1916 Boston Store Babe Ruth Rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

I know the term ROOKIE is used rather loosly but I was under the impression that the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth was considered his ROOKIE...  

so this is just HYPE or do others consider this Ruth's Rookie also? 

http://tinyurl.com/5nzsj5 

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

Obviously you have never read the big Beckett Rookie Book. The 33 Goudey's are the Ruth Rookie.

If you not very educated and choose not to believe Beckett, then the 1914 Baltimore News card would be considered his true rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Beckett, whose that? 

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

I consider the 1914 to be his Minor league rookie and the M-101-4/5 to be his Major leauge rookie.

Kind of like the more modern "minor league" rookies you see of Ripken, Clemens etc.

But were talking the "Sultan of Swat" here and there is room for both. Plenty of room. The 1914 is so rare (except in REA auctions) that you have to have something else to shoot for.

Michael

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

The 1914 Baltimore News Ruth is NOT his rookie card. it is considered his PRE-Rookie, since he was a minor leaguer at that point.

His 1916 M101-5 Sporting News card IS his recognized Rookie Card.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

The 1914 Baltimore News is his first appearance on a schedule, if that sort of thing matters to you. Both cards are so great, I am not sure it matters. If I had to vote, I would vote for the M11-4/5.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

What MSNYC said.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

since Boston Store was issued in 1917, I don't see how the Ruth card can be considered his rookie under anyone's definition.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"The 1914 Baltimore News Ruth is NOT his rookie card. it is considered his PRE-Rookie, since he was a minor leaguer at that point.

His 1916 M101-5 Sporting News card IS his recognized Rookie Card."

Rob Lifson disagrees with you. Every time he sells one, he calls it the Ruth Rookie. The good old argument of minor league cards (Balitmore News), first appearance in the big leauges (Sporting News) or first main stream issue (Goudey). Who is right?

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

A minor league card is not a rookie card, whether it is a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth (will Rob have another one next year?) or a 1987 Gastonia Sammy Sosa.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

where's hal lewis when you need him? most have the sporting news as his rookie, while the BN is his prookie and of course the most valuable.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"A minor league card is not a rookie card, whether it is a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth (will Rob have another one next year?) or a 1987 Gastonia Sammy Sosa."

Either Rob Lifson is not being truthfull in his auctions or this is the first time the board has disagreed with him as a whole.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

First of all, it is a matter of opinion, not a question of being truthful. Second, who could blame Rob for hyping the card for the benefit of the consignor? Third, if I recall correctly, Rob also called an item that was clearly a photograph a "baseball card," wish I could recall the specifics. It's all just sales talk, and if that is his genuine opinion, that is fine too.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"First of all, it is a matter of opinion, not a question of being truthful. Second, who could blame Rob for hyping the card for the benefit of the consignor? Third, if I recall correctly, Rob also called an item that was clearly a photograph a "baseball card," wish I could recall the specifics. It's all just sales talk, and if that is his genuine opinion, fine."

I think it was a Josh Gibson photo, he called a card. Mental note: When caught in a lie or stretching of the truth, simply state it is just "sales talk."

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

I think many here would disagree with Rob on whether the Ruth is a rookie and whether the photo was a card, but at the same time I think almost no one would accuse him of being dishonest in his descriptions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

If I had an opinion on this matter, it would be the same as Michael Steele above. The 1914 card is his 'minor league' rookie card and the 1916 is his 'major league' rookie card.

But of course, that'd only be if I had an opinion on the matter

Regards,

Richard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

Straight from my 2008 REA catalog:

Lot 3) 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth Rookie card.
I think Rob says, "Babe Ruth Rookie" at least 6 times in the write up.

But beyond all of that, IMO the M-101-5 is his true rookie card because it his first card in a Major League Uniform. What I am really hoping for is there is a major find of BN cards to drive down the price of the M-101-5 since this card is at the top of my life long want list. Or all of the high dollar whales dry up. Wishful thinking!

Michael

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"I think many here would disagree with Rob on whether the Ruth is a rookie and whether the photo was a card, but at the same time I think almost no one would accuse him of being dishonest in his descriptions."

If Mastro did the same thing with the Gibson photo and Ruth Prookie card, I fear Doug and Bill would be called the Devil on this board. Then Leon would be called a biased Devil supporter becasue of some meager Mastro banner ad.

Sorry to get off topic. My opinion, although it means nothing, is the Sporting News card is his true rookie as it was mass produced and he was in the big leagues. Not sure why Beckett does/did not consider the Sporting News card as being mainstream i.e. picked Goudey for the rookie? Personally, I also do not consider minor league cards as true rookies, but there are certainly some that do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

In my opinon, the Boston Store card would be a regional/locally distibuted card, which is exempt from rookie card status i.e. not nationally distributed.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

I think the item I was recalling was not a Josh Gibson photo (Mike do you have a link?) but this Baltimore News team "card" which I believe folks here concluded was just a photograph (could be wrong).

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/5.html

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

Peter,

You are right, the team photo was questioned. My Gibson recollection was calling a postcard a potential true Gibson rookie.

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4596&universeid=314&type=1

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Sales talk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

Why do they bother with rookie card or Prookie. I think the only thing that matters is the earliest or very first card any player is pictured on.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

In case anyone who doesnt know, and it was pointed out earlier, the Boston Store card along with the other E135 group cards are from 1917 so in no way can they be called a rookie.

Many older slabs have them listed as "1916" but it has been proven to be a 1917 issue.

The M101-4/5 cards are from 1916
The Balt. News card 1914

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Thanks guys.  Terrific responses..

What I learned in class today;

The Boston Store is not Ruth's Rookie because:
 1. It was actually distributed in 1917
 2. It was a regional distribution, disqualifying it from contention.
 3. The term ROOKIE CARD is always subject to debate! 

Thanks again....

martyOgelvie
New York Yankee cards

edited becasue I can't spel

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I think it is the coolest of the Ruth cards.


How can you not love Ruth as a Pitcher for the Red Sox with a 'Boston' back?


As far as rookie.... I would say no - that is the M101-4/5.
Of course if we find out these cards were 1916 - they would have a little more rookiness to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Todd

"How can you not love Ruth as a Pitcher for the Red Sox with a 'Boston' back?"

But then, the "Boston Store" was in Chicago.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I don't see how "nationally distributed" can be in any rational definition of "rookie card." I'm not sure there's any convincing proof that any cards were nationally distributed before WWII. Old Judges were certainly widely distributed. But since they made a few PCL cards, I suspect that only the PCL cards made it as far as the west coast. (The population west of the Mississippi at that time was tiny, to say the least). T206s were widely distributed, but did they make it all the way to California? I've always assumed Goudeys were nationally distributed, but does anyone really know?

Regardless, there were certainly no more than very, very few nationally distributed sets before WWII. That leaves basically no one among the players that we all collect with rookie cards.

And what about Negro Leaguers with Cuban cards? Do we need to investigate whether those cards were distributed nationally in Cuba or only regionally?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

The national distribution requirement would torpedo many or most prewar issues from including someone's rookie card, and should probably be ignored. Still, apart from its minor league aspect, the 1914 Baltimore News set seems awfully local to me.

As for Ruth(and others), the m101-s satisfy both the Major League and national distribution requirement in any event. Mendelsohn advertised the blank-backed m101-5s in a periodical of national circulation--The Sporting News--and therefore it was presumably available wherever the mail could be delivered, at least in the continental US. Similarly, the m101-4s with Sporting News back were available to anyone who took up the nationally-distributed paper on its offer. Add to that the diverse and many areas of the country that distributed the same card fronts with their own advertising on the back, including Successful Farming magazine with its own national circulation, and I think it's safe you can call the m101s a national issue of major league players sufficient to meet someone's definition of rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

For a lot of North Easterners, the term National DOES NOT include anything WEST of the Mississippi or SOUTH of the Mason/Dixon. 

martyOgelvie
New York Yankee cards