PDA

View Full Version : Ty Cobb's True Rookie Card


Archive
12-05-2003, 09:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Shammus</b><p><BR>Don't know if this has ever been discussed, I couldn't find a thread, but I wanted everyone's thoughts on this topic. Some say it's his 1908-10 E102 card, others claim Cobb's rookie is his w555 which was produced sometime between 1907-10. However, what if both cards ended up being produced in 1910, at the tail end of the estimated timeframe of when those respective sets were being produced? Wouldn't that result in Cobb's rookie being a card that was produced in 1909 (not the 1909-11 T206's or E90-1 because those were produced over three year spans as well) such as the E92, E95 or even the Silk s74??<BR><BR>

Archive
12-06-2003, 12:10 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Personally, I could care less since I think the whole rookie card thing is totally retarded. I guess if you are into having the earliest card it is impoartant, but it's not my bag and I am more into having the best looking card, the earliest card.<BR><BR>Jay

Archive
12-06-2003, 12:55 AM
Posted By: <b>fkw707</b><p>Another early Cobb card..... the 1907 A.C.Dietsche Detroit Postcards, there are 2 poses, fielding and batting. I think it is one of the earliest now that the W555s are more likely from 1908 with some of the latest thinking. Frank<BR><img src="http://members.aol.com/canofprimo/dietschecobb.jpeg">

Archive
12-06-2003, 07:52 AM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>I once asked him what time it was. His response: "I don't care".

Archive
12-06-2003, 10:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Jay,<BR><BR>I got caught up in the Rookie Card Craze of the 80's when I first started collecting as a kid. Over time, I started collecting vintage Rookie Cards, and ultimately this became the focus of my collection. I think I can speak for all collectors with interests that are similar to mine in that we really don't care if you think it is retarted. <BR><BR>Personally, I think putting a "players set" together is retarted, but that's just me. Who would spend money on a bunch of players that you know little to nothing about, trying to compile a set that is impossible to complete?<BR><BR>The point of my post is that we all have different collecting interests, and that is one of the great things about this hobby. People should be allowed to post a question without being told that what they choose to collect is "retarted".<BR><BR>Just my opinion.

Archive
12-06-2003, 11:09 AM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Gents, no need to argue over collecting methods. Everyone is different. I collect full sets. But I still do not knock, type collectors or rookie collectors or team collectors. We all share a love of vintage material so that is in common here. My form of collecting is probably the most retarded since it is the most expensive and I am not wealthy by any means. Dan.

Archive
12-06-2003, 11:12 AM
Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>Lat year a Wolverine News postcard was found on ebay with the earliest postmark(I think it was 1906, or early 1907) which means that the issue was actually issued in Cobb's rookie year as opposed to how it had been catalogued up to that point. It may not be considered a "card" by some people but a postmark is pretty good evidence as to when something was issued.<BR><BR>This pre-dates the Dietche postcard which was issued a bit later.<BR><BR>I would consider this to be Cobb's first "card".

Archive
12-06-2003, 12:34 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>1906 Sporting Life premium and at least one other "taylor" something postcard, I think... and "card" is a very relative term..I agree with Dan on this one...regards

Archive
12-06-2003, 01:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Just a related observation from a photograph collector. With 20th sports stars, there is a strong premium placed on original photos from the player's rookie year. This is particularly true with early football players, where they often don't have a rookie football card.

Archive
12-06-2003, 06:09 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I'm sorry, I forgot personal opinions are not allowed here. <i>sarcasm off</i> I didn't say that you shouldn't collect that way, just said that I thought it was retarded, and I will not back down from that. For many players, it's almost impossible to say what their rookie card is. This no concensous as to what a 'card' is or as to what a 'rookie' card is. Is it his first card appearance regardless of league affiliation or his first appearance on a 'card' with a major legue team. <BR><BR>It's also possible that the use 'rookie card' made me flash to modern card collectors and their obsession with rookie cards. If the poster had asked "what was Cobb's first card appearance?" I would have probably reacted differently.<BR><BR>However you want to collect is fine by me. Make fun of my player set if you like, but it is clear cut, and well defined. A collection of 'rookie cards' is vague and nebulous at best. One person's rookie collection will be different from someone else's because of how they define what is a rookie and what is a card.<BR><BR>Jay

Archive
12-06-2003, 08:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Shammus</b><p>Thanks guys, for those of you that took the time to give my question some thought (there were many of you) I appreciate the insight. I had always wondered about that question and then when I saw the topic mentioned on Pete Calderon's site, it reminded me to post something about it in this forum. <BR><BR>

Archive
12-06-2003, 10:09 PM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>so let's say we leave out Postcards and strip cards, THEN what is Cobb's rookie card? <BR><BR>E102? Surely someone has an opinion on this...

Archive
12-06-2003, 10:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>At the risk of sounding retarted (just kidding Jay), I consider the E95 and E92 to be Cobb's rookie cards. The E102 & W555 were almost certainly issued in 1910, and the T206 & E90-1 were issued over several years. As far as I can tell, just the E95 and E93 sets are considered to be issued exclussively in 1909. I'm still hoping to discover an earlier Cobb "card", but haven't been successful yet.<BR><BR>By the way, I don't really think that a Player Set is retarted. I was just trying to prove a point that rookie card collecting is not retarted.<BR><BR>Actually, I think I just like saying retarted. I haven't used that term in years. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>No hard feelings, I hope.

Archive
12-07-2003, 12:37 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>No hard feelings here. Mine are pretty wishy-washy :-p And you really do need to learn to spell "retarded" :-p<BR><BR>Scott, just curious why you would eliminate strip cards? Postcards are one of those boarderline itmes that you can argue either way, but I don't quite get why you wouldn't consider a strip card a card?<BR><BR>Jay

Archive
12-07-2003, 04:21 AM
Posted By: <b>Shammus</b><p>Well, some might eliminate strip cards from this discussion because the strip card in question is the w555, which are the size of postage stamps. Normally I would agree with Jay and not rule out strip cards at all however, since neither the w555 nor the Dietsche/Novelty postcards really have that "baseball card feel" to them, I can see why they would be dismissed. The w555, much like the E102, T206 and E90-1 were either issued over the course of several years or not enough is known about the set to determine when it was released. I would say that assuming the w555, e101 and e102 were released in 1910, then the e92 would be Cobb's actual rookie card. <BR><BR>On the other hand, it seems that the majority of the sources out there are still claiming that the e102 came out in 1908. If I was forced to make a final decision on this topic, I would probably look to the e102 as the one.

Archive
12-07-2003, 11:05 AM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>As far as limiting your choices for a rookie card the only kind I exclude is an item where the entire team is pictured. A "first appearance card" but not "rookie card." That being said:<BR><BR>In my opinion, Ty Cobb's rookie card is one of the postcard issues of the era. Any one of these issues should be considered his rookie: Dietsche, Wolveries News, H.M. Taylor, or Novelty Cutlery as they all have 1907 as the initial issue date. If you don't like the fact that these sets were issued over a span of years and you can't pinpoint an exact date then your Cobb rookie would be in the PC770 American League Co. set which has a 1908 date in the SCD guide or the 1908 Detroit Free Press set.<BR><BR>If you don't consider postcards at all then the first Cobb card would be either E90-1, W555, or any brand of the E92 issue, E101 or E102. All of these sets, or parts of, could or were issued as early as 1909.<BR><BR>In 100 years will collectors debate which is Tony Gwynn's rookie: 1983 Topps or Fleer or that retarded company that cut up Ruth's jeresy.<BR><BR>Sorry, I had to work "retarded" in somewhere. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
12-07-2003, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>My question was kinda retarted, but you did a good job of guessing what I meant <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>Jay - from one retart to another, I just don't like strip cards. Personally, I don't consider strip cards or playing cards to really be baseball cards. Postcards are marginal, but they are cool so I make an exception. In any case, it really doesn't matter - everyone can make their own choices.<BR><BR>Devil's advocate question - are "picture pack" photos actually cards? They are mass-produced. If you argue that they aren't cards because they are photos, so are the Fatimas and even the Old Judges. If you argue they aren't cards because they aren't on card stock, neither are strip cards or Coupon Type I's. Are they too big? ...so are T3's. You start off by letting in postcards and strip cards, next thing you know the Roy Huff cut-outs are part of the family. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><BR>