Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge
Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.
|
And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card. Point to the 1949 Leaf set. We know the cards have stats from 1948, collectors have said they bought the cards in 1949 and hobby publications from the time say they were released in 1949. That doesn't stop people from calling the 1949 Leaf Stan Musial his rookie. So, how can one know about cards three decades earlier?
As far as calling all cards released in the same calendar year rookies, that is not true. That would mean the 1985 Donruss Don Mattingly is a rc too, as those cards were first released in December 1984. At least there is consensus that it is not. On the Ruth, there is no agreement and probably never will be.