1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>Pardon my novice questions. Is the 1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card known as Babe Ruth's rookie card ? How many of them are known to exist ? Is it as many as the T-206 Wagner ?<br /><br /><br />Thanks.<br />Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>No, it is not considered his "rookie" card because it does not really meet any of the definitions. It shows him on his minor league team and was printed while he was still in the minor leagues. His real "rookie" card is the 1915 M101-5 card.<br /><br />That having been said...<br /><br />the 1914 Babe Ruth card is incredibly rare (much more so than the T206 Wagner) and is worth every penny. Anything THAT old and THAT rare with someone THAT famous on it is a treasure REGARDLESS of what you call it.<br /><br />I don't think, however, that it is the first "baseball related" image of Ruth, because I think there is a team photo somewhere out there of Ruth with his Orphanage Team that pre-dates 1914.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What about Kid Nichols N172 with Omaha? Isn't that considered his rookie card? If so, then Ruth's is too. Just opening a friendly discussion here. I'm a big fan of the Ruth card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Nope.<br /><br />Nichols rookie card is his 1895 Mayo.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/665Lg.jpg"><br /><br />That's why I never bought an Old Judge Nichols.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Is that universally accepted by all rookie collectors?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>i believe the concept of a rookie card is more a post war concept and begins really with the bowman and topps sets. especially with 19th century cards it is the term rookie card really does not apply

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>A quick question regarding rookie cards. Why on your site do you have Cy Youngs e107 as his rookie ? Even though just one exists his Just So is his rookie and should not be ignored. It pre-dates his e107 by ten years.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>But collecting rookie cardss of all Hall of Famers is hot today and there has to be a few cards where collector opinion diverges.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Not everyone shares the same opinion with regard to rookie cards in prewar sets. It is pretty much a matter of taste. Personally, I think the OJ is Nichols' rookie card. Not everyone shares this opinion - that is part of what makes collecting fun!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>i think the oj nichols is also and hal should sell me his mayo. rookie cards are of a players first card in the majors but do we consider the players league and AA the majors or just the nl?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>David:<br /><br />This issue was discussed at length a long time ago, but I don't know how to find the thread.<br /><br />Basically... since I collect HALL OF FAME rookie cards... I count WHATEVER the official Hall of Fame counts.<br /><br />If you look at their site, you will see that they do NOT count Nichols' stats from his Western League (1887-1889) days as being in the MAJOR LEAGUES:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Pitching/Nichols_Kid.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Pitching/Nichols_Kid.htm</a><br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />when you look at others in the American Association, you see that that their stats ARE counted as MAJOR leagues, like McPhee:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/McPhee_Bid.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/McPhee_Bid.htm</a><br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />SO...<br /><br />Western League is NOT considered to be MAJOR LEAGUES by the HOF... but the American Association IS.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p><a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Hitting/McCarthy_Tommy.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Hitting/McCarthy_Tommy.htm</a><br /><br />This link shows that the HOF also counts the Union Association as MAJOR LEAGUES... even though it was only around for 1884.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>This link shows the 7 leagues accepted as MAJOR LEAGUE baseball over time:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues</a>/

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hal- In your most humble opinion, why do you think a 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth sells for significantly more than an M101-5 Ruth if it is not his rookie card? I know it is somewhat rarer but it takes more than just rarity for a card to be so valuable. It also takes demand.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>There is no question the Baltimore News is the earlier card, the rarer card and the more expensive card compared to the Sporting News. But the Baltimore News is a minor league card and not the rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>i think the ruth sells for so much because it is ruth. certainly there a few cards i can think of that are more scarce for cards like cobb or wagner but do not sell for anywhere near 6 figures just because they are not ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Webster's defines rookie as:<br /><br />"A first-year participant in a major professional sport."<br /><br />So why cant the Baltimore News Ruth or Nichols OJ be considered rookie cards? They are the first cards the players appeared on playing a professional sport.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Chris:<br /><br />Because then CRAP like this would be considered a player's rookie card:<br /><br /><img src="http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/9b/27/f2_1_b.JPG"><br /><br /><img src="http://i17.ebayimg.com/02/i/04/f6/c5/19_1_b.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>Chris - you can define rookie any way you want. However, the larger baseball collecting community tends to define rookie as in first card from the major leagues.<br /><br />Use your own logic - why does MLB have a "Rookie of the Year" if the winner has already been a professional baseball player for many years? <br /><br />At the end of the day, with pre-war cards, minor league examples are typically not considered the so-called "Rookie" card. Yes, there are sometimes exceptions, and first-cards of major HOF'ers are always very popular. But the rookie card tends to be the first major-league depiction of that player in a series of cards that was widely distributed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I tend to agree with Chris. We are not talking about Cal Ripken with the Rochester Royals issued as a giveaway at a minor league ballpark. The Nichols and the Ruth are significant cards and the Old Judge set in particular is one of the most important ever issued. However, I don't collect them, I just pontificate.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Pontificate away, Obi Wan Kanobi.<br /><br />But even "the force" can't get Nichols to the Major Leagues before 1890. <br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>Yes, everyone can choose to define a rookie card however they want. If I am collecting rookie cards, I would prefer to have the Nichols OJ over a card that was issued 5 years after his major league debut. Maybe that makes me a "first card" collector then...<br /><br />I dont really care if others consider it a rookie or not - actually, with the prices "true" rookie cards have been getting lately, I would just as soon that no one agree with me!<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>No, Omaha will never be the major leagues, but an N172 Nichols is a very serious card- or as Dana Carvey said as Ross Perot: "as serious as a heart attack."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Just because someone doesn't own a card doesn't mean it's not a rookie. There is absolutely no doubt that the '14 Ruth and OJ Nichols are true rookie cards.....like it or not.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>When we are talking about pre-war cards I think technical issues of "rookie" or not have little meaning as they do in today's modern market.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>about what he just said strongly. That is why I believe and know that Cy Youngs rookie card is not his e107 but his just so.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Ask the grading services, they know everything, and make all of our rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The Just So of Young is in fact a major league card, so I don't think that one is in dispute, is it? Perhaps because it was regional there may be a sticking point.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Leon:<br /><br />In the 2005 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards by Bob Lemke...<br /><br />the 1914 Baltimore News card of Ruth is specifically NOT listed in the "Vintage Major League Baseball Cards" section...<br /><br />and IS listed in the "Minor League Cards" section at the back of the book.<br /><br />Don't act like I am trying to make up the rules here based on what I own. That's not fair to me. <br /><br />I am using the most widely accepted guide on cards and the Hall of Fame itself for my data.<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>I know it's his rookie but Hal lists his e107 as his rookie. Not trying to start anything but Hal does list his e107 as his rc.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Just So was only distributed in the Cleveland area so I guess in the strictest definition it is not a rookie- this is why there are different opinions but collectors are free to collect as they wish.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Barry and I were just privately emailing and he dared me to "fuel the fire". I'm just messin' with ya' <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I would think a major league card is generally a must to be a rookie....but personally since I don't collect rookies anymore I don't care too much....It's a good friendly debate, the rookie one....Just having some fun.....regards....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Barry--There is no comparison between the number of Baltimore News Ruth cards and the M101-4/5 Ruth cards. The latter is as common as any card in the set(read-not all that rare); the Baltimore News Ruth is very rare with only a handful of copies known. The real question in value is not why the Baltimore News Ruth sells only at 2 1/2 times the price of an M101-4/5 Ruth, but rather why it doesn't sell at 10x the price or more. I'm not saying that the Baltimore News Ruth should be more expensive; I'm saying that the M101-4/5 Ruth is a card that has been overhyped by the auction houses with the result that some collectors with more money than sense have bid the card up to the moon.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>OK Leon, you got me! <br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Zach: It's my website, I make the rules.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Leon speaks the truth- and I think it's fair to say with certain specific cards it is reasonable to have differences of opinion. The 48 Leaf Jackie Robinson is a prime example of one that is considered a rookie despite numerous cards picturing Jackie issued prior to it. When you collect you set your own parameters and then proceed accordingly. Others may differ and if I think an OJ Nichols is a rookie card, so sue me (please don't sue me).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Bland</b><p>What about Jesse Burkett?<br /><br />He appears on 4 cards that I know of:<br /><br />1893 Just So<br />1903 W600 Sporting Life Cabinet<br />1909 Ramly<br />1921 Koester Bread<br /><br />If the Just So isnt his rookie, what is? Does Burkett have a rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The M101-5 has been hyped as a rookie. Perhaps the 1914 Ruth is priced properly and the Sporting News is the one that is overpriced. No right answer to that one. It's a matter of preference.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>By 1921 Burkett is long retired. That would be an interesting rookie card. I say Just So, but there will be a difference of opinion for sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>If lots of collectors like the minor league card best, it will sell for more, rookie or whatever notwithstanding. Personally, I've never cared much whether a card is a player's rookie. I prefer vintage pre-rookies to most any rookie of a HOFer and often I prefer a final card to the rookie card (esp. if there are stats on it). I suppose the same is true of the folks who bought the 1914 Ruth. I'd rather have my Zeenut or PCL Exhibit Averill than any ML card of Averill and I know I would enjoy a 1969 Mantle more than a 1951 Mantle, values notwithstanding. In other cases, there are other considerations. I personally would rather have a Buck Weaver with the Sox than the Obak Weaver, even if the Obak predates and costs more than the Sox Weaver (in fact, I opted for an M101-5 Weaver over the Obak when I was shopping for a Weaver card). Ditto for the Jackson: give me the M101-5 over the E90-1 any day. There is something about having a player depicted with the team where his impact was most powerful.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>If I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times:<br /><br />CWYWC* !!<br /><br />*Collect What YOU Wanna Collect<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />But at the same time...<br /><br />YHTRTCHOOCANWAWTWTC* !!<br /><br />(a little harder to remember and not as catchy)<br /><br />*You Have To Respect The Collecting Habits Of Other Collectors And Not Worry About What THEY Wanna Collect<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>According to the hobby (and everyone here), a rookie is a baseball player in his first year of the major leagues. Clearly a card before the pictured player entered the major leagues is not a rookie card, because the player is not yet a rookie. It's a pre-rookie card.<br /><br />Earlier than Major League rookie year minor league and college cards of a player are generally called Pre-Rookie cards. Curiously, Mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card is widely called his rookie card, even though he didn't play in the Majors until 1986 and is pictured as a Team USA Olympic player.<br /><br />It could also be reasonably argued that many players don't have rookie cards, as their first MLB card appeared in their third, forth or whatever year in the bigs. Unless the 'rookie' is being applied to the card itself, rather than the player.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hal- I wish you didn't translate the second abbreviation- I wanted to spend the next three years trying to figure it out.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Who can explain why Barry Bonds' 1986 cards are "XRCs" and what exactly an XRC is? Is it a limbo category between a minor league card and a major league card?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Ecklund</b><p>XRC is the designation that the guides give to cards from update sets like Topps Traded or Fleer Update, while the RC designation is used for cards from the normal Topps and Fleer sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>For modern cards (Post War), a rookie card is generally considered to be the player's first regular card (no League Leaders or team cards) from the regular issue of one of the major producers (Bowman, Topps, Fleer, Upper Deck, etc). Modern arallel and inserts are not considered to be rookies. Introduced in the 1970s, but taking off in the 1980s, the major manufacturers issued small 'rookie and traded' and similar 'special' sets issued after the regular sets. For rookie card definition purposes, these rookie/traded cards are considered on the order of parallels and inserts.<br /><br />However, if a board member were to offer an 'XRC' card on eBay and call it a 'rookie card,' it's likely no one would object. <br /><br />There will always be reasonable debates as to whether or not a regional or XRC or this or that shiny insert is a rookie card. The time an eBay seller will get legitimately get heaped on is when he labels a rookie card that clear is not (1989 Topps Mark McGwire). <br /><br />If an eBay seller wants to call a 1951 regional issue Willie Mays' rookie card, that is fine by me. If the potential bidder in this auction doesn't consider it to be May's rookie card, as it's not a Topps or Bowman, that's fine by me too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I guess a better question is whether people consider XRCs to be rookie cards and, if not, why not? I notice that Hal displays the '85 Clemens and the '87 Bonds. <br /><br />XRCs do depict players in major league uniforms. Is it because traded/update sets are not considered to be nationally distrbuted? I would argue they are since they're available at card shops and shows throughout the country.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>XRCs are clearly rookie cards. At some point Beckett changed its system and started considering cards from traded sets as rookies. They just refused to go back and fix the mess for the few years they used the XRC designation. The mid 80s traded sets were extremely plentiful. There are a zillion 84 Fleer Update Clemens cards, there is no reason on earth to consider an 85 card his rookie. Same with Bonds -- appeared in three 86 traded sets, why would anyone consider an 87 card his rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>The definition of a rookie card is completely arbitrary, having been invented in 1980 by dealers to move old Topps and Bowman cards. I'm still not clear on why the double printed 1952 Topps Mantle is considered a rookie card. Might as well define it as cards of a certain size, or photo (vs. drawing). I have trouble seeing the parallel between the Ruth and today's minor league giveaways also. <br /><br />Which is older- rookie cards or Kwanza?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The earlier definition was the strict hobby definition, not neccesarily mine. In my opinion, if an XRC pictures the player and the player actually has or soon will play in the bigs (not 6 years later after toiling in AA), I would call it a rookie card. I also count regional cards as rookie cards, but not minor league cards.<br /><br />Duly note that the XRCs and inserts are often more expensive than the 'by the book' rookie card. The 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (XRC) is more expensive than his 1985 Topps RC.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I'm just not a big fan of "Traded" cards...<br /><br />but they can certainly be considered "rookie cards."<br /><br />I just think that the REGULAR card from the following year's FULL set is ALSO considered a "rookie card."<br /><br />But then again...<br /><br />CWYWC !!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>"The 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (XRC) is more expensive than his 1985 Topps RC."<br /><br />We will expect you to have a PSA 10 within the week, Hal. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Why, he has NO CHANCE of ever making the HOF!<br /><br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />You know why?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Because he will NEVER retire!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>But Clemen's 1985 Topps Tiffany card is worth as much as his 1984 Fleer Update card. <br /><br />I have no clue what that means in terms of rookie card or relative value. It just suggests that 1985 is still considered, I guess, as sort of a rookie card for Clemens, and that his 1985 Tiffany is relatively scarce and thus highly desirable.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It may interest vintage collectors to know that Major League Baseball has strict control over which players can appear in a set and which players can labelled rookies by the card manufacturer. MLB contemplates these issues just as collectors do.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>You tell 'em, Marc S.!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/465Lg.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>nice second year card, Hal <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Hal by the way you are wrong for every year except a few years in the mid 80s. Are you saying 1995 Bowman is Garciaparra's rookie, not 1992 Topps Traded?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Thanks. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I'm too traditional to be a big fan of "Traded Sets"...<br /><br />because I have often said that I want to collect the SAME cards that kids could have gone and bought themselves in packs from the drug store.<br /><br />The "Traded Sets" do NOT meet this criteria as they were never sold "over the counter"... <br /><br />so I don't like them.<br /><br />To me, they are the same as a "Premium" type card that you had to send away for.<br /><br />Just not my cup of tea.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>No... all I am saying with my website and collection is:<br /><br />"HERE ARE THE CARDS I OWN. IF YOU SEE IT, I OWN IT. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, I DON'T OWN IT. I MAY WANT IT - OR I MAY NOT WANT IT - BUT IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, I DON'T OWN IT. IF YOU SEE A CARD THAT YOU OWN TOO, THEN THAT IS KEEN. IF YOU OWN A CARD AND DON'T SEE IT ON MY WEBSITE, THEN YOU ARE REALLY COOL AND I SUCK. THANKS FOR VISITING."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>lol <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />I think you should reconsider your position though. Traded sets were WIDELY available in shops and kids for the most part get their cards from shops.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I guess my view is jaded from having grown up in a city where there were no card shops and no card shows.<br /><br />We can't all live in Beantown. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Tiffany sets were not available in packs either, by the way, or I am pretty sure anyhow.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>True... but the IMAGE on the card is exactly the same.<br /><br />This is like a "Type 1" and a "Type 2" of certain vintage cards, like the Kotton and Mino cards.<br /><br />Different stock... but same set.<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Hal you are losing this one buddy!! Concede!! (Your Pedro "RC" is also from a factory set by the way)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Peter:<br /><br />I collect HAL OF FAME rookie cards.<br /><br />None of the ones you mention are in the Hall of Fame.<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>HAL of fame? My what a freudian slip.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>It's so good I'm not even going to edit it!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I've always found the debate over the proper "definition" of a rookie card to be silly. I like collecting the first card of Hall of Fame players, regardless of whether others call them rookie cards. I would much rather own the Baltimore Ruth than the M101-5 Ruth. I would much rather own the 1913 Zeenut Heilmann that his Collins-McCarthy (if you disagree, I'll trade you my Collins-McCarthy). I would much rather have my 1922 Zeenut Lazzeri than his 1928 W-502 or whatever is considered by others to be his rookie card. Etc., etc.<br /><br />But that's just me. Others like other things.<br /><br />When it comes to modern cards, I have a different opinion. I don't have much interest in minor league cards issued by TCMA specifically as collectors' issues. I also don't have much interest in cards issued of teenagers in a mad rush by the card companies to issue the very first card of every player. So, for modern cards, I would probably be more interested in an early major league card of a player, than some pre-pubescent little league card. But, again, that's just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Looking at the tan Jimmy Foxx exhibit (rookie) card which Hal recently posted - I felt: WOW! This was from before he became THE BEAST. I had never seen him pictured so young.<br /><br />So to me, rookie cards of key players are a great addition to a collection. One (or more) of the early Ruth exhibits really shows a young trim man, starting out - I guess it was the first year he hit 50+ HRs.<br /><br />I haven't started with these yet, but for me they don't have to be rookies if they portray a youthful star adequately.<br /><br />As far as "what constitutes a rookie card" though, my vote would be the date that the picture was taken (or drawn, I guess). So if the photo is from a player's minor league days; it is not his rookie card to me; independent of when the card was issued. I would want a players earliest MLB photo shown on a card, even if I have to wait years for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I'm a little late jumping in here, but this is what I consider to be Jesse Burkett's Rookie Card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1127440296.JPG"> <br /><br />I think that I must have said it a hundred times by now: The only consensus when it comes to determining what card(s) constitutes a players Rookie Card is that there is no consensus.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>A little correction Hal,1990 topps traded cards were sold in packs.<br /><br />Another thing that is wrong on his site and he doesnt care about is some of those t206s he considers rookies.Some are from the 350-460 series and not guys rookies which appear in the 150 subjects series made up to 2 years earlier.Hal doesnt care about that so why should other people.If he wants to settle then let him,we can all laugh at him when we check his site and notice these mistakes. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Oh, the horror!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Uh, Hal, isn't your 85 Topps McGwire a minor league card or the equivalent by your own definition? I don't think he had even been signed by the A's yet, and certainly he is shown in a USA Olympic uniform not an A's uniform.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I can field this one Hal<br /><br />Peter its because McGwire isnt in the HAL of Fame yet so he doesnt count

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert McKenzie</b><p>In the 'new' market the 'pre-rookie' is THE rookie card. Bellingham Griffey etc. I bought a box of bowman chrome about 4 years ago and am still waiting for the 'rookie' from the set to bust out in the majors. my .02

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>I vote for Kwanza

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Alleghenys can't be rookie cards I guess since the (single) set was a prototype and therefore not made available to tykes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Prove it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>Not trying to beat a dead horse and I hope this doesn't offend you Hal, it is not my intention to, but if you consider the Alleghenys rookie cards then why would you not consider Just Sos rookie cards ? At least the Just Sos we're released to the public even if only in the Cleveland area where as the Allegheny's were never released. So I think that if you consider Brown's rookie card his Allegheny then you must consider Cy Youngs rookie his Just So. In both instances there is only one of each known to exist, but the Just So was released to the public but the Allegheny's never were.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Zach:<br /><br />As is mentioned in this thread several times...<br /><br />a player can have MORE THAN ONE rookie card.<br /><br />In modern days, players have a "traded" set rookie and a "normal" rookie in the following year's set.<br /><br />Some people count BOTH as rookie cards... but some people only count one... and some only count the other.<br /><br />That's one example.<br /><br />Another example is with "Exhibit" cards and "Postcards"... <br /><br />where some people consider them to be real rookie cards and other people do not. <br /><br />A third example is with "pre-rookie" cards... where some people are free to consider them rookie cards while others do not.<br /><br />That having been said...<br /><br />there are some people who will NOT consider the Alleghany cards to be rookie cards because only one set was supposedly ever found.<br /><br />Fine. They can think whatever they want. Free country.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, choose to count them.<br /><br />This "helps" my collection with Bresnahan and Brown... but it "hurts" my collection with Tinker and Evers since I can't find them.<br /><br />If I were truly interested in "slanting" the facts in my favor, I would just NOT count the Alleghany cards as real... because THEN I would be able to get the Tinker and Evers rookie cards as well.<br /><br /><img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />As for the "Just So" Cy Young card, OF COURSE it is his rookie card.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that there cannot be another rookie card for the same player that meets different criteria.<br /><br />"First Card from a Nationally Distributed Set"<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>YHTRTCHOOCANWAWTWTC<br /><br />Live it. We all do. Its only cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>ABG!!!!<br /><br />(Atta Boy Gil)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>Im still waiting for the Hal Lewis rookie card craze to start.Heres a question to ponder,say someone makes a network54 collectors set and theres a problem with Hal's card.Lets say someone made a mistake on his "Hal holding his Wagner proudly" card(i'll let you decide what the error is on your own) and then when they correct it, will the corrected version still be his rookie card? What if only a few of these error cards hit the market but werent intended to,could that still be considered a rookie? What if the "error" was so small no one noticed for awhile and then the corrected version was a very short printed?<br /><br />These are all questions id like to know.It will also be interesting to see if PSA/SGC allows the set to be on their registry<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Will the Net54 rookie cards be available in packs for kids to buy or just issued in factory sets? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>Everyone who appears in the set gets their own set,the others will be given away with subscriptions to Old Cardboard magazine and single cards chosen at random will be sent to anyone who sends Leon a SASE,limit 10 requests per household.<br /><br />Also kids will be allowed to write an essay on why they love vintage cards and the winner will get an autographed set of cards(1/1).The contest will be won by Hal who poses as a kid just to win which will be realized when his registry set contains his own autographed card,and we will also find out by looking at Leon's autograph that he goes by Leon "the white gazelle" Luckey,but he never explains why.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>It seems like everyone is trying to put together a collection of the rookie cards of HOFers. While Jay is putting together a collection of the rookie cards of non-HOFers.<br /><br />He disguises it as a player set which focuses on the only card issued for players. But we are watching.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Not a bad idea to consider if I ever get anywhere near completion. The big trick would be the 57 players that make their only appearance in the e107 set. That set is the reason I set the start date at 1908. <br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.