PDA

View Full Version : cobb rookie and vintage card counts


Archive
07-13-2002, 11:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>Hi,<BR>I recently picked up an E102 Cobb on ebay. I know there is debate as to whether or not this or the W555 is his true rookie card. Any thoughts? Documentation?<BR>I know this subject has been posted here before, but I think they were old and have been deleted. <BR><BR>Also, other than population reports, is there any sense of how many of any vintage card exists? I'm guessing there aren't exact numbers, but based on your experience in looking at shows/online/shops, would you say you maybe see 10? 100? non-graded vintage cards for every 1 graded?<BR><BR>Thanks in advance for your thoughts!<BR>Ed<BR><BR>

Archive
07-13-2002, 11:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Ed,<BR><BR>I am positive that we will never definitively know the answer to your question. It is quite possible that the W555 and E102 sets may not have been produced until 1909, or even 1910, which would not make them any older than the T206, E90-1, E95, and other sets.

Archive
07-14-2002, 04:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce MacPherson</b><p>Andy, <BR>You bring up a good point. As a recent collector of the e102's, I have always wondered if this set is actually from 1908 as it is usually listed. In Lipset's encyclopedia, he surmises that the set was derived from the subjects in the e101 set, but that set is usually designated as a 1909 set. I'm curious to know if anyone has any insights or evidence as to why this set would be the first caramel/candy set after the e107's. Thanks, Bruce

Archive
07-14-2002, 06:14 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>To my knowledge there is no "paper proof" telling us when the E102 sets was issued. It was assumed it was one of the first sets produced simply because there is no sponsor name on the cards and were produced early on and used to present to possible sponsors. Using the team designations, the set was probably issued in 1910. I'm not sure so I use the date "circa. 1908" on my web site. I really should change that.<BR><BR>As far as the E-Sets are concerned: Considering the duplicated art/poses and the similarities of the way the cards are designed, printed/produced and the style of checklists on the backs I've speculated that the concept and production of e-sets actually originated from a number of larger(?) printing companies who used the idea that the tobacco industry had been using steadily since the 1880s and produced & then proposed the cards to candy manufacturers who would want a promotional item which would be directed towards children. <BR><BR>It's impossible to date the sets based on the images used since they didn't seem to have a problem using an older photo of the player or even if it really is the player at all in some cases. Ex: the E92 Tinker pose: that could have been derived from a photo of another player, who would know.

Archive
07-16-2002, 02:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Wayne Grove</b><p>Here is an answer to a readers question about this that appeared in a recent issue of Beckett Sportd Collectibles Vintage. Maybe this will help clear the date or confues even more.<BR>ANSWER: Jed, it would have been impossible for this set to have been issued in 1908. You need to look no further than the backs of the cards to confirm this (along with the aid of The Baseball Encyclopedia). J.B. “Dots” Miller’s rookie year was 1909 and Dave Shean’s card has him playing for Boston (as does the checklist in the back of all the cards) and he did not play for Boston until 1909. Not to nitpick, but 1909 would have been the absolute earliest the set could have been issued. Let’s explore some other facts to see why we determined that it was issued in 1910. Shean started the 1909 season with Philadelphia of the NL where he played in 36 games before finishing the year with Boston playing in another 75 games. He played the entire 1910 season with Boston before moving on to the Cubs in 1911. It is unlikely that they would have included a rookie in a 25-card set, as was Miller in 1909 (he did hit .279 in 151 games), unless it was a late season 1909 issue. Germany Schaeffer started the 1909 season with Detroit where he played in 87 games before going to Washington (the team named on his card) and played in just 37 games there. Heinie Zimmerman, though with the Cubs from 1907 thru 1915, played in only 5 games in ‘07, 46 games in ’08, and 65 in ’09 so it is much more likely that he would be included in a 1910 set. 1910 is the only year that all the players in the set played for the teams that they are listed with on the cards, although Red Kleinow played in only 6 games for New York before going to Boston to finish out the 1910 season. Looking at all these facts makes an issue date of 1908 is impossible unless they were clairvoyant in 1908, late 1909 would be an outside possibility but doubtful, 1910 is the most obvious choice so if you want your cards slabbed with the correct set name that would make BVG is your only choice.<BR><BR>

Archive
07-16-2002, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>scott (runscott)</b><p>advertised as a "1907 rookie", and the price has climbed accordingly.<br><br>--------------------------------------------<BR> no disclaimer - temporarily taking responsibility for my actions

Archive
07-17-2002, 07:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>Wow, thanks for your answer. Doesn't this seem too easy? Of course I was going to look at the encyclopedias myself, but figured someone in the past 90 years would have done that and figured that 1908 was a possibility for this set. Very interesting.

Archive
07-17-2002, 07:45 PM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>Hopefully Mr. Lemke sees this and changes the listing in future Big Books to say 1910...<BR><BR>that will keep rookie card collectors like me from making the mistakes that I apparently made when I bought an E102 Eddie Collins card because it was from "1908". <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>I am no longer in the market for any E102 cards...

Archive
07-17-2002, 10:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian C Daniels</b><p>But I still want to think it's the E-102<BR>I purchased an SGC 80 from Mike "the brick" Williams about four years ago and won't give it up....it's my only Rookie card! I need icons**

Archive
07-17-2002, 11:22 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>....you'll fall for this.<BR><BR>Since they are from 1910 and not 1908 they are worth much less. Right? I'll take any of these worthless 1910 cards off your hands.<BR><BR><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-18-2002, 02:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>Brian,<BR>So you're the one with the highest graded E102 Cobb in the world! Would you mind sending me a scan? I'm curious to see how good it looks. Mine was an SGC 30. <BR><BR>Petecld - but aren't they worth more if the "professional graders" graded it incorrectly as a 1908? If word gets out to the graders and this is corrected moving forward, those graded as 1908 might be considered a soon-to-be rare error <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-18-2002, 05:20 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>None of you are correct....check the SCD under Sporting Life Postcards/Composites.....I have a 1906 Cobb W601.....but then I don't want to start the debate over the definition of a card either....I know my W601 is not but the postcard probably is and it's an '06......and I too have an E102 Cobby that I am calling his rookie....it is an SGC30.....just thought I would stir the pot a little.....bestest regards

Archive
07-18-2002, 09:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian C Daniels</b><p>I purchased the Wagner from Mike Williams as well I think about 4 years ago. Hope you can open them otherwise I will have to send the scans to Scott for touch up work and proper scaning methods.!

Archive
07-18-2002, 09:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian C Daniels</b><p>You sittin on the porch just thinin.....<BR>using your comb birthday present I sent you last year bro????<BR><BR>hee hee hee

Archive
07-18-2002, 11:55 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>Ed,<BR><BR>Sure, yeah, yeah, that would make them more valuable if they had the wrong 1908 labels. That means the holders I have which list the card set wrong are incredibly valuable as they are much harder to find then the ones with the labels marked correctly. Yeah. . . .sure. Are you in the market? <BR><BR>Better yet, would you call the 1910 labels a "variation" of the 1908 labels.<BR><BR>Oh, Scott. . . . <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>