To me, the Exhibit is his "true rookie". BUT I'm perfectly satisfied having the '33 Goudey and considering it "a rookie". I don't really have all that much of an interest in the Exhibit, but at some point my opinion may change. Basically '33 is perfectly acceptable to many. I think we need a list of "latest acceptable rookie cards" as a counterpart to the "true rookie card" and the "earliest collectible" lists.

Matt:

Based on the overwhelming response, I have already removed the two stickers and I have previously mentioned why no studio cabinet cards were included (not sure if you are referring to the N142 Davis, which was part of a nationaolly distributed set). Same thing with the W600's, they were also part of a nationally distributed set and although they are larger than typical trading cards, their obvious function was to be collected as specified by the issuer.

The M101-1's are just way too large and although they were also issued with the intent to be collected and were a nationally distributed series, I think you would have a very hard time finding many serious collectors who would classify them as cards. This in no way prevents them from Rookie status just not Rookie Cards.

Dan:

I know that we have agreed to disagree in the past on the Ferrell RC. I guess it is a good thing that his is the only one that falls into this category amongst HOF Rookie Cards. Since this is a unique situation, I am going to add his '33 Goudey & Worch Cigars to my listing and mark them as Second Cards. BTW Ferrell is misrepresented once again on his 1933 4-on-1 Exhibits as well so I won't bother listing that one.

Would you count T3s? It seems the size thing is a bit arbitrary - W600s are in, I imagine T3s would be in as well, but M101-1s are 'way too large' to be considered.

Matt:

I would say that T3's are similar to W600's and would be included, although there aren't any that qualify as Rookie Cards. Part of it too is the thicker paper stock of the T3's, W600's, N142's, etc. as compared to the thin paper of the M101-1's, which are really premiums or supplements as opposed to cards.

Personally, I would love to call the M101-1's Rookie Cards as I have close to a dozen that would qualify as Rookies but I also am aware of the general concensus that they should not be classified as cards.

Great list. Thank you for the work. This is one of the most informarive and enjoyable threads ive read on here in a while.

Phil,

Was it discussed already why:
Lefty Grove (1927 W560)

and not Left Grove (1926-29 PC Exhibits)?

same question for Jimmy Foxx?

Thanks
Dan

Dan:

I don't think that it has been mentioned yet. Based on the research that I did on the uniforms worn in the Exhibit photos, they would have to have been produced after 1927.

Phil,

I haven't see anywhere that the 26-29 Exhibits were issued later than 1926 before. FYI. There's probably just a good a chance that the W560's were issued in 1929 or later:

Check the thread "List of sets with incorrect years recorded.." that I started back in April.

From George (Abothebear):
The W560s have been discussed here as being catalogued incorrectly. It can't be a 1927 set, and is probably a 1929 issue (or later?). Is that that the kind thing you are looking for?
Then from Larry (ls7plus):
I agree with George. The W560 set contains Foxx, which would seem highly unlikely absent some psychic prowess on the part of the manufacturer, as Jimmie's first year of any note at all would have been 1928 (.328, 13 HR's in 400 at bats), with his first real Foxx-type year occurring in 1929 (.354, 33 HR's). 1929 at the absolute earliest.
The from Rhett:
-W560 is 1929 at the earliest (see recent thread) as there are players within that were first with that team in 1929.

Dan:

I have not found anything definitive yet regarding the W560 set being issued later than 1927, all of the grading companies and card catalogues still have it listed as a 1927 set. That may not be correct or it could be a multi-year issue or one with updates made at a later point in time to explain some of the team changes, etc.

In general, I try to stay away from speculating on possible issue date discrepancies of every vintage baseball card set as you can begin to question just about every set ever produced if you look into it hard enough.

Not that it matters to me, but sorry, that doesn't make sense. It's your list and you can make whatever rules you want but you researched and determined that 1926-29 Exhibits could not have been issued until 1929 based on uniforms (I haven't heard anything regarding any of the N54 experts agreeing).

Rhett (and two others) did research and determined that the W560's could not have been produced until at least 1929. Not trying to cause trouble, but when Rhett speaks I listen.

Not blaming you, but this is a perfect example of why many collectors don't want to get involved in pre-war HOF RC collecting.

I guess I'd have to make my own list to get this right (lol). Both cards should be listed as acceptable RC's based on what I'm hearing. Understand this doesn't affect my personal collection since I have both cards for both players. I'd just like to get the list as consistent and accurate as possible.

No hunger strike threat this time!

Thanks for listening.

Although the postcard-back exhibits were produced over several years, the Foxx and Grove examples in question could not have been produced until after 1927 based on the uniforms, since these are large-size cards it is possibe to make that determination without needing Net 54 experts to agree with me.

I am not necessarily doubting that the W560 series was produced later than 1927 but am not sure what the exact date is.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. Things like this are just one more reason we need a list of "latest acceptable rookie cards" to go with these lists.. We've gotta somehow set an industry standard as to what is an acceptable rookie, within reason. That way people aren't running around claiming that 1948 Bowman is Rizzuto's rookie, and '34 Goudey is Ruth and Gehrig's, along with other various ridiculous claims based on loose standards and Beckett..

I'm gonna side with Phil on this. When there is evidence based on uniforms that a card could not have been produced before a certain year(especially in a multi-year run), then you have to go with it, basing each card individually on it's own characteristics. Whereas, with the w560's, there is evidence to support the fact that they could've been produced over a few years, but nothing to support any claims of a definitive starting point. And apparently '27 came from somewhere, so we gotta trust it until proven otherwise. We could call it 1927-29 w560 for now, but couldn't definitively call it simply 1929 w560...

That's a very interesting bit of research, and quite worthy of consideration here. I think that what we'll probably see in terms of $$$ values and various contenders for "rookie" status sometime down the road are significant premiums placed on a number of very early cards of HOF'ers, as some of the very earliest cards of certain HOF'ers are so rare that they may well turn out to be "unobtainium" for all but a very, very small handful of collectors. Kind of like what's happened with the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth versus the M101 major league rookie. Throw a 1917 Collins-McCarthy Ruth in that mix too! If this was one of my appellate briefs, I'd also probably say something like, "in accord, E90-1 Joe Jackson vs T210 Jackson." Regardless of which actually came first, I like the 1926-1929 Grove over the W560 based purely on eye appeal--same with the Foxx. Just my personal preference.

May your collecting be good and the wind be at your back!

Larry

OK, understood. My opinion would be if there was a question, why not list both cards? However, it's Phil's call.

Phil, here is the link to the thread regarding 1932 US Caramel having to be issued in 1933. This would mean that any player that has a 1932 US Caramel as their RC should also have their 1933 Goudey listed as an acceptable RC.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...+lis%20%20ting

One more question: for the HOF'ers who have 1904 Allegheny listed as their RC, there's a second acceptable RC card listed. Is this because there is only one Allegheny for each HOF'er known to exist?

Dan:

Yes, the Alleghenys are unique so I listed a second card for those players as per someone's request earlier in this thread.

Listing a second card for the W560's with the set's date in question isn't a bad idea, I will go ahead and work on that today.

The only US Caramel RC is Lefty Gomez so I will go ahead and list his 1933 card(s) as alternative RC's.

Thanks again for your input!

Phil,
Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing (1924 Diaz Cigarettes); I believe there is only one known copy for each player (Mark, RustyWilly has one of them). Similar to the Allegheny RC's shouldn't these two also have a second card listed?


Chic Hafey (1928 Star Player Candy); Only 1 graded (by SGC). I've never seen one, have you? Could we also assume there's only one know copy?

Hack Wilson (1925 W504); Early Wynn (1948 Safe-T-Card/Gunther Beer Postcards): Pop 0 for PSA and SGC; I've never seen one (for any player), can't be many around?
Thanks

I agree about listing both cards. But that's where a list like the one you were working on comes into play. As it not only list the "true" rookie cards, but also "latest acceptable" rookie cards, with everything in between..

Phil, is there any chance you could list the 1939 Goudey premium as Joe Gordon's rookie? I just think it would be a little more effective for the list, rather than a multi-year release, especially since they both at least started in the same year.

Also, I know there's ways to date the later exhibit runs, but is there any way to pin down the exact years on the salutations?

R303A should be listed for Teddy ballgame.

Matt:

I know that this is a questionable call but I chose not to include those types of paper premiums as "cards", thus omitting them from Rookie Card consideration. The same thing applied to the Joe Gordon - Goudey Premium that David mentioned as well.

David:

I'm not an expert on the dating of the Salutation Exhibits but I believe that you can narrow most down to a more specific range of years but not a definitive issue date.

More good questions, Dan.

Regarding the Diaz Cigarettes RC's. since there are a number of examples known from this set with multiple copies of their cards, I think that it is safe to assume that they are not unique examples, very tough to find, for sure but likely not unique.

Same thinking would apply to the Star Player Candy issue as well as the couple of others that you mentioned. I have seen the Hack Wilson & Early Wynn, each is very scarce as well but not unique.

You are the first collector I've ever come across that qualifies R314s, R313s and R311s and doesn't qualify R303s, but, as was said above, it's your list.

Matt:

The R314 & R313 (which I never mentioned on my list) are both postcard sized items. The R311 (which I also never mentioned on my list) is much larger as is the R303A in question. I would not consider either of those to be cards.

nm

Actually R303A is not much larger than postcard size. They are 4" x 6-3/16" (even the larger R303Bs are smaller than W600s). Again, it's your list so do as you see fit, but you are the first collector I've met that has made that distinction.

Matt:

Until I just looked it up today, I did not realize that the R303 A,B & C's were different sizes, the B's & C's are larger and the A's are smaller. Am I correct that the Williams is the only Rookie in the "A" series?

Anyway, I am going to add that one as another option to my Ted Williams listing. Thanks for the insight on it.

I guess that the R312's would be okay then as they are about the same size. I will go ahead and add those in too.

Both the dual tone and single toned W560 sets are BOTH 1929 issues at the earliest!

-The dual tones (either red photo on black suit cards, or black on red) were produced first and are a more mixed-subject set (more football, boxing, actors, etc.). Rogers Hornsby is in the set as a member of the Chicago Cubs, a team he was first with in 1929.

-The single tone set was produced after the dual toned set, and many of the non-baseball subjects were eliminated (not all though). This set has as one of the new players added Fred Maguire with the Boston Braves, a team was not with until 1929.

The common denominator in all of this is the 1929, that is the earliest these sets could have been made. We have had this discussion before...
http://net54baseball.com/showthread....hlight=maguire

I'm not sure there is any debate left about them, were I a rookie card collector I would not be counting these as a 1927 set.

-Rhett

Thanks for the info, Rhett. I will go back and look at the other options for those three players with W560 Rookie Cards (Foxx, Grove & L. Waner) and see if the W560's still remain as their earliest card, even as a 1929 issue.

Well, Waner has another 1927 card so the W560 has now been removed.

After doing more research on the Grove and Foxx P/C Back Exhibits, they could have been produced in 1928 or 1929.

For Foxx, that would make the P/C Back Exhibit his primary Rookie Card.

For Grove, his 1928 Star Player Candy would be his primary Rookie Card with the P/C Back Exhibit as another possibility but not as definitively dated.

Based on this info, I will go ahead and update the Foxx and Grove entries.

Maybe Adam W. can provide a definitive date on the Foxx and Grove P/C Back Exhibits.

Agree--Adam would definitely be the guy.

Larry

1939 R303 Williams
 

I agree with you guys that the 1939 R303 Williams should definitely be classified as one of his rookies. Would love to have one in any shape, so long as its graded, if anyone has one they are interested in parting with at a reasonable price.

Another card I have always suspected was a Ted Williams rookie was the 1939-46 Exhibits "No. 9 shows." The pop reports would seem to indicate this card may well have been a one year only issue, with presumably a change to the more artistic "#9 not showing" thereafter. Maybe Adam would have some info here as well.

Best regards,

Larry

I'll take a look and see what I can come up with.

Phil. can we add the new additions to this list?

Also, wanted to Bump the topic for any new members..

Thanks, Dave, just added the new HOF'ers from both 2012 & 2013.

Shouldn't the Posey RC be the 1988 Negro League Stars card....looking back at the original post, Phil? Or is this list updated somewhere else?

Jimi:

I did not include any team photo cards, that's why the Posey from 1988 is not there.

Gotcha. I've not owned one, and I guess I hadn't realized they were a photo of some sort. They look like cards to me.

PM sent.

Jimi

He wasn't saying that it was a photo, he was saying that it was basically a team card...

Personally, I'd count the card since he is singularly named on the bottom of the card, and depicted individually outside of the team picture... Just to note, I don't have the card, but have been looking a while for an affordable one, same with the 1996 playing card of effa manley...

Tris Speaker rookie card
 

Tris Speaker (1908-09 Rose Company Postcards) is listed here as his rookie card. Has anyone ever seen copy of this postcard or know of the existence of one?

Veeck and Paige
 

Both Bill Veeck and Satchel Paige appear in the Cleveland Indians team picture pack in 1948. Would you count these? I know these specific cards have been discussed here in a 2011 thread

Interesting that I've seen many threads and places mentioning this card but haven't ever seen one either. Is it a mistake or has someone actually seen it?

http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rook...ail.asp?id=329

http://www.sgccard.com/pricesrealize...picture&id=614

here's mine...
 

here's my 1988 Posey - and yes, it's definitely a "card", not a "photo" - and it's shockingly not all that affordable...I've been looking for the 1996 Manley card for a while as well:

I have never seen a Rose Co. Speaker either. The inclusion of that card in the OldCardboard database is simply because it is checklisted so I assume that it does exist. Michael provided a nice example of the Novelty Cutlery Speaker but not a Rose Co. one.

Speaker has been listed on the Std. Catalog of BB Cards Rose Co. Postcard Checklist since the first issue I believe. (Anyone have a first issue?) I thought Bob Lemke might come on and tell how reliable his source was at the time.

You can't prove a negative but I doubt that there is a Rose Co. Speaker postcard.

Phil. I can't believe I never noticed this before. Shouldn't Tom Connolly and Barrow have both the "1950-56 Callahan" and the "1953-55 Artvue Type 1" listed?

Considering that they were both Hall of Fame sets, and that Connolly and Barrow were both enshrined in '53, I think it would be safe to breakdown their Callahans even further to "1953-56". This to me would make the Artvue type 1 the primary rookies, since it starts concurrently and the run definitively ends before the Callahans...

Dave:

You're right, the possible issue dates for Connolly and Barrow are pretty close for both sets. Basically, I chose the Callahan set because the start date was earlier and since both are $10 - $20 cards, I did not spend an inordinate amount of time researching all possibilities.

update?
 

I love this list. Any way you can update with the newbies?

Also, has there been any discussion about the Reccius Cigars Honus Wagner?