Babe Ruth 1933 Goudey RC?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ernest T</b><p>The new Beckett Premiere Edition Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia was just released. One thing that caught my eye is the Babe Ruth card. According to Beckett they consider the Goudey 1933 and the following cards as the true rookie cards # 53, 144, 149, and 181. They did not list the 1916 M101-5 at all as Babe Ruth Rookie card. I just do not know what to make of this. I believe Beckett need to tell us where they came up with this information. Has anyone seen this Beckett Premiere Edition Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia dated 2006. I would like to know what this forum thinks about this subject. Could this be a mistake or perhaps have we been mislead all the years. I hane just about to come to a decision that nobody know what they are talking about when it comes to vintage cards or whom to believe. Please let me here from the experts? Thank you

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony N.</b><p>Technically, the 1915-16 Sporting News Babe Ruth isn't his true rookie either. Babe Ruth's true rookie is the extremely rare 1914 Baltimore News card. Around 7-8 copies are known to exist. I don't know where Beckett would come up with the four different 1933 Goudey's as his rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>If it isn't shiney, Beckett is clueless.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>tony, you would be wrong. It his first card, but not his rookie card. Calling a minor league card a rookie card is like calling a 19yo kid in the minors a rookie. Until he puts on a major league uniform, he cannot be considered a rookie. Same for cards, if it doesn't picture the player as a major leaguer, it's nothing more than a first card appearance.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>Ruth's rookie card IS his 1916 M101-5 or M101-4. His 1914 Baltimore News card depicts him as a minor leaguer. Granted it is a great card and i'd rather own it than his M101-4 or 5, it is not his rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Actually true rookie collectors would dispute that the Baltimore News is Babe's rookie card - his first card, yes. But not his rookie because it does not picture him as a major leaguer. Rather it is a card of him in the minor leagues. <br /><br />Edited to add that Zach and I obviously had the same thought at the same time. For what its worth, there are only about 50 cards of Ruth that pre-date his 1933 goudeys.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Im with Tony. A Rookie card is a first card. I could care less when he started in the Majors since many players played in other leagues for a good chunk of their career. Rookie is the oldest card known of the player, a "Rookie Card". <br /><br />But thats just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dustan Hedlin</b><p>"A first card is a rookie card." I agree with this statement from a modern standpoint, which is really the only standpoint I have right now. The MLBPA has new rookie rules that made the card companies use a special rookie logo on cards of certain players this year, and some of the so called "rookies" had cards dating as far back as 2002. Pretty nutty if you ask me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Todd</b><p><br />Lou Pinella appeared on T***s "Rookie" cards in '64 and '68 (and a couple other years in there IIRC). Talk about nutty.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Greetings, I have just purchased this Beckett Ultimate Rookie card encyclopedia. Here is how they define rookie card. I have a picture of the article of page 23. I totaly disagree with this premise regarding true rookie cards. I like the book for reference only. They seem to ignore completely the T206 tobacco set because it was issued over a period of several years, and the fact that they were available only in cigarette packs. What a crock of <u> </u> <u> </u>. Here is the article. Decide for yourselves what it is worth. Nothing in my opinion.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1149356986.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>and who's commentary is that, in the book? Is it from the Beckett editor, or who? I would find it difficult to believe that a very experienced hobbyist said that. Stranger things have happened though.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Thanks for the good laugh. Whoever wrote obviously hasn't been around the hobby very long. I also get a good chuckle from "..the early days of the organized hobby...only recognized distributors like (Topps, Fleer, Donruss, Pper Deck)". I guess Burdick, Barker, et al never existed.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Hey guys, I agree with you 100% regarding this article in the Ultimate Rookie Card encyclopedia. That is completely bogus and unfounded what they are saying about the vintage tobacco cards. Let me look at this issue from this perspective. Suppose these cards had never been issued at all. Then what would be considered the rookie cards of Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. Not to mention the fact that one of the most beautiful and historic sets containing the most valuable card in the hobby would never have existed. What does it matter that the T206 cards were issued over a period of several years. It sounds like Beckett has it's own agenda, though I am not sure what it is. I thought this would be worth a good laugh. LOL<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Leon, it does not credit the article in the book "Ultimate Rookie card encyclopedia. I would highly recommend this book to all of my fellow vintage card collectors if you would like a good laugh. The book is a joke. I just purchased it to see what it was all about. Sorry I wasted the money.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>Richard: thanks for the scan of the Becketts criteria. Reading that only confirms that Becketts is a joke.