NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:11 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,120
Default

Well, the concensus appears to be that the stickers should not count as Rookie Cards and there are only two of them in question so I am going to go with the traditionally accepted Rookie Cards for those two and make the updates now.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:19 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,120
Default

Dan:

Regarding your W600's question, the font of print on the cabinet cards was distinctly different for those issued in 1902 as opposed to later versions (I have used Jerry Spillman's OldCardboard article to differentiate them myself). Thus, those which have been positively identified as 1902 have taken precedence over the E107's on my list for those specific players. If anything later was in question, I went with the E107's as their 1903 date is much more definitive.

On Brouthers vs. Anson, the 19th Century experts have informed me that the Allen & Ginters were definitely not an 1887 issue but most likely 1888. I have also been told by the Old Judge experts that there was no Anson N172 card issued in 1887, only 1888. So that is why I have the Buchner as Anson's only Rookie Card from 1887 while Brouthers had three different Rookie Cards which were in fact all issued in 1887.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:22 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,750
Default

Team cards don't count?
__________________
Love of the Game Auctions
www.loveofthegameauctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:27 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,120
Default

No, Jeff, no team cards were included. The largest amount of players on any card was the 4-on-1 Exhibits as well as some of the Topps prospect cards of the '60's & '70's.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-12-2011, 03:03 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,750
Default

why not? just curious as to your justification why a card with 4 players would be ok but not one with say 12.
__________________
Love of the Game Auctions
www.loveofthegameauctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-12-2011, 03:28 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,120
Default

Jeff:

The main reason for my not including team cards is to eliminate the inevitable comparison from people to something like a 1967 Topps New York Mets team card with Nolan Ryan pictured so small that you cannot even make him out. People will agrue that if 12 is okay why not 20 or whatever number happens to be pictured?

In addition, I have been told by collectors many times that they do not count team cards as Rookie Cards as there are numerous pre-war team photo postcards that would then enter the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-12-2011, 03:35 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,750
Default

gotcha. In my opinion, if you can definitively id a player on a team card, then it should count. But that's just my thoughts, I can see your way of thinking too.
__________________
Love of the Game Auctions
www.loveofthegameauctions.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-12-2011, 03:53 PM
glchen's Avatar
glchen glchen is offline
_G@ґy*€hℯη_
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,381
Default

How about the 1920 Peggy Popcorn for Dazzy Vance: Link. Not sure if the debate about the dating of the cards or picture on the card was cleared up.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:13 PM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,921
Default

The "stickers are not cards" thing is silly! People get so freaking wierd about the whole "what is a card" thing. It was distributed with the intent of being collected and the stickers are even roughly "traditional card" sized. Such a silly argument...maybe T3's shouldn't be cards because they are roughly the same size as the Dean's card above (both the same size, they depict baseball players, have advertising on them, and were distributed with the intent of being collected by people...how are they different again?). Caramelo Deportivo cards were meant to be stuck into an album so they are basically stickers, too... better take them off the list! Why be so exclusionary? There exists a collectible item of Mike Schmidt that predates his first Topps card so why would it not be on the list because there is some adhesive on the back? There are many items cataloged in the CARD CATALOG that are fairly large (R309-2, T3's, R311, etc.) I don't really understand why today we get so caught up on the little dstails of what a "card" is.

Some would have you believe that if it isn't between the size of T206 and a Topps Tall-Boy than it isn't a "card" (No exhibits, no postcards, no premiums of any kind like R313, R314, etc.). Also it can't be round (no E254, E270, E286, Dixie Lids, etc.). It can't be too small (no Baguer Chocolates, R423, etc.). It can't be a part of a box (no J=K, E271, Orange Borders, Wheaties cards, etc.). It can't have sticky stuff on back (no "stickers", Topps test issues, etc.). It can't be made of anything other than traditional paper (no coins, pins, Salada, Topps Plaks, etc.). It can't be part of a deck of "game" cards (no Tom Barker, Walter Mails, Allegheny, etc.). and this is the first time I've seen it, but now it can't be one-of-a-kind because you know those don't "really" exist do they? (no Allegheny, 1921 Herpolsheimers, etc., etc.).

If you are cool with collecting Only Topps, Bowman, and maybe some T206's then those are great rules BUT if you want to collect the earliest known CARD (insert the most liberal interpretation of "card") then that is a list that would be of some use to the collecting world.

-Rhett
__________________
Check out my website www.StarsOfTheDiamond.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:24 PM
Bicem's Avatar
Bicem Bicem is offline
Jeff 'Prize-ner'
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,750
Default

well said Rhett.
__________________
Love of the Game Auctions
www.loveofthegameauctions.com
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for people to write articles about certain cards. mmync Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 0 09-27-2010 07:55 PM
Baseball cards and Addiction BleedinBlue Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 38 10-10-2009 11:42 AM
Betting on baseball cards article from CNN Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 08-16-2006 09:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 PM.


ebay GSB