still classify these as rookie cards for that reason, opinions are probably split 50/50 on this one.

Also, numerous W600's with Type IV mounts that are so often described as rookie cards by auction houses although they were a later print run and were produced after the E107 and Allegheny sets.

Can't forget the most obvious one, 1952 Topps Mantle. Of course, never was a rookie but you know the story.............

[rats60]

M101-4/5 Babe Ruth

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm a little confused on the M101-4/5 Ruth. That is his rookie card or are you considering the Baltimore News minor league card, which is really a pre-rookie card, by definition.

[Bicem]

1915 Red Sox team postcard?

[DanP]

1915 Red Sox team postcard?

Just my opinion, but there is nothing anyone could ever say to convince me that a team card is anyone's RC. Four on a card is my maximum or I guess, if you have to take out a magnifying glass to find the player, it doesn't count as a RC.

[Bicem]

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

[packs]

Can't be one. Too many 60s and on HOFers are featured on cards with two, three, or four players. The whole "Rookie Stars" era of Topps.

[Baseball Rarities]

M101-4/5 Babe Ruth

Unless we are considering minor league cards, what do you consider Ruth's rookie?

[DanP]

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

Good question, I knew someone would ask that. I guess because the players are clearly noticeable on the Exhibit 4-1 cards. Are there any cards with 5 or 6 players that may be questionable RC's? If so, I'd probably be OK with that as long as I didn't have to study the card for a half an hour or stop by CVS for some eye drops to find the player.

I guess its more that I can't imagine anyone getting a Boston Red Sox team card in a 1975 topps pack and telling someone they have Jim Rice and Fred Lynn's RC. It sounds ridiculous to me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Over the years, Topps went with a max of 4 on their rookie star cards, that's the primary reason. Would anyone consider 1964 Pete Rose's RC because he appeared with 3 others on the 1963 card? I think not......Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

[packs]

I could be mistaken but wasn't there a league leader card that pictured someone before they had an actual "card"?

[nolemmings]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

1962 had several with five players.

[glchen]

Just my opinion, but there is nothing anyone could ever say to convince me that a team card is anyone's RC. Four on a card is my maximum or I guess, if you have to take out a magnifying glass to find the player, it doesn't count as a RC.

This one sold for nearly $96K after BP (Link (http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1915-boston-red-sox-with-rookie-babe-ruth-real-photo-postcard-psa-ex-55/a/7130-80106.s)), so I wonder if the team card is gaining traction as Ruth's rookie card. Ruth's image is small, but still relatively clear. (I wish I had won one from the Grey Flannel auction. Dang you, Jeff! :) ). I assume this is the highest price paid for any postcard or any team card.

[bcbgcbrcb]

WOW, Gary, you think someone overpaid for that one? I don't think any previous examples sold for over $30K.........

You're right about the '62's, Todd. I would consider those to be rookie cards as well since Topps' intention was quite obvious there, just added one additional player as compared to later years. This scenario is far different than a 1915 Red Sox team photo or 1906 Detroit team composite issued on postcards with the entire team present. These can still be earliest major league baseball appearances on cards for Ruth and Cobb, just not rookie cards.

[glchen]

WOW, Gary, you think someone overpaid for that one? I don't think any previous examples sold for over $30K.........


Yea, I agree that price seems very high. Will just have to see if future sales for this issue will all rise like this or if this is just a one-off outlier.