Ty Cobb Rookie ?.....let's debate it . [Archive]

Archive

03-10-2006, 05:44 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThis 1907 Post Card of Ty Cobb precedes any other type of card depicting him. Included in this 1st set of Detroit players (produced by Dietsche of Detroit) is a 2nd postcard of Cobb in a fielding pose. Obviously, these cards are not premiums inserted in packs of cigarettes, gum, or candy; so, some in our hobby do not consider them as "true rookie" cards of Cobb. And, that's fine with me, I am not taking sides in this debate. But, I'm curious what the prevailing thinking regarding this postcard is....is it, or is it not....a legitimate collectible to be considered as his Rookie ? <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/tycobbpcft.jpg"> <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/tycobbpcbk.jpg">

Archive

03-10-2006, 05:50 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisA very neat item that shows Cobb in his early years... but not his first "baseball card" to me. If I had a Postcard of Mickey Mantle that was printed in 1950 with a picture of him in his Yankee uniform... there is no way that anyone would consider it to be his real rookie card. Same would be true for a 1953 Postcard of Hank Aaron in his Braves uniform.

Archive

03-10-2006, 05:50 PM

Posted By: Steve MDoes Cobb appear on this composite postcard? If so might it be the first. For my vote I do consider a postcard as beeing a "rookie" card if it is the players first paper likeness as a major league player.

Archive

03-10-2006, 05:53 PM

Posted By: warshawlawIf a card makes it into the Standard Catalog and was actually issued to the masses in the USA, I don't see how you can ignore it and claim it isn't the player's first MLB card. And if it is the player's first MLB card and isn't his "rookie" then what possible explanatory value does a "rookie" have?

Archive

03-10-2006, 05:59 PM

Posted By: MarkHal, then why do you call this postcard a "Ty Cobb rookie card" on your website? =o)

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: Jim ClarkeHow about an Exhibit? Is that like a postcard? Would Gehrig rookie be the 1925 Exhibit?

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: scott ingoldHey Ted, You know my thoughts on this. For the others i come down on the side of it being his true rookie as it was produced and obviously saved 2 years before the t206. Just our debate here say's plenty.

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:12 PM

Posted By: RayBI collect Exhibit cards which have a handful of debateable rookie cards inclusive especially in 1920's issues. Although closer to a "baseball card" than a postcard is, the oversize nature has caused some consternation with collectors about it's place in the rookie card determination. I stand firmly on the belief, also, that if Standard "Cataloged" it counts. RayB

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:22 PM

Posted By: HolsteinMy opinion is that any cards produced for distribution to the public and depicting baseball players qualify as baseball cards. If a particular issue is included in the Standard Catalog, I definitely consider the issue a "baseball card" issue. Obviously, individuals can create their own narrow definitions which eliminate certain categories of "cards." Some have explained in prior posts on this subject that they only consider cards which were produced to be collected by "kids" to be baseball cards. If that is the case, you can eliminate all tobacco cards, as they were not marketed to kids. The Dietsche "card" was sold to the public and it depicts a baseball player. Sounds like a baseball card to me. Same with the W601. Paul

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:24 PM

Posted By: Josh K.To me, if its a player's first appearance on a piece of cardboard that was meant to be collected, its a rookie. Why should the cards size matter. Topps made some oversized basketball cards in the late 60s/early 70s - among which include Lew Alcinder's rookie card - why should size not matter with those cards, but with a postcard or exhibit somehow it does? I also wonder about Hal's comment regarding the postcards - dont you have a foxx rc that is a 1926-29 exhibit with a postcard back? A gehrig exhibit rc? as well as many other examples.

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:25 PM

Posted By: WesleyThere are a number of postcards produced in 1907 that can be considered Ty Cobb rookie cards, including the HM Taylor, Novelty Cutlery, two Dietsche and two Wolverine. I think there is no reason why the postcards produced in 1907 cannot be considered Ty CObb rookie cards. Otherwise rookie collectors will have to look two years later at the four T206 (or two T206s if you only consider Factory 150), E92 Croft candy, E92 Croft Cocoa, E92 Nadja, E95, E101 and E102.

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:31 PM

Posted By: Scot ReaderHi Ted, This is a fascinating thread. As Hal aptly notes, what we're really getting at here is what constitutes a "baseball card" as opposed to mere baseball memorabilia. Does a "baseball card" have to be an insert? Be made of a certain material (i.e. card stock)? Fit certain size parameters? For me, a "baseball card" must meet the following three criteria: (1) subject matter is baseball; (2) printed on card stock; (3) fits within certain maximum size limitations (although I can't say exactly what these are). Does not have to be an insert. Note that the size criterion is just my personal bias, I have always had problems considering cabinets, postcards and exhibits as true baseball cards. Scot

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:36 PM

Posted By: Steve MCobb has a 1907 Sporting Life Cabinet. Is that hsi "Rookie". What about the fielding 1907 Dietsche? Who can really say?

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:41 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerTed-There are two Cobb cards in the 1907 Dietsche set. I know the fielding pose is much scarcer but did one predate the other. BTW, I have always considered these to be Cobb's rookie cards and have always thought that they were very undervalued.

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:46 PM

Posted By: Steve M<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1141958782.JPG">

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:49 PM

Posted By: Brian E.I will chime in and state that I do not consider the Cabinet and PCs Cobb rookie cards. Nice pieces of cardboard, but to me, not baseball cards. This would make an interesting and worthy poll though! Brian E.

Archive

03-10-2006, 06:56 PM

Posted By: PaulI consider postcards as potential rookie cards. Their kinda like baseball cards on steroids! Oh boy, maybe shouldn't go there. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Seriously, I really like the deadball era PC's.

Archive

03-10-2006, 07:10 PM

Posted By: Steve MIs this someone's "Rookie" card? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1141960197.JPG">

Archive

03-10-2006, 07:16 PM

Posted By: nbrazilas someone stated above, the real question is asking whether a postcard is considered a baseball card. a post card's primary function is to be used to send a message from one individual to another. a baseball card's primary function is for collectibility. given these definitions, a postcard should not be considered a player's rookie baseball card. now, if you lax the definition a bit...and say that a post card is just as equally or moreso a collectible than as a meager tool for sending messages, then you can include post cards in the mix. of course, given that the issue was 100 years ago...the practical function of a postcard no longer should be accounted for (i doubt anyone is going tom scribble a salutation on the back of this postcard and send it to their mother)...and the postcards collectibility reigns. as a HOF rookie collector, i have a hard time deciding on post cards. some exhibits...those primarily issued during a time span rather than a single year i dont consider a rookie card since there is no factual date of its issue (for instance, the aaron exhibit that spans 47-66). basically, a strict definition of a baseball card precludes including postcards. that's my take.

Archive

03-10-2006, 08:31 PM

Posted By: Richard MassonMany of these were issued well before 1907. Do we know what year the Cobb W600 was first made available?

Archive

03-10-2006, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranThe W600 Cobb was first made available in 1907, and remained available through 1910. I don't know if there is any way to distinguish which year a particular W600 Cobb card was actually produced by it's appearance. Maybe Scott Brockelman, Tom Boblitt, or Jerry Spillman will chime in. They are the real experts on this issue.

Archive

03-10-2006, 10:09 PM

Posted By: RichardI would say that postcards are cards. Images of baseball players were put on postcards to sell the postcard. Images of baseball players were inserted into cigarette packs to sell cigarettes. Images of baseball players were put on Boston Garter packaging to sell garters. People collected images of their favorite baseball player, regardless of its size or distribution. I don't think that the person who bought this and kept it (collected it) did so with the intention of mailing it. <a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2490/hmfrontsmall6ih.jpg" border="0" width="542" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a> If they did, I am glad they forgot to send it. 1907 postcards are Cobb rookies. The 1925 Exhibit is Gehrig's rookie.

Archive

03-10-2006, 10:37 PM

Posted By: nbrazil"Images of baseball players were put on postcards to sell the postcard. Images of baseball players were inserted into cigarette packs to sell cigarettes. Images of baseball players were put on Boston Garter packaging to sell garters" True. But, what did people do when they got those cards from the cigarettes? It's different from what people were supposed to do when they bought a postcard with ty cobb on it. In the latter case, they were supposed to write on the back of it and send it someone they know. In the former case, it was more for a collectible purpose. I see your point. But, my point is at looking at a strict definition of a baseball card....it's only functional use is of being collectible. A Ty cobb postcard is collectible...but, it's main intention is for the use of sending someone a message.

Archive

03-10-2006, 10:46 PM

Posted By: Alan ZimmermanIf it looks like a baseball card, then it is a baseball card. The postcards pictured above look like baseball cards, so they qualify as baseball cards.

Archive

03-10-2006, 10:53 PM

Posted By: nbrazilwhat is a baseball card supposed to look like? Stats in the back? Biographical information? paper stock? is this a baseball card: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1928-Spalding-Tris-Speaker-Walter-Johnson-VSA-7-Near-MT_W0QQitemZ8737996257QQcategoryZ111053QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1928-Spalding-Tris-Speaker-Walter-Johnson-VSA-7-Near-MT_W0QQitemZ8737996257QQcategoryZ111053QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a>

Archive

03-11-2006, 01:18 AM

Posted By: jay behrensIf the function of said piece is the determining factor as to whether something is a baseball card or not, then all t-cards are not baseball cards since their primary function was a stiffener for the package of cigarettes. The same can be said of many cand issues. Colgan Chips were meant as liner in the tin. The fact these items had pictures of ball players is a bonus. I do not consider CDVs, cabinets and other photographs "cards". Personally, my size limit is postcard. I'm not sure what I consider items that are larger than a postcard. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-11-2006, 04:54 AM

Posted By: identify7That these postcards are Cobb's rookie card is clearly debatable. However, the debate, imho, was over before it began. The hobby has established the desirability of this card in its price structure. From the price associated with this item, it is apparent that most collectors do not consider postcards as meeting their definition of a baseball card. I do not agree with this view, but I recognize it. Recognize it? Heck, I applaud it!! One more treasure which I can have that others think has less value than I do. Now if I can find one with back damage ... (who cares about a postcard back).

Archive

03-11-2006, 08:14 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisRichard Great postcard....your H M Taylor card depicts Cobb with the identical batting stance that my Dietsche shows. But, your's is really neat since it is an actual photo with Detroit's old Bennett Field in the background. It looks like Dietsche used this exact photo but decided to blank (black) out the olde stadium. So, since Richard's and my P/C's are not written on, do they qualify as a collectible card, rather than a piece cardboard to send a message ? Furthermore, those who would argue that P/C's were meant to only "send per- sonal messages", and therefore, are not a real BB card....I offer this coun- ter.....what are postage stamps? Are they not a collectible ? I've collected stamps before I started collecting BB cards and you require a stamp to "send a message". In 1847 someone used the George Washington and Ben Franklin stamps in my United States collection, does anyone dare to tell me that those are not their "Rookie " stamps ? ?

Archive

03-11-2006, 08:23 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisA stamp is a stamp. A postcard is a postcard. A baseball card is a baseball card. A coin is a coin.

Archive

03-11-2006, 08:23 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisAnd a horse is a horse, of course.

Archive

03-11-2006, 09:09 AM

Posted By: joe brennan<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1142010474.JPG"> A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

Archive

03-11-2006, 10:11 AM

Posted By: leonW601 ......Cobby....first depiction of him I believe....and yes they are big premiums but thought I would throw this into the mix. Sometimes I feel left out around here....

Archive

03-11-2006, 10:38 AM

Posted By: jay behrensa square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. A baseball card can be postcard, but a postcard is not nexcessarily a baseball card. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-11-2006, 10:50 AM

Posted By: James FeaginHow come T3's are considered "cards" while the subjects like this, Goudey Premiums, postcards, cabinets, and others are not? For the record, I consider the Cobb postcard to be a novelty, piece of memorabilia, whatever; and not a card.

Archive

03-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Posted By: PCI may be wrong here, but I thought the traditional qualification for a baseball "card" was that the cardboard had to be included in the purchase of something else ... like tobacco, or gum, or garters, etc., as an incentive or a bonus for buying that product. It could not have been printed solely as a collectible in and unto itself (like an exhibit), and not for some other primary purpose (like a postcard). However, even if it is not a card, it could still be a "rookie", if one decides not to limit "rookies" to "cards". And regarding T206s, they were printed and inserted to create an incentive to buy more cigarettes. They had the added benefit of making the pack stronger, but to tobacco co's could have accomplished that at less expense by putting plain cardboard in the pack, or simply using stronger stock for the pack.

Archive

03-11-2006, 12:05 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think what we have established through the many discussions on this topic is that a card is defined as: "if you own it, it is a card; if you want to buy it from someone else, it is not a card." I think this is as precise as we can get.

Archive

03-11-2006, 12:16 PM

Posted By: jay behrensIf you ever research on why cards were inserted into packs, it is because their purpose was to provide stiffness for the pack. A marketing genius realized that if you printed something interesting these inserts that people would be more willing to buy your product instead of someone else's. Just because something is printed on this insert/stiffener doesn't diminish the fact that was the primary purpose. SAme goes for Red Man tobacoo cards in the 50s. These cards were used as siffener for the pouch. Printing the pictures of ball players on the stiffener jsut provided an incentive to buy their product over someone else's. how about gum cards? The primary product being sold until about the 1950s was actually the piece of gum. The baseball card was just an incentive to buy the gum. By the 60s, it had pretty much reversed and gum was a nice bonus for buying baseball cards. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-11-2006, 01:12 PM

Posted By: Richard"I may be wrong here, but I thought the traditional qualification for a baseball "card" was that the cardboard had to be included in the purchase of something else ... like tobacco, or gum, or garters, etc., as an incentive or a bonus for buying that product. It could not have been printed solely as a collectible in and unto itself (like an exhibit), and not for some other primary purpose (like a postcard)." The above argument makes no sense whatsoever. Every card produced today, and I would say almost every card made since 1990, has not been made to be included in the purchase of something else. No more gum in packs guys. The main product is the sports card. Nothing else. Nothing more.

Archive

03-11-2006, 01:46 PM

Posted By: barry arnoldGreat looking card, TRex. how 'bout rookie postcard? not rookie baseball card. just doing some linguistic somersaults before class. best barry

Archive

03-11-2006, 01:56 PM

Posted By: PCRichard: you missed the word "traditional". Read a little closer next time.

Archive

03-11-2006, 03:03 PM

Posted By: ddI do not consider "rookie card" to be an appropriate term for pre-1948 issues. I consider the term a creation of the seventies to denote the first appearance of a player on nationally distributed cards(eg Bowman, Topps, Leaf). I prefer to designate the first appearance of a pre-war player on cardboard his "first card."

Archive

03-11-2006, 06:15 PM

Posted By: Jim ClarkeBeing a postcard collector as well... I have most of the Cobb postcards issued from this time period. I think they are still way undervalued and should be considered the rookie card. Wolverine Cards are extremely scare and rarely come up for sale. I think they are about 20 to 1 compared to a Dietsche. Here are both the poses for this series. I don't know how authentic the autograph is on the second one??? Any experts opinions would be great!!!! JC <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1142043274.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1142043295.JPG">