Matty's RC?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>What card or cards are widely considered as his rookie or first issue?<br /><br />edited to add - I'm talking about Christy Mathewson <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p>1903 Breisch Williams e107

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>He has 2 W600's that came out in 1902 a year before the Breisch.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>1901 Police Gazette Rookie "piece" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/rman444/matty.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>Richard,<br /><br />Very nice piece but is that considered a card? Or is it a magazine supplement?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p>Bobby:<br /><br />Has there been a consensus that a W600 qualifies as a "rookie" card? I'm reasonably sure that Supplements (sorry Richard) do not.<br /><br />Now, if the poster wants to know the earliest medium: card, supplement, newspaper, etc. that Matty may have been pictured that's a different story. I think I have something at home from Leslies dated in the spring of 1901. I'll check.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Since both PSA & SGC now grade the W600's, I would consider the 1902 issue to be Matty's RC. The problem with the W600's is that they reprinted the same photos and sometimes the same captions on later issues up to 1911 so it is very difficult to prove which year a specific card was first issued in. That includes those dated 1902 which were also subsequently reproduced in later years.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>For whatever reason, not all collectors recognize oversized issues as cards. So one school will say W600, and another E107, is Matty's rookie card. There is so much debate on what a true rookie card is, and there has never been a consensus.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Bobby - What I posted is a supplement which is clearly not a card, but when I photoshop it down in size, put it inside of a virtual SGC slab and print it out on my computer, I can convince myself otherwise.<br /><br />My serious answer to the original question is that I would consider the e107 his rookie. Since I can't and will probably never be able to afford one, the 1901 supplement will have to do.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />You underestimate the power of Beckett's, they virtually control the periodical price guide market.<br /><br />Beckett's says the 3 T206 Mattey's are his rookie cards. At least 33% of the collectors have already bought into this line. Although I don't totally agree, I am shopping around for a T206 Mathewson Portrait to go with the Dark Cap and White Cap I already have.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>While I understand exactly what you said I just can't believe you actually believe that? Beckett (not Dr.Jim) said Ruth's rookie is the 1933 Goudey too.....and if you follow that line of thinking then I don't know what to say....which is fairly unusual for me..

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Peter, the "Beckett Rookie Card Encyclopedia" says none of T206 cards is a rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>That's only because they wanted to avoid controversy, but since we are Net54, controversy is our middle name. Look at the most recent monthly Beckett and the Quarterly Beckett Baseball guides. The T206s Matty's are listed as RCs.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>No serious HOF rookie collector would consider the T206s to be Matty's rookie. Even setting the W600 aside, the E107 is a definate card. And I believe E90-1's date to 1908 according to Ted.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Here's a tough one for you: the Mordecai Brown rookie card is the 1904 Allegheny, but it is unique and if the current owner chooses not to sell it, in a sense it doesn't even exist in the marketplace.<br /><br />So is it fair to call Brown's 1906 Fan Craze card his rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p>I think we have to go back to a one of the generally accepted elements of a "rookie" and that is that it was in general circulation. That would exclude Allegheny. JMHO

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Well Zinn, Beckett's defines general circulation as nationally distributed, that's how they concluded that the T206 Matty's were rookie cards.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p>Peter:<br /><br />While I don't know where e107 was distributed I don't think anyone could argue that a player first appearing in the set as a major leaguer was not a "rookie".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p>I'm home. You're safe. The Leslies is April 17, 1902 and my Burr McIntosh is 1903.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Zinn - Thanks. I feel that the value of my Prookie XRC 1/1 is shooting upwards out of control.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Thus far, this is the earliest Matty card I have been able to obtain, 1905 .................<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/MathewsonChristy-1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>This is the earliest real Matty card I have managed to acquire. I think it qualifies as the earliest non-cabinet Matty card aside from the E107.<br /><br /><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/rman444/matty-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Matty's rookie card is the E107. It is so expensive and rare, I doubt I will ever be able to own one. <br /><br />Sporting Life reprinted the earlier photos and issued them over the span of nine years from 1902 to 1911. For that reason, it is almost impossible to determine the year the W600s were issued. Plus the cabinets are more like mounted photographs than cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Great card, Richard. Your's definitely presents better than mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>It looks like Beckett's doesn't have a clue when it comes to vintage rookie cards. First, they say in the Rookie Encyclopedia, printed in 2006 that Tobacco cards are not rookie cards because they came out over a period of several years instead of just one. Then in 2007 in both the monthly and quarterly Becketts they start listing T206s as rookie cards...what's next.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Many of the 1902 W600s say "1902" right on the front. Maybe all of them do. I'm not sure. Perhaps Scott Brockelman or Jerry Spillman can shed some light on this. In any case, I doubt Sporting Life would have continued using the "1902" designation on the front in later years. So, if Matty is one of the players that was issued with "1902" on the front, it would be easy to tell if you had a rookie.<br /><br /><br />Here's an example. The scan's a little blurry but it says "First Baseman of the Philadelphia (N.L.) Club of 1902."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1182918265.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I can help you with your dilemma. Do like the rest of the world and basically ignore Beckett when it comes to anything produced before 1950.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>It makes sense to me...but I'm starting to see a whole family of Beckett periodicals on the magazine racks. They are the price guide for the shiney new stuff. Not only that, they have recently come out with a periodical for graded cards. Collectors of the shiney new stuff, when they start getting interested in Vintage will turn to Beckett's and their definitions.<br /><br />Peter