What is considered the Billy Martin Rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Greetings & Happy Easter to ALL. Does anyone know what card is considered the rookie card of Billy Martin? I look forward to some replies.
Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

1949 Remar Bread. I own one. The stats lists him as 5'10 1/2 and weigh 165. How much could be have gotten up to, if he had been a team mate of Sosa ? And would he have taken them? he really could have kicked the crap out of that marshmellow salesman.....

Edited to add: mine is encapsulated as a PSA grade 6.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I have a very rough 1948 Signal Gas card of Alfred Manuel Martin, the Oaks Third Baseman. 5' 11" , 160.

I have 11 of the Signal Gas cards... wish I could find a few more, cheap.

[Archive]

Posted By: daryle

the '52 Topps be his "ROOKIE" card since it he is shown with the Yankees?..........a major league team? IMO, a RC is the players first card as a Major Leaguer. Such as, I don't recognize the T210 Jackson or the Baltimore news card of Ruth as their "ROOKIE" cards but rather their "Minor League" cards...pre-rookie.....although I'd love to have either (still kick myself in the rear everytime I get in and out of the shower for not buying that T210 Jackson I found about 7-8 years ago....around GD-VG/VG for under $10K..........)...just my thoughts, not meant to start an argument or anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Vintage Collectors,

Face it, it's a new world now, people will soon follow Beckett's definition of a rookie card. I know you guys think that Beckett's doesn't know beans about vintage cards. But to date, they have come up with the clearest definition of a rookie card.

Whether you guys like it or not, the '33 Goudey Ruth will be soon considered Babe Ruth's rookie card.

The '52 Topps Billy Martin is the rookie card and I have one and would like to scan it into the computer. However, my scanner is so darn slow.

Does anybody know of a new scanner that is fast and relatively inexpensive.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

I doubt that the '33 Goudey will be regarded as Ruth's rookie card. But if it is, IMHO it is a pretty meaningless designation at that point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

By what definition of 'Rookie card' does the 1933 Goudey Ruth fit?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

If the 33 Ruth is designated his rookie, then there really isn't any point in doing it at all. If someone can arbitrarily assign any card, or year they want to. Then I want Mantle's rookie card to be the Topps 1961 MVP card, because that is my favorite Mantle card. Makes as much sense as the 33 Goudey being Ruths rookie. Since when don't Ruths first 19 years in the league count ? Thats right he had played 19 years before the 33 Goudeys came out. (approximaely). And all the subsequesnt cards produced before 33. So I figure mantles 61 Topps MVP card should be his rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If you read the introductory paragraph in the Mastro catalog for the Sergio Delgado collection, you can learn something interesting about defining rookie cards. In short, there will always be debate as to what constitutes a rookie card, and collectors will never be in full agreement.

For example, most collectors feel Kid Nichols' rookie is his N300. I say it's his N172. And I know there are two schools of thought. Jorge Marce, who helped Sergio build his collection, actually devised a point system which took into account several factors in determining the rookie designation. It's worth a look.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

'52 Topps and '52 Berk Ross.

Here's info on Jorge's sytem: http://www.mastronet.com/delgado.cfm

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

For vintage cards, why don't we just dump the label "rookie card" and substitute "first card"? Everyone then would agree that Kid Nichols' "first card" is his N172, and Joe DiMaggio's "first card" is his 1934 Zeenut. If someone wants to come up with a new designation like "first major league card" that's fine too.

When I began collecting, I don't recall anyone chasing after "first major league cards" though some people chased after "first cards." If someone wanted a particularly early card of a Lefty Gomez, for example, that collector wouldn't try to figure out if the US Caramel card was issued before or after the '33 Goudey. He'd buy the Zeenut.

As far as I can tell, the reason this changed is because card companies went nuts in the early 1990s. They started printing cards of promising teenagers so that they could advertise that their set had the most rookies (and therefore the most investment potential). The companies clearly went overboard. Ever seen a 1992 Mariano Rivera? He looks like he's waiting to catch a bus to take the SAT exam.

Eventually, many collectors decided that these pre-teen cards were illegitimate. They were contrived rookies, not legitimate rookies. And so the search began for a revised definition of a rookie card -- one that would separate the high-school-yearbook-photo-with-high-school-stats-on-the-back from the legitimate first card of a player.

There are no similar issues of legitimacy with vintage minor league cards. Zeenuts and other vintage minor league cards were distributed because kids in minor league towns wanted cards of their local heroes. They weren't produced by scheming card company executives trying to figure out a way to pack their sets with the most "rookie" cards. To me, that's the appeal of vintage minor league cards of future major leaguers. They were humbly produced cards of seemingly non-descript players who went on to greatness.

So, for me, I'll take a "first card" over a "first major league card" of any vintage player. Personally, I think they should be called "rookie cards" because that is the label that was traditionally applied to a player's first card before the 1990s nonsense. But if that word has been hijacked, I guess I don't really care.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

peter how did becket justify the 1933 goudey as his rookie card???

[Archive]

Posted By: Harrison

How could the 33 goudey be considered Ruth's rookie when there were mulitple sets that he was included in while he was on the yankees?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Guys, I agree that it is absurd to consider the 1933 Goudey Ruth to be the rookie card. What gives Beckett the authority to make that decision? It simply dosen't make sense. Common sense tells you that something that sounds irrational usually is. This is sheer nonsense. If Beckett considers the 1933 Goudey his rookie then I say that his 1916 M101-5 is his minor league rookie card. Makes about as much sense. Give me a break and wake up Beckett.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

I agree with Paul. While I, myself, don't really play the "rookie card" game, I feel that if you're goal is to do that - THEN DO IT! Go after a guy's FIRST card. I mean, that seems to me to be the whole point. Personally, if I thought that I owned a player's rookie major league card, and then discovered that there was an earlier minor league card, I would be disappointed. I'd probably try to aquire the earlier card, rather than trying to justify why my card was somehow more "important." And while I agree that the 1990's teenage stuff is pretty silly, I still would probably consider those cards my goal, if I was really working on a rookie collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Here's the reason why Beckett considers the '33 Goudey Ruth's rookie. It is the first nationally distributed card with Ruth in a major league uniform. For instance the Baltimore News Ruth was distributed only in Baltimore.

I'll give you another example, Johnny Mize had cards issued around 1943 but that is not his rookie card because the cards were not nationally issued. According to Beckett his first nationally issued rookie card is the 1948 Bowman black and white.

Beckett's will become the agreed definition of a rookie card because they have become a hobby powerhouse.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Peter (or anyone that wants to ring in):

I thought the M101-5's were nationally distributed? They show Ruth in his Boston uniform. How does this square with Beckett's definition, or how does the Beckett definition end up with the 33 Goudey being a rookie? This was widely considered Ruth's rookie card before the 1914 Baltimore News cards showed up in number. I think I must be missing something here.

PaulPaulPaul - all three of you:

What an eloquent argument for why first card should be considered rookie card for vintage issues. Thank you - it helps clarify thinking even though I do not target rookie cards at all.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Weren't the exhibit cards nationally distributed?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Why should minor league cards be considered rookie cards only in the case of prewar? If you're going to rewrite the definition to classify zeenuts and minor league n172s as rookie cards, then why not be consistent and say Ken Griffey Jr.'s rookie is his San Bernardino Spirit AA card and so on?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

The Exhibit Cards are blank-backed and not considered real cards, they are similar to the cabinet cards. Beckett's do not consider any of them rookie cards.

Also, it has to be a major card company, look at the Star Company sets of the '80s they are not consider major enough.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Blank backed cards are not considered "real" cards????

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

My guess is that most collectors (perhaps not investors) are not waiting for a publication or company to tell them what a "rookie" card is. Beckett has been a hobby powerhouse as you say for years. I would place as much confidence in their definition of a "rookie" card for prewar as I do in their pricing in their annual guide. If you want to collect a players first card appearance be it in a minor league uniform or major league - who cares what someone calls it? Collect what you want to collect.

I agree with the earlier post. The rookie Card phenomenon was largely a creation of card company manipulation. I thought the Mariano Rivera waiting for the bus was appropriate. They tried everything but inserting ultrasound photos of the progeny of players in the hopes they would eventually become a major leaguer of note.

Again, who cares what who calls a rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Dan,

I'm not saying I totally agree with Beckett's definition, all I'm saying is that it is clear and gaining wide acceptance.

I also am not saying that I am not an expert on applying the definition, but I can see why the exhibits are not considered rookies.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

I guess I have missed this part. Can you show me any of the major auction houses who refer to any of the 4 1933 Goudey Ruth cards as a "Rookie" in any of their auction listings? Maybe they have, but I have not seen it. Take the Baltimore News Ruth "Schedule Card" for an example. You can argue that it isn't a rookie because it's a minor league issue, or it's not a rookie because it's not a "card", or that's it's not a "rookie" because it wasn't nationally distributed. What you can't argue is that most any collector would rather have it than a 1933 Goudey "rookie." All of course is MHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

"all I'm saying is that it is clear and gaining wide acceptance."

Only among absolute morons. As far as I'm concerned anyone even making such a statement is devoid of any credibility in vintage card collecting. Please show me where it's "clear", and that it's "widespread".

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Todd,

Only time will tell whether Beckett's definition will be more widely accepted in the future. As to your statement that hobbyists that accept Beckett's definition are morons, well, in general consumers have never been considered "extremely bright."

Marketing companies seem to have had a lot of success in marketing dangerous products like cigarettes and alcohol. Drug dealers have no troubles finding buyers.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

you said it's gaining wide acceptance, now you say only time will tell. Show me where it has been accepted by anyone who knows anything about vintaqe cards--anyone.

Tell me Peter, if the '33 Goudey is his rookie card, how many "cards" of Ruth followed during his careeer? '34 Butterfinger premium?--paper product. '35 Goudey 4-in-1?--Multiplayer. Four-in-One exhibit?--Blank- backed, and again, an exhbit. Personally, I can see arguments for any of these being cards, but what you claim basically means we have Babe's rookie card and little to nothing thereafter. Who with a brain larger than that of a hamster would subscribe to such nonsense?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

While I dont consider myself an expert at anything, I have studied the rookie card argument for a few years. Much of it from lurking on the Net54 and listening to guys like Hal and others. I believe the term rookie card is a post war term. It was probably born sometime after Topps had a established themselves as a consistent company that produced cards which where uniformly similar year after year. The problem I have with using the normal definition on prewar cards is that it probably would eliminate over 95% of the sets created from having rookie card candidates. Even the 5% would be suspect. I guess the biggest contraversy would be, what are nationally distributed sets. I'm not sure. I guess if cards were distributed from one company to all the states that were around at the time I would call that national distribution. But what if it just distributed to 5 or ten. Is that regional. What if it distributed in a few cities on the East coast and a few on the west, is that national? I'm asking because I dont know. We are talking in some cases over 100 years ago when methods of distribution were not as advanced as they were after WWII...... I know that Breisch William cards are considered to be nationally distributed, but when you look at how many of those cards exist today it seems hard to believe. There are probably local issues that have more cards in circulation than the Breisch's. .............Everytime I hear an argument concerning prewar rookie cards it always starts off the same way. The first guy always declares, its the first card made of that person even if its a minor league card. Then someone else will ask what if the players first card is a team card with 10 or 12 other players. The first guy will think about it a while and say "Doesnt matter". Well what if the team card photo was taken so far away that you wouldnt know whose in the picture unless you read his name. Or what if the first card is 8"x12" or bigger. Or what if its made of paper, better yet made of silk, does that count. What if it came in a strip and was hand cut by the public. What if its a cabinet or CDV, and so on and so on. In the years I have observed the argument, it always ends up with the same conclusion, no agreement..............(TO be continued)

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

Good post Jorge. And the point is that there will be no agreement and it is essentially futile to try to define "rookie" especially in light of prewar issues.

Furthermore, the answer to "What is so and so's rookie card?" depends on who you ask and most importantly what they collect.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

There's really no agreement even with post-war issues. With dozens of issues coming out each year, it is nearly impossible to ascertain which card/year/issue was the "first" or the coveted "XRC."

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Jorge,

Good post - I also wanted to mention that the system you and sergio created to define a rookie card for his collection was very well thought out. I dont know that I would have assigned all the same penalty's/deductions etc. but the concept itself was a very good one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rooky13

...Thank you JK....The key to my system is that it doesn't deal in absolutes. It doesn't say that a minor league card, or an oversized card, or any type of card cant be a rookie. What it does say is that some 19th century HOFamer who is featured on a cabinet card as part of a minor league team, can be a rookie card, if it scores higher than his next best card, which is a 1989 commemorative. Or the best of two evils.

Jorge

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I believe the rookie card debate can be looked at on a card by card basis.

I still say the rookie card of Kid Nichols makes an excellent case in point. While most feel his 1895 Mayo card is his first because it pictures him on a major league team, my preference would be the N172. It is one of the all-time classic sets, had national distribution, and the card has great stature among collectors. The fact that it pictures him with Omaha does not detract in my eyes.

That is much different than the minor leagues cards of players issued in the 1980's, whose cards are of poor quality, poor distribution, and in many cases are suspect issues. Many aren't even licensed, and have been widely reprinted.

But an Old Judge of Nichols is a classic vintage card, and it gets my vote. I would still want to look at each Hall of Famer individually to make a determination.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

So is the answer to Richard's original inquiry the 1952 Topps and 1952 Berk Ross cards?

When I posted Alfred Martin's 1948 Signal Gas card I didn't claim in the post that it was his Rookie card.

And for those of you that have the generally more self-serving definition of rookie card, send me your T210 Jacksons; your Baltimore News Ruth's; Zeenut Dimaggio's, McMullin's, Heilmann's, and Coveleski's; Chatanooga Lookouts Killebrew's; Mothers Cookies Chuck Conners'; and I don't mind picking up a National Bank of Washington card of Juan Marichal.

I think I'll dig out my early cards of players that aren't rookie cards and post a scan of them all in a bunch.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Frank- Jackson's T210 was actually issued after his E90-1, so it couldn't be his rookie card by any definition.

But I would happily take everyone's Old Mill rejects, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

Hi Barry......I think the way in which you choose what is a rookie card is great! The problem I have with using the post-war definition on prewar cards is that by definition many of the prewar players dont have rookie cards.... Or then again by definition (I think) they just haven't come out yet. Maybe Topps will include them in one of their new sets.

Jorge

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Thanks Jorge. I think you've analyzed this subject more than anyone, since you have helped Sergio build his collection over the last few years. And I think it's an area that by definition there will always be differences of opinion.

Take the Just So of Cy Young, to give another example. It was clearly a regional issue distributed in close proximity to Cleveland, but it's a card that any vintage collector would dream of owning. And no matter who that may be, isn't a certainty that he would deem it Young's rookie? I think a lot of the debate hinges to a great deal on whether a collector owns a rare card or not. If you have an M101-5 of Ruth, you are likely to call that the rookie. If you are fortunate to own a Baltimore News, you're going to call that the rookie. It's human nature.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

Barry if you look at the catagories that I used in ranking prewar rookie cards, National distribution is not one of them. I felt that it was one of the postwar necessities that could not be used for prewar evaluation. Instead I used other catagories such as set, which penalizes single card creations, or single team sets, which were some of the local or regional creations of the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jorge- I did note that Sergio had the N300 Kid Nichols. What demerits did you give the N172? That's just one of those cards that I disagree with common opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

Barry.... If Im reading you correctly you are saying that the O J N172 is in your opinion Nichols rookie card, because it came before the Mayo. The fact that its a minor league card is not big enough of a detractor to offset being the earlier card. I am also assuming that you prefer the 89 N172 over Nichols 1888-89 N173 Cabinet card maybe because the cabinet card is oversized or because it was purchase with coupons instead of being obtained as a bonus (premium) with the tobacco that was purchased, like the N172 was....I think you choose rookie cards the same way I do or my system does. The difference being that instead of subtracting 11 points for being a minor league card you only subtract 5. The fact that the cabinet card came slightly before the N172 probably does not offset the 11 points you took off for the way the cabinet was distributed plus the 5 points for being oversized and dont forget that its still a minor league card, -5.....I think you use the same rational as I do, we just weigh the catagories a little differently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

People can rationalize till' the cows come home, but a rookie card is a players first card. The only real debate is whether or not a minor league card constitutes a rookie card. That I can see being debated. But to say that a players rookie card comes 19 years or so after he has been in the league, is rediculous. One grey area has been cleared up in this conversation. Anyone who played before 1933, now has his rookie card in the 33 Goudey set. Or is Ruth the only one ? Nice to know that the rookie cards for hack Wilson and Jimmie Foxx are in the 33 Set. Along with Ruth of course.

One tiny addition. Obviously if a player has two or more cards issued his first season, then that can be debated as to "best card". No problem with that. I am not saying that each issue needs an exact month, day, and time it hit the store shelves.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

Barry..... I think Sergio has both cards in the auction. If you notice I give different rankings,....."Best Rookie" is that of a card that is a standout, outscores the rest by 6 or more points. Rookie card rankings are given when theres two or more cards that score similarly, within 5 points, and a Notable ranking which is more subjective, is given when a card scores between 6-10 less than a Best Rookie or when the Best Rookie is like a Just So, extremly rare and a next best card is needed.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I may have missed Sergio had both Nichols.

Did the N173 Nichols really come out before the N172? Who would have ordered the N173 if Nichols was neither a major leaguer nor even had a small card in circulation? I never thought that would be possible (although I hadn't really given it any thought).

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Jorge -

Are your card rankings of each hofer publicly available?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jorge

Barry.....Ive seen the N173 cabinet dated as both 1888 and 1888-89, and the N172 is from 1889...I believe theres a group of these cabinets in the Mastro auction, it may have more info on the date.....
...Richard I'm working on getting a website to list each HOFamer individually. I had hoped to one day to have Sergios collection photographed and the pictures shown along with the worsheets, but plans have changed. I do have other clients who are interested in the rookie card theme and maybe one day use their collection for that purpose. Ill keep you informed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jorge, can you email me with your email address? Thanks.