Babe Ruth Rookie

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think one of the biggest issues with the 1933 Goudey designation of Ruth's rookie card is that it so far from when he actually debuted in the Major Leagues, which was in 1915. Ruth retired two years later in 1935. And there are a ton of card sets issued between 1915 and 1933. For the Musial card, at least it's within a couple of years, so you could still pick the 1948 Bowman or Leaf and have it still seem somewhat reasonable. However, for Ruth, there are simply too many years between these the M101-5 and 33 Goudey, that it just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I can see that. And I think the many years off from the beginning of Ruth's career to the Goudey cards are a big problem when trying to justify them as rookie cards. His is a special case for sure.

I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

...
I'm fine with calling cards like the Sporting News card for Ruth a true rookie. But the bigger question, then, is if the non-mainstream cards for other players (like the earlier Musial cards) should be considered the true rookies of those players - even if there isn't a large gap in space.

It's tough to figure out rookie cards for a lot of players, both modern and pre-war. For modern cards, you usually have a lot of sets who distribute the rookie card of the player in that year, and some of the parallels are limited to a specific # run like 25. So usually collectors try to choose the "best" card from the rookie year that's not limited to a small print run as the player's rookie card. (However, the cards that tend to be most valuable are the auto cards with the limited run for that rookie year.)

For pre-war, there are a lot of players like Cobb and Gehrig who have a whole bunch of cards issued around their rookie year, so it can be hard to figure out which one is the "best" rookie card. For Gehrig, I think most collectors choose the 1925 Exhibits as his rookie card, but some collectors don't like postcard size (or larger) cards as rookie cards. However, then the 1925-31 W590 was issued over a period of years, so collectors don't like that either.

I think most "advanced collectors" for pre-war rookie cards follow one of Phil's lists for HOF rookies or first cards issued or look at the list on Old Cardboard and pick the best one they like: Link. (If you click on the player's name on the list, you can see some of the different options.)

[nolemmings]

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

[nolemmings]

Next tell me that Sporting News was regional. The m101 Ruths were distributed from California, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana and Washington DC. They were distributed by a national periodical--at that time likely the pre-eminent baseball paper--to anywhere the US mail was received.

Can you show me that Goudey gum was that widely distributed?

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

Fair enough - my definition of 'promotional' may have technically been a bit off and there's surely a better way of saying it. But the gist of my argument is that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News mainstream cards - which is why they have always called the Goudey Ruth cards his rookies. Right or wrong, I believe that has always been their stance.

[nolemmings]

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

Perhaps, this helps explain why serious collectors of pre-War cards don't send their cards to Beckett for slabbing.
Val