Mastro - I know I paid too much... [Archive]

Archive

04-29-2003, 06:11 PM

Posted By: HalleyGator  I know I paid too much ... but I just HAD to have the 1915 Babe Ruth rookie card since my collection is only made up of Hall of Fame rookie cards!! Vorthian: Was that yours, or do we both have one now? PS - If anybody wants to pay a fair price for a 1933 Goudey PSA 8 Babe Ruth card #144 ... let me know! <img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/603Lg.jpg">

Archive

04-30-2003, 09:32 AM

Posted By: juliehad no idea of the price! I sold an expensive card that I felt I could live without (the T206 Plank, g/vg; I actually prefer the American Caramel profile)), and prayed that it would go closer to $1000 than $35000. I was prepared, though, to spend ALL the money on the Walker photo if I had to (and for that not to be enough!). The bidding went it fits and starts: for instance, $550 showed when i first called to bid--but I had to bid $1900 to be high bidder. "Boy, someone sure does wnat this photo," said the guy at Mastro, (That makes 2 of us, I thought). Then nobody bid for two weeks; the day before the auction closed, there was another flurry of bidding, but on the last day, nothing! $3834 Thursday; $3834 Friday! So I had some left over to bid on something else I wanted, which I'd put in a low bid for early. I won it about midnight, Friday--so there was some point to staying up late. That's the first time i ever saw the actual end of a Mastro auction. All the items suddenly say, in red, "bidding closed." My thanks to Kevin Struss for taking the dumb matting off the photo, and for FINALLY saying "it's an albumen print from the '80s." Apparently, nobody else at Mastro knew that!65 autograph experts and 1 photo expert--cheech.

Archive

04-30-2003, 10:01 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI just don't see how a card with centering like that can get a 8, it's got to be close to 80/20. But than again I'm not the one bidding on the card and others are, what do I now?

Archive

04-30-2003, 11:46 AM

Posted By: julieis to see a high=grade card that's off-register (Matty's eyes resting on his cheeks, etc.)

Archive

04-30-2003, 12:50 PM

Posted By: CharlieIf I remember correctly when PSA started out the submitter had the option to reject any qualifier by accepting a full grade less...in other words a card that was off-centered as 8 O/C would receive a strait 7 if the submitter did not wish to have O/C on the label.

Archive

04-30-2003, 01:00 PM

Posted By: HalleyGatorI like how Charlie thinks... My 1933 Ruth card would REALLY be a 9 if not for the slight centering defect!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Maybe I will give Kevin Struss a shout and see what it brings in the next Mastro auction?

Archive

04-30-2003, 01:10 PM

Posted By: ElliotAs the submitter, you do have the option of requesting a grade with no qualifiers, but if you do so, PSA will bump down the grade to the first category that the card meets the standard. For example, if a card is otherwise a 10, but is centred 90/10, it will not become a 9, but rather will be bumped down to a category (a 4,I think) where 90/10 centering is allowed.

Archive

04-30-2003, 01:33 PM

Posted By: Albie O'HanianCurrently, you can request a no qualifier at PSA and they will bump the card down to the highest grade allowed for the centering - exactly as Elliot has described. However, Charlie is stating that when PSA first came out they just downgraded cards by one grade. If that is true, there would probably be a lot more cards with the PSA hologram on the back that were given 8's with 90/10 centering etc..

Archive

04-30-2003, 02:02 PM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)but I always shake my head when I see these Ruth "rookies". No doubt the card is authentic, but it's anyone's guess as to whether the card is an m101-5 or m101-4. I suppose its whatever you tell the grading company you want it to be. Although this is hardly determinative as a mathematical fact, I find it amusing that while there are nearly three times as many PSA graded m101-4s as there are m101-5 (959-329), there are more than twice as many Ruths from m101-5 (18-8). Maybe the better question is why anyone would want their Ruth slabbed in a m101-4 holder when they could simply call it a m101-5 rookie (although there remains the issue of what really is Ruth's rookie card). Seems to me that the only way to know you have an m101-5 Ruth is to find one with another back that came from a set other than the Sporting News, such as the Standard Biscuit cards that measure the same size. Still, a nice card Hal. Regards...................Todd

Archive

04-30-2003, 05:33 PM

Posted By: julie....

Archive

05-01-2003, 04:29 AM

Posted By: Tom L.Baltimore News card, showing him with the Baltimore Orioles minor league team. Two versions - Red and Blue. Some will of course argue that it's a pre-rookie card, but it's so much nicer than the Sporting News versions and you know it came out first. Plus I have trouble accepting the minor/major definitions for early issues. Sorry, but I think that Weaver's Obak and Pacific Biscuit and E100 are rookies (rather than his T-207), and if Joe Jackson didn't have an E90-1, wouldn't his T210 really be his rookie?

Archive

05-01-2003, 07:35 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranTom, I have discovered that most collectors don't care about Rookie Cards, but among those that do (myself being one of them), I am quite confident that many (myself included again) would disagree with your opinion.

Archive

05-01-2003, 08:21 AM

Posted By: HalleyGatorThe only reason I know that mine is a 1915 is because I held a seance right before bidding and the Great Bambino himself told me to buy it. He also told me that he considers this card to be his true rookie card and that all others are cheap imitations. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-01-2003, 10:20 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerHal--Since the bid was placed in the evening the Bambino, assuming he has maintained his old ways, was probably drunk so you must take his advice with a grain of salt.

Archive

05-01-2003, 11:03 AM

Posted By: Tom L.I can't even remember how I argued on this issue in the past. That said, the Baltimore News cards are about 1000 times more attractive than the Sporting News Ruth Red Sox cards (which may or may not have been issued in 1915 or 1916) and at least 10x more valuable. Does that mean that no Cuban card can actually be a rookie (considering they're minor league teams - the issue of fairness is a completely different matter)? First cards yes, rookies no, I guess, by the strict definitions. (I personally don't agree with these definitions for vintage cards.) For old-time players, I believe rookie can apply to a "rookie" professional on a minor league club just as easily as to a "rookie" professional on a major league team (especially considering: the different relationships between major/minor clubs in the early years; the propensity for many major league players to play on minor league clubs during the twilight of their careers - especially in hopes of managing; the racist exclusion of blacks from major league teams; and the inclusion of minor and major league clubs in many of the significant card sets, including N172, T206, T205, M116, etc.) And even under strict definitions, you can't even call all of the minor league cards issued of players in these years as pre-rookie cards - Joe Jackson had a minor league T210 after his E90-1, some HOFers had minor league T206s after their major league playing days were over, etc. Regardless of definition, I'll take a minor league OJ HOFer, a T210 Jackson, a T212/T4/E100/... Weaver, a Mayo Butterworth or Poe, a Baltimore News Ruth and a T205 Collins (the minor league one) any day.

Archive

05-01-2003, 11:18 AM

Posted By: jay behrensTom, no one is saying that your collecting preferences are wrong, but saying that there should be a different standard for the definition of a rookie is like these clowns that say there should be more lenient grading for vintage cards because they older and/or produced on inferior stock. Mint is mint no matter how old the card is and the definition of a rookie is still the same whether it is a new card or a vintage card. Jay

Archive

05-01-2003, 11:47 AM

Posted By: warshawlawWhen it comes to these old issues, it is really tough to decide what card is the right one. Remember, the Topps-enforced card monopoly did not exist until the mid-1950's. Many card makers issued nationally distributed cards and deciding which is a "rookie" is often about as subjective as deciding on an alltime greats team. Sometimes, the seller wants it to be a rookie card even if it is not. For example, I had some jackass of a seller at a recent show try to pawn off a Canadian 1930's card on me as a HOFer rookie when the player had several prior Exhibit issues. When I pointed out the earlier cards, he said that Exhibit cards don't count. I then told him that Canadian cards are not generally accepted as US rookie cards and left before he could wedge the other foot into his mouth. Other times, the definition of "card" is the issue. An example is Lou Gehrig's 1925 Exhibit card. This card is accepted by many experts as Gehrig's rookie card, yet many others who would prefer to have a later issue be a rookie card and justify it by excluding oversized cards from the definition of card. Ditto for DiMaggio's 1936 wide pen and fine pen cards. In terms of minor league cards, no, sorry, they ain't rookie cards because they lack the one essential feature central to any rookie card: the player being a rookie in MLB. Heck, I'd love for the definition to be otherwise--my Zeenuts would be worth a lot more--but I think at a bare minimum any rookie card has to feature a player in MLB. Anything else may be a first card or even an only card, but it ain't a rookie card. The Cuban issues of black players pose a special dilemma since they were excluded from MLB. I still don't accept the idea of those cards as rookie cards, for the same reason as any minor league card, but I do recognize the validity of another viewpoint.

Archive

05-01-2003, 12:26 PM

Posted By: Marc S."In terms of minor league cards, no, sorry, they ain't rookie cards because they lack the one essential feature central to any rookie card: the player being a rookie in MLB. Heck, I'd love for the definition to be otherwise--my Zeenuts would be worth a lot more--but I think at a bare minimum any rookie card has to feature a player in MLB. Anything else may be a first card or even an only card, but it ain't a rookie card. " Well -- here is one question for you, then, pertaining specifically to Mike Schmidt, who happens to be my favorite player. Schmidt debuted in the major leagues in 1972, at the time a 22-year old player who was green behind the ears. So Schmidt was definitely a major leaguer in 1972 -- even though it was only thirteen games of major league experience. In an effort to gain more expertise to make himself "ready" for the major leagues, he elected (or agreed) to go down to Puerto Rico to play in the Winter Leagues there during the offseason. During that offseason, a company (the name eludes me presently) produced stickers of many of the Winter League participants -- including of Schmidt. The 1972 Puerto Rican League Sticker is Schmidt's first card -- and it was definitely issued after he already was a major leaguer. It just pictures him with his Winter League uniform. The 1973 Topps card of Mike Schmidt is considered by many to be his rookie card -- and I do not officially take one side or the other on the debate. Nonetheless, the Puerto Rican League sticker is an important card in my collection, and I am happy to both own one and to have sold/traded other examples of the card to fellow collectors looking for this relatively rare Schmidt issue. So -- back to my question: Does Schmidt's 1972 Puerto Rican League Sticker card qualify as a rookie under your defintion? Why or why not? <img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-11/62095/20021111112523-0-1972PuertoRicanStickerPSA9forRegistry.jpg" width=477 height=814>

Archive

05-01-2003, 12:26 PM

Posted By: HalleyGatorSince all of you guys have your thinking caps on... I'll give $2 to the first person who can come up with an honest way for me to describe my 1933 Ruth card as his "ROOKIE CARD" in order to drive up my selling price!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Maybe it was the FIRST one of his cards to be sold with bubble gum instead of caramel? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> HECK, it's not even the FIRST RUTH card in that set!! <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> I'm stumped...

Archive

05-01-2003, 12:44 PM

Posted By: three25hitsThroughout the 1900-1920s, the definition of "major league" was different than it is now. The Pacific Coast League has a much stronger argument as a "major" league than the Union Association, the Players League, and some might say even the Federal League. As many PCLers populated the Federal League as did players from the NL or AL. Lefty Grove spent some incredible years in Baltimore, technically a "minor" league at the time. In all actuality, the level of play in Baltimore was likely higher than in many NL/AL cities. The terms "major" and "minor" leagues are distinctly different if used in 1960+ versus 1930 and earlier...

Archive

05-01-2003, 02:38 PM

Posted By: leonWE have hashed this debate out many times. There is no right or wrong answer. It is truly what you believe is a rookie card is a rookie card. What you believe qualifies as a card is a card. I think my '25 Gerhig Exhibit is a card. To be devils advocate (because I basically believe a rookie card has to be a ML'er) let's think about this. The term "rookie" and "card". I could argue that rookie means "1st" and "card" means well.... card. With that being said then technically Ruth's rookie "card" or 1st card ...is his Baltimore News one.... Since Andy is a good friend I will go with Ruth's rookie as his M101-5 card....but I too would prefer something other than a blank backed one.....just my 1/2 cent worth....regards all

Archive

05-01-2003, 02:46 PM

Posted By: runscottIt's not a card issued of him as a major leaguer, so it doesn't qualify (IMO of course). Remember those Topps "boyhood photos of the stars" put out in '72? (I think). What if one of those was the first card of a major leaguer - would it be his rookie card? What about that Topps Chipper Jones "rookie" that has him in his high school uniform as a draft pick? But I think this is a great example to stir up debate.

Archive

05-01-2003, 05:18 PM

Posted By: JCYour Zeenuts should be worth more, if it is the players first card. What would you rather have a 1934 Zeenut Dimaggio or a 1939 Playball Dimaggio? Let's not forget the 1936 "R" series cards and World wide which most people don't realize is his first PRO card.

Archive

05-01-2003, 05:55 PM

Posted By: warshawlawIt isn't a card, it isn't a domestic US issue, and it is not part of an MLB set. I don't even know whether it is a licensed product (I would further tighten the definition of rookie cards issued over the last few decades to require licensing by the appropriate entities).

Archive

05-01-2003, 06:44 PM

Posted By: juliethe wwg "Deadpan Joe," I am distressed to hear that a Canadian card cannot be a rookie.. I am also collecting the 1947 Jackie Robinson Homoginized Bond Bread (NOT the many=player set, the Jackie Robinson set), and would prefer one of those, issued in Brooklyn, to any Leaf or Bowman. Each to his own "gout"!

Archive

05-01-2003, 06:44 PM

Posted By: HalleyGatorSurely ONE of you can think of some way in which my 1933 Ruth card is a "rookie card" ??? First card of Ruth after he became home run king? First major league card of Ruth after a rehab minor league assignment in late 1932?

Archive

05-01-2003, 06:46 PM

Posted By: HalleyGatorBy the way ... It's nice to know that I can "retire" from the hobby for a year and then come back to start the same old "rookie card" argument that I always start. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-01-2003, 07:40 PM

Posted By: Tom L.Of all his cards, I consider the 1936 World Wide Gum (also called Canadian Goudey) to be his best rookie card. Seems more valid under most definitions than the other premium issues of the same year, including the beatiful R312.

Archive

05-01-2003, 08:05 PM

Posted By: Tom L.First card of Ruth as a major leaguer that was: - distributed with another product (gum) to increase sales of that product, - and that product was distributed on a national basis. This rules out: - Baltimore News (minor league) - various incarnations of Sporting News Ruths (most weren't national; Sporting News versions weren't necessarily distributed to increase sales of a product) - American Caramel Ruths (not truly national) - any regional NY issues. - all of the rinky dink sets of the late 1920s (not national). - 1932 US Caramels (again a regional issue). So, even though Ruth was well past his prime and in the waning years of his career, and even though the only thing even remotely resembling a rookie with regard to Ruth were the young women on his party circuit, the 1933 Goudey Ruth must be his rookie. And of all the Ruth Goudey 1933 rookies, the in-action pose above is clearly the preferred card. Ya right. [Not sure if I believe any of this crap above, but you asked for justification.]

Archive

05-01-2003, 08:58 PM

Posted By: HankronI understand this was all tongue in cheek and that I am pointing out the obvious, buy there's no way in Hell that anyone should label a '33 Goudey as Ruth's rookie card (Though I'm sure it's been done by many sellers). Merely consider that it was issued 18 years after his Sporting News card, and there have been numerous Major League players aged 18 and younger.

Archive

05-01-2003, 09:17 PM

Posted By: HankronTo determine a player's rookie card you first devise a reasonable definition of rookie card (perhaps easier said than done), THEN you determine which card(s) matches the definition. You don't pick a card, then try and find a definition that says it's a rookie card. Despite common inclination, that one paid good money for the card is not evidence toward it being the player's rookie.

Archive

05-01-2003, 09:47 PM

Posted By: julie.....

Archive

05-01-2003, 10:08 PM

Posted By: runscottIf we couldn't make up "post purchase" rules to reduce cognitive dissonance, then we would rarely buy anything frivolous. For instance, before I sold Jay the 1892 Bingos cabinet, I considered it to be Keeler's "rookie". Now that I don't own it, and I DO own a t206 of Keeler - that becomes his rookie. I have all kinds of reasons why the previously-issued Keeler cards aren't rookies, but my reasoning only makes sense in my own mind. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> (David - you're right in that this is all tongue-in-cheek)

Archive

05-01-2003, 10:47 PM

Posted By: MWIn my opinion, the reason Canadian issues must be included in the subset known as "rookie cards" is because to exclude them would make such a definition argumentatively academic. For example (albeit, a modern one), is Mark Messier's rookie the 1980-81 O-Pee-Chee or the 1984-85 Topps? And how about the Tony Esposito Rookie? (1969-70 OPC vs. 1971-72 Topps). Also, a quick review of many of the 1930's O-Pee-Chee issues yields scores of "conventional" rookie cards including those of Eddie Shore, Charlie Conacher, Turk Broda and Syl Apps, among others.

Archive

05-02-2003, 04:59 AM

Posted By: HalleyGatorOF COURSE it is all tounge-in-cheek ... TOM L. wins $2 for showing me how to label my 1933 Ruth card as a rookie when I go on EBAY to sell it. What was my seller name again?? WIWAG? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-02-2003, 08:42 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerSince everyone is throwing in their two cents I'll do the same. My view is that since this is a hobby for each individual's enjoyment there is no reason to have a carved in stone definition of anything. If someone wants to call a player's first card his rookie---great. If someone else wants to call his first major league card his rookie card---also great. Personally, in the case of Ruth, I would rather have the Baltimore News card than the M101-5. An interesting question relating to rookie cards is how do you handle Old Judge rookies. If someone wanted to make the definition of a rookie as the player's first major league card then if a player had Old Judge cards issued in 1887, 1888 and 1889(and these were his first cards) then only his 1887 card would be his rookie card. This is the case because each year of Old Judge cards(two different issues in 1888) were seperate and distinct. Saying that 1887 Old Judge cards are the same as 1889 cards is no different from saying that 1984 Topps are the same as 1986 Topps. For simplicity catalog makers have aggregated all Old Judge as one group, but they clearly are not. Therefore, what is the rookie card of Dan Brouthers? Answer--his 1887 Old Judge card(not any other Old Judge card).

Archive

05-02-2003, 08:57 AM

Posted By: Tom L.crack open a chilled one (or 10) and try to find a little humour once in awhile. No way in this lifetime I would ever truly label a 1933 Goudey as Ruth's rookie. I was merely attempting to defend an obviously guilty client. (I'm not a lawyer - just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express).

Archive

05-02-2003, 09:05 AM

Posted By: Tom L.would never (with a straight face) attempt to sell a 33 Ruth as a rookie. Except to current board contributors, of course.

Archive

05-02-2003, 09:33 AM

Posted By: runscott...is the paper cut-out from the 1915 Spalding Guide!

Archive

05-02-2003, 09:44 AM

Posted By: warshawlawMLB has been well-defined since the NL and AL buried the hatchet. Prior to that time, yes, the majors were somewhat amorphously defined. The only rival "majors" were the Federal League teams and they were majors only because active MLB players jumped in droves to their teams. The proof of this is that no baseball historian treats PCL or other 1920's minor records as major league records. Otherwise, DiMaggio's 56-game streak would take a second place to his longer streak with the Seals, Ox Eckhardt and that guy from Milwaukee (whose name I forget--Joe Hauser?) would be in the HOF for their hitting feats, Lefty Grove would have close to 400 wins, etc. Like I said, I wish it were so--my favorite HOF "orphan" is Lefty O'Doul, who would be a shoe-in for the HOF if his PCL record could be added to his MLB record. And my Zeenuts would be worth a lot more. And finally, yes, I would love to own the 1936 WWG Dimag, but it isn't his rookie because (drumroll please) it wasn't sold here. I'd say his rookies are the wide pen and fine pen premiums that were offered in the USA. I'd definitely say that the 1938 Goudey is not his rookie card, regardless of which of the others are "true" rookies. The 1947 Bond Robinson is one that I have often felt was a rookie card and should be treated as such. The reason it is not, however, is that it is a regional issue that was not available to the vast majority of the country.

Archive

05-02-2003, 12:17 PM

Posted By: HankronI was aware than many were making jokes. I was also correct that, at times, all of us will assign unwarrented importance or qualities to a piece of memorabilia merely because we are the owners. As Scott alluded to, the importance/qualities often magically dissapears once it's sold.

Archive

05-02-2003, 12:25 PM

Posted By: HankronFor example, I commonly meet people who are dissapointed and sometimes shocked to find out that their antique collection of family photographs (or sentimental family ephemera)is not worth thousands of dollars, but who wouldn't pay $10 for them at a garage sale if they were of someone else's family.

Archive

05-02-2003, 01:24 PM

Posted By: julieAlso, clearly the 1882 photo of Fleetwood Walker with his U. of Mich. Varsity team is the most important card of the 19th century...

Archive

05-02-2003, 07:19 PM

Posted By: HalleyGatorBut I have a polaroid at home from 1862 of Fleetwood when he was a young lad, decked out in baseball duds. It appears to be his Cub League uniform, which would now count as a "rookie card" in some form or fashion. He was standing in the photo next to a tall bearded white guy in a black stovepipe hat. I'll have to look around and see what I did with that thing. I remember that it was signed on the back by Fleetwood himself and some other guy named Abe something-or-other.... I can't remember Abe's last name, but I know it wasn't Froman...