![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
"The 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (XRC) is more expensive than his 1985 Topps RC." |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Why, he has NO CHANCE of ever making the HOF! |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Marc S.
But Clemen's 1985 Topps Tiffany card is worth as much as his 1984 Fleer Update card. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: davidcycleback
It may interest vintage collectors to know that Major League Baseball has strict control over which players can appear in a set and which players can labelled rookies by the card manufacturer. MLB contemplates these issues just as collectors do. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
You tell 'em, Marc S.! |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
nice second year card, Hal |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Hal by the way you are wrong for every year except a few years in the mid 80s. Are you saying 1995 Bowman is Garciaparra's rookie, not 1992 Topps Traded? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Thanks. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
No... all I am saying with my website and collection is: |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
lol |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
I guess my view is jaded from having grown up in a city where there were no card shops and no card shows. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Tiffany sets were not available in packs either, by the way, or I am pretty sure anyhow. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
True... but the IMAGE on the card is exactly the same. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Hal you are losing this one buddy!! Concede!! (Your Pedro "RC" is also from a factory set by the way) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Peter: |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
HAL of fame? My what a freudian slip. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
It's so good I'm not even going to edit it!!! |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Paul
I've always found the debate over the proper "definition" of a rookie card to be silly. I like collecting the first card of Hall of Fame players, regardless of whether others call them rookie cards. I would much rather own the Baltimore Ruth than the M101-5 Ruth. I would much rather own the 1913 Zeenut Heilmann that his Collins-McCarthy (if you disagree, I'll trade you my Collins-McCarthy). I would much rather have my 1922 Zeenut Lazzeri than his 1928 W-502 or whatever is considered by others to be his rookie card. Etc., etc. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: identify7
Looking at the tan Jimmy Foxx exhibit (rookie) card which Hal recently posted - I felt: WOW! This was from before he became THE BEAST. I had never seen him pictured so young. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Andy Baran
I'm a little late jumping in here, but this is what I consider to be Jesse Burkett's Rookie Card. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: john/z28jd
A little correction Hal,1990 topps traded cards were sold in packs. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Oh, the horror! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
Uh, Hal, isn't your 85 Topps McGwire a minor league card or the equivalent by your own definition? I don't think he had even been signed by the A's yet, and certainly he is shown in a USA Olympic uniform not an A's uniform. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: john/z28jd
I can field this one Hal |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Robert McKenzie
In the 'new' market the 'pre-rookie' is THE rookie card. Bellingham Griffey etc. I bought a box of bowman chrome about 4 years ago and am still waiting for the 'rookie' from the set to bust out in the majors. my .02 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: WP
I vote for Kwanza |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Mark
Alleghenys can't be rookie cards I guess since the (single) set was a prototype and therefore not made available to tykes. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Prove it. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: zach
Not trying to beat a dead horse and I hope this doesn't offend you Hal, it is not my intention to, but if you consider the Alleghenys rookie cards then why would you not consider Just Sos rookie cards ? At least the Just Sos we're released to the public even if only in the Cleveland area where as the Allegheny's were never released. So I think that if you consider Brown's rookie card his Allegheny then you must consider Cy Youngs rookie his Just So. In both instances there is only one of each known to exist, but the Just So was released to the public but the Allegheny's never were. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Zach: |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: identify7
YHTRTCHOOCANWAWTWTC |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Hal Lewis
ABG!!!! |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: john/z28jd
Im still waiting for the Hal Lewis rookie card craze to start.Heres a question to ponder,say someone makes a network54 collectors set and theres a problem with Hal's card.Lets say someone made a mistake on his "Hal holding his Wagner proudly" card(i'll let you decide what the error is on your own) and then when they correct it, will the corrected version still be his rookie card? What if only a few of these error cards hit the market but werent intended to,could that still be considered a rookie? What if the "error" was so small no one noticed for awhile and then the corrected version was a very short printed? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Will the Net54 rookie cards be available in packs for kids to buy or just issued in factory sets? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: john/z28jd
Everyone who appears in the set gets their own set,the others will be given away with subscriptions to Old Cardboard magazine and single cards chosen at random will be sent to anyone who sends Leon a SASE,limit 10 requests per household. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: identify7
It seems like everyone is trying to put together a collection of the rookie cards of HOFers. While Jay is putting together a collection of the rookie cards of non-HOFers. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
Not a bad idea to consider if I ever get anywhere near completion. The big trick would be the 57 players that make their only appearance in the e107 set. That set is the reason I set the start date at 1908. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1914 Baltimore News Orioles - Ruth | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 07-02-2008 08:16 AM |
1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth Rookie Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 03-24-2008 04:25 PM |
1914 Baltimore News team card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-08-2006 08:38 AM |
New 1914 Babe Ruth Card Discovered? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 39 | 10-22-2006 04:54 AM |
1914 Baltimore News RUTH card !! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-18-2004 03:27 PM |