'33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies [Archive]

View Full Version : '33 Goudey Ruths are not Rookies

Archive

11-27-2006, 09:47 AM

Posted By: peter chaoDear Guys, Why did Beckett decide that half the '33 Goudey cards would become rookies. Mel Ott with the bat and the portrait card are gorgeous but they are not rookies. Neither are the Ruths and the Gehrigs. But because of Beckett's designation of these cards as rookies, I expect a major pop in the '33 Goudey set in the near future. Peter

Archive

11-27-2006, 10:49 AM

Posted By: cmokingIf they did that, they simply have no clue what they are doing. I love the Goudeys, but the Ruth cards are not close to being his rookie cards. I doubt their mistake will change the marketplace much.

Archive

11-27-2006, 05:23 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonIn a nutshell, it seems to me that Beckett feels the "RC" (rookie card) designation can only be given to a card from a "mainstream, nationally issued" set. They evidently feel that all the E, M, etc cards are not nationally issued, and were only regional issues. Therefore, no cards from these sets can be officially recognized as "rookie cards". Edited to add that I just this weekend looked at a Beckett Rookie Card Encyclopedia, and remember seeing a statement in it along the lines that they won't officially designate a card as a "RC" if it comes from a set that was issued over a number of years. In other words, a set must be a single-year issue to have any of it's cards recognized as a "RC". Steve

Archive

11-28-2006, 06:34 AM

Posted By: John Kalafarski I wonder who first came up with the idea that a rookie card is something special? A rookie card should be issued in the same year a player makes his debut in the major leagues. Stan Musial came to the Cards in 1941 (12 games) and 1942 (140 games), yet his rookie card is thought of as the 1948 Bowman. This is meaningless. It's his first card, not his rookie card.

Archive

12-05-2006, 10:29 AM

Posted By: peter chaoJohn, According to my recollection, the '84 Donruss rookie Mattingly was the first card that was hot almost from the first time it came out. Probably the hobby had already focused on rookie cards prior to that date but the '84 Donruss Mattingly created the phenomenon known as "rookie" fever. The Donruss card was favored over both the Topps rookie and the Fleer rookies from '84 because it was percieved as being more scarce. Around the same time or perhaps a little bit after '84 the Pete Rose '63 Topps rookie took off because he was approaching the All-Time hits record. The rookie card became established as the key and most important card to own of a baseball player. Now in 2005 and 2006, Beckett comes up with their current definition of a rookie card and the Goudey Ruths become rookie cards and probably will soon be much too expensive for my limited Baseball card budget. Laugh out loud. So as far as I'm concerned making the Goudey Ruths rookie cards is not such a great idea. However, I can see why people who already owned these 4 cards prior to 2005 would think the Beckett definition is pretty sound. Peter

Archive

12-05-2006, 10:52 AM

Posted By: Todd Schultzclassifying the '33 Goudey as Ruth's rookie is simply a flat-out mistake. Hell, Ruth had very few cards after 1933, with a dozen or more beforehand, especially if you count back variations. There is no rhyme nor reason to the regional vs. national argument either. There is nothing to suggest that m101-4s were not distributed nationally in 1916; in fact, the advertisements in the Sporting News point to the contrary. Moreover, I do not believe it has been concluded that Goudey gum was any more available in San Franciso than Collins-McCarthy candy was in Boston, or that either was distributed throughout Texas, for example, so the tag of "national" seems to be a bit of a moving target. Finally, Ruth appeared on several Exhibit cards throughout the '20s, and while collectors contort the definition of "card" to suit their needs, the fact is these depictions appear to have been sold throughout the US as well, and not just regionally. In sum, there is no reason to call the '33 Goudey the Babe's rookie. The card and all poses thereof stand on their own at or near the top of the hobby's desire list, such that there is no need to puff their value with such RC designations.

Archive

12-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Posted By: leonAs much as I like the Beckett folks no matter what they call a '33 Goudey Ruth it will never be generally accepted as his rookie by anyone other than collectors that don't collect Pre-War material. Just because someone calls a dog a cat, it doesn't make it one.....

Archive

12-05-2006, 11:47 AM

Posted By: Bryan LongCollector: Are you a expert on vintage cards? Beckett: No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. .

Archive

12-05-2006, 11:55 AM

Posted By: BobbyA lot more then a dozen cards for Ruth before 1933 Goudey including variations...here is what I have 119 and does not in other sets he is in during the 1933 year. 1914 Baltimore News Orioles9 1916 Successful Farming151 1916 Mall Theatre151 1916 Indianapolis Brewing151 1916 Holmes for Homes Bread151 1916 Herpolsheimer's (M101-4)151 1916 Green-Joyce151 1916 Gimbels (M101-5)151 1916 Gimbels (M101-4)151 1916 Famous & Barr151 1916 Everybody151 1916 Block & Kuhl (1916)151 1916 Wares151 1916D329Weil Baking Co.151 1916H801-9Globe Clothing Store151 1916M101-4Sporting News & Blank151 1916M101-5Sporting News & Blank151 1916W-UNC (1916-20)W-UNC Strip Cards (1916-20)17 1917D328Weil Baking Co.147 1917D350-2Standard Biscuit147 1917E135Collins-McCarthy147 1917H801-8Boston Store147 1919W514W514 Strip Card2(Home Run King) 1920W516-1-2W516-1-2 Strip Card1 1920W516-1W516-1 Strip Card1 1920W519-1W519-1 Numbered Strip Card5 1920W519-2W519-2 Unnumbered Strip Card10 1920W520W520 Strip Card13 1920W522W522 Strip Card48 1921 Clarks Bread143(R.F.) 1921 Clarks Bread144(L.F.) 1921 Clarks Bread145(W/man, bird) 1921 Herpolsheimer's (1921)45 1921 Whitmor Candy94 1921 Whitmor Candy95 1921 Whitmor Candy96 1921D383Koester Bread41 1921E121-80American Caramel--Series of 8094 1921E121-80American Caramel--Series of 8095 1921E121-80American Caramel--Series of 8096 1921E220National Caramel89 1921E253Oxford Confectionery15 1921W-UNC (1921)W-UNC Strip Cards (1921)11 1921W461-1Exhibits 1921 (Set 1)50 1921W516-2-1W516-2-1 Strip Card10 1921W516-2-2W516-2-2 Strip Card10 1921W521W521 Strip Card5 1921W551W551 Strip Card7 1922 Gassler's Bread143(R.F.) 1922 Big-Tayto-Loaf Bread143(R.F.) 1922 Gassler's Bread144(L.F.) 1922 Big-Tayto-Loaf Bread144(L.F.) 1922 Gassler's Bread145(W/man, bird) 1922 Big-Tayto-Loaf Bread145(W/man, bird) 1922 Eastern Exhibit Supply Co.15 1922E120American Caramel--Series of 240186 1922E121-120American Caramel--Series of 120100(Photo montague "Babe") 1922E121-120American Caramel--Series of 120101(Holding bird) 1922E121-120American Caramel--Series of 120102(Holding bird) 1922E121-120American Caramel--Series of 120103(Holding ball) 1922E121-120American Caramel--Series of 12099(Photo montague. Babe) 1922E122American Caramel--Series of 8059 1922V100Willard's Chocolate139 1922V61-1Neilson's Chocolate (Type 1)37 1922V61-2Neilson's Chocolate (Type 2)92 1922V89William Paterson25 1922W501W501 Strip Card49 1922W503W503 Strip Card32 1922W573W573 Strip Card186 1922W575-1W575-1 Strip Card143(R.F.) 1922W575-1W575-1 Strip Card145(W/man, bird) 1922W575-2W575-2 Strip Card27 1923 Lections8 1923E123Curtis Ireland Candy139 1923V117Maple Crispette8 1923W461-3Exhibits 1923-24 (Set 3)46 1923W515-1W515-1 Strip Card3 1923W515-1W515-1 Strip Card47 1923W515-2W515-2 Strip Card3 1923W515-2W515-2 Strip Card47 1923W572W572 Strip Card89 1924V122Willard's Sports Champions5 1925W461-4Exhibits 1925 (Set 4)91 1925W590W590 Strip Cards42(King of the bat) 1926 Sports Co. of America Champions36(1926 Copyright) 1926 Sports Co. of America Champions37(1927 Copyright) 1926 Exhibit Postcard backs (1926-1929)45(Pose) 1926 Exhibit Postcard backs (1926-1929)46(Batting follow through) 1926W461-5Exhibits 1926 (Set 5)98 1926W512W512 Strip Card6 1927 Honey Boy Ice Cream14 1927E126American Caramel--Series of 6038 1927E210 (Type 1)York Caramels6 1927E210 (Type 2)York Caramels (Type 2)6-pitch(Pitching) 1927E210 (Type 2)York Caramels (Type 2)6-port(Portrait) 1927W461-6Exhibits (green; Set 6)49 1927W560W560 Strip Card36 1928 1928 Star Player Candy58 1928F50Yuengling's Ice Cream6 1928F50Sweetman6 1928F50Harrington's Ice Cream6 1928F50Tharp's Ice Cream6a (Portrait)(Portrait) 1928F50Tharp's Ice Cream6b (Throwing)(Throwing) 1928R315R31536 1928W461-7Exhibits (blue) 1928 (Set 7)43 1928W502W502 Strip Card (1928)6 1929 1929 Star Player Candy21 1929R316Kashin Publications79 1929W553W553 Strip Card13 1930 Baguer Chocolate72 1930W554W554 Strip Card15 1931W-UNC (1931)W-UNC Strip Cards (1931)29 1931W502W502 Strip Card (1931)29 1931W517 MiniW517 Strip Card (Mini)20 1931W517 MiniW517 Strip Card (Mini)4 1931W517W517 Strip Card20 1931W517W517 Strip Card4 1932 Rogers Peet48 1932R328U. S. Caramel32

Archive

12-05-2006, 11:57 AM

Posted By: ChadThat's a lot of cards. Babe was kinda popular I guess. --Chad

Archive

12-05-2006, 12:24 PM

Posted By: DennyMost Interesting Find! I wonder if Beckett New about this one? <a href="http://www.psadna.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4808&universeid=353&universedir=psadna.com&type=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.psadna.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4808&universeid=353&universedir=psadna.com&type=1</a> Denny Walsh

Archive

12-05-2006, 12:33 PM

Posted By: leonThat team "card" is a photo, imo, but the '14 Ruth Baltimore card is what is considered by many to be his rookie card...along with his M101-4/5's. The team card will be overly hyped as a card by the auction house but I don't blame them for doing it. Cards sell for more than photo's, for the most part. regards

Archive

12-05-2006, 12:35 PM

Posted By: BobbyJust go to my site and do a search for any player and you will get a list of all the cards they are on in chronological order. We have most sets in there and working on adding more all the time especially the cuban issues.

Archive

12-05-2006, 01:35 PM

Posted By: DennyLeon, I just thought Beckett to be way off the mark. The 1914 Card of Ruth's is a beauty and I can only sumbit that you're absolutely right! REA did a grand job with this find, but none the less - The Photo (card?) is quite the piece. Bobby, love your site! Use it everyday. Have a question about card image's that are not there though! Is it because you need permission of the owner's of said cards and/or just can't find one? What's the deal? Denny Walsh

Archive

12-05-2006, 01:50 PM

Posted By: RichardBobby - I think several on your list from 1916 and 1917 fit into the "theoretically could exist" catagory, but is there really a copy of each one out there? Probably not.

Archive

12-05-2006, 02:04 PM

Posted By: BobbyGot post the theoretical until it is proven wrong...right and if so then it will be easier for me to delete it from the list then adding it.

Archive

12-05-2006, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzIf you want to identify all the possible m101-4 and m101-5 backs, then add 1916 Altoona Tribune, Burgess-Nash, Morehouse Baking and Standard Biscuit D350-1 (one each for m101-4 and m101-5), add Famous & Barr to include both m101-4 and m101-5, and delete reference to m101-5 Sporting News, leaving blank back only.

Archive

12-05-2006, 05:01 PM

Posted By: MarkIs Beckett's stance really different from saying a 1947 Bond Bread Robinson is not a rookie (which nobody disputed)? <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1160931056/last-1161396438/rookies" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="<a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1160931056/last-1161396438/rookies</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1160931056/last-1161396438/rookies</a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1160931056/last-1161396438/rookies</a</a>&gt" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1160931056/last-1161396438/rookies</a</a>&gt</a>; I disagree with the national distribution rule, but at least Beckett applies it consistantly.

Archive

12-05-2006, 06:59 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI don't understand what you're saying. Ruth was distributed in the m101 sets as of 1916, and these sets were clearly distributed on a national level. So ignore the Bond Bread issue as being regional for Jackie if you wish, but there were multiple issues of Ruth distributed on a national basis before 1933.

Archive

12-06-2006, 09:29 AM

Posted By: peter chaoTodd, Beckett has a real tortured definition of a rookie card. Although M-101 Ruths were nationally distributed they were not from a major card company. Peter

Archive

12-06-2006, 10:34 AM

Posted By: Todd Schultzthen every card in the '33 Goudey set is that player's rookie card except for Collins, Speaker and Lajoie(I assume even Beckett would acknowledge t206), since there were no "major card companies" before and it was Goudey's first offering. If that is their yardstick, it is worse than worthless--it is deceptive.

Archive

12-06-2006, 10:42 AM

Posted By: peter chaoTodd, You hit it right on the nose, that is exactly what Beckett is saying. There is a bunch of rookies in the '33 Goudey set. Beckett's opinion may not mean much to old line vintage collectors, but to the new guy that wants to get into vintage cards, they will take Beckett's opinion seriously and the '33 Goudey set should get a substantial bump. Peter

Archive

12-06-2006, 03:53 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonActually Todd, Beckett evidently does NOT recognize T206's as rookie cards. One of Beckett's criteria is that the set must be a "single-year" issue, and since T206 was issued over a 3-year period (1909-1911), they won't recognize any of the cards as rookies. Steve

Archive

12-06-2006, 04:17 PM

Posted By: peter chaoSteve, That's what I mean when I say that Beckett's has a "tortured rookie card definition." I suppose Beckett's was thinking that if you can't get a set printed within one year you can't be a major card co., or some other tortured reasoning. Laugh out loud. Peter

Archive

12-06-2006, 05:36 PM

Posted By: MarkTodd, Did any particular M101 issuer nationlly distribute its cards? If so, which one(s)? Gimbel's Dept. Store, for example, was only located only in Philly and NYC in 1916. I assume Beckett is viewing the different M101 and T206 issues as different issues rather than aggregating all M101s and all T206s and perhaps no one issuer distributed nationally. When they say "major card companies," again, I believe they're concerned with excluding regional issuers. In my view, Beckett's saying that Goudey's were the first nationally issued card of Ruth and therefore his rookie is akin to saying '49 Leafs are Robinson's rookie bc they were nationally-issued or "major grading company" cards that '48 Bowman is Musial's rookie. Mark

Archive

12-06-2006, 05:49 PM

Posted By: leonI would guess that the Sporting News backs were distributed nationally but am not positive.... edited to say I don't think the value of the newly coined Ruth rookie will be affected either....

Archive

12-06-2006, 05:57 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI can assure you that the claim that the 33 Goudey set is suddenly full of 'new' rookie cards will not cause the value of these cards to go up one nickel.

Archive

12-06-2006, 07:08 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzThe Sporting News backs would have been distributed nationally. By the way, what evidence is there that Goudey was distributed nationally?

Archive

12-06-2006, 07:57 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJeff, Here's where I disagree with you. I fully expect the Goudey cards to start moving up. I know that Beckett is not the primary source of pricing information for vintage card buyers. But it is an important secondary source and probably the most relied upon price guide in general. It will definitely influence the buying decisions of new prewar collectors, just like Topps influenced T-206 prices when they came out with their retro set a couple of years ago. And Leon, Goudey was nationally distributed because Beckett says so, laugh out loud. Peter