View Full Version : Foxx Rookie?
Archive
05-17-2007, 04:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike Heatherly</b><p>Is the 1926-1929 Exhibit considered one of, or his distinct rookie? Doe's anyone know the ballpark value of this card in a 3 grade?
Archive
05-17-2007, 04:40 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The exhibit is his rookie, and since I have one on ebay closing in a couple of hours, I will let someone else appraise it.
Archive
05-17-2007, 04:43 PM
Posted By: <b>Mike Heatherly</b><p>Nuff said, thanks for your imput!
Archive
05-17-2007, 04:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Do not forget HBL rookie card rule No. 5 - If one card was issued over a series of years, another card issue during such period is also a rookie card. Hence, the 1927 W560 Foxx is a rookie card.
Archive
05-17-2007, 05:30 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thus begins the debate. I think there are some cards where there is more than one rookie, especially when it's not clear which was issued first. For example, 1934 Goudey Greenberg vs. 1934 Batter-Up Greenberg.
Archive
05-17-2007, 06:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Actually, Greenberg is governed by HBL rookie card rule No. 6 - If one card was issued over a range of years (e.g., 1924-36 Batter-Up), another card was issued solely during the first year of such range (1934 Goudey or Tigers Team Issue), then the card issued solely in the first year is teh sole rookie card. And so it has been written.
Archive
05-17-2007, 06:48 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If Batter Up was issued between 1934 and 1936, it's reasonable to assume some Greenberg's were printed in 1934. Did they precede the Goudey issue? I have no idea. I understand your point, but there is always a debate.
Archive
05-17-2007, 07:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>HBL rookie card rule No. 2 - it matters not which card was released first to market during a particular year (The answer could easily vary by geographic location.)
Archive
05-17-2007, 07:22 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What are the HBL rules? Are those Hal's initials?
Archive
05-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Yes.<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
05-18-2007, 05:33 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />For purists like us, I'm sure we would not consider the 1933 Goudey, Jimmy Foxx #29 a rookie. But the SCD has indicated that it is now significantly more valuable than the other Foxx in the 1933 Goudey set. What's up with that.<br /><br />Peter
Archive
05-18-2007, 06:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>The 1st series Foxx card #29 was printed on inferior cardboard (coarse stock). Therefore, this card<br /> is much more difficult to find in nice shape. As is the 1st 50-55 cards in this set. Besides the fact<br /> that Bengough is the #1 card the same applies to his card. Goudey used very crude cardboard in the<br />first series.<br /><br />The higher # Foxx always shows up in better condition.