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 write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

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
  #151  
Old 01-20-2016, 04:49 PM
Vintageclout Vintageclout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 516
Default Johnson Rookie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities View Post
Phil - you do. I was just responding to Hank's post concerning the Weiser PC and his asking about the E91 American Caramel issue.
Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 01-20-2016, 05:27 PM
Baseball Rarities's Avatar
Baseball Rarities Baseball Rarities is offline
K3v1n Stru55
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageclout View Post
Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT
Hi Joe - There is always going to be debate on what constitutes a baseball card.

Of course, it all comes down to personal preference and, in the end, we will all collect what does it for us.

Last edited by Baseball Rarities; 06-19-2021 at 02:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 01-21-2016, 10:05 PM
Goudey Goudey is offline
Matt Payne
member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 104
Default Grove

Not sure if its been said but Lefty Grove has a card far before 1928 Star Player. 1921 Baltimore Orioles Tip Top.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 01-22-2016, 03:34 AM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Matt:

The Tip Top Grove was a minor league card, thus making it a pre-rookie and not a rookie card.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 01-22-2016, 11:01 AM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageclout View Post
Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT
I was talking about the mounted Weiser photo, Jimmy, not the "Weiser Wonder" PC, which in any case was probably issued in 1910. If you did mean to compare the Weiser mounted photo to the T5 Johnson, the former's a photo and the latter a card, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 01-22-2016, 04:54 PM
jason.1969's Avatar
jason.1969 jason.1969 is offline
Jason A. Schwartz
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 1,890
Default

Will raise a question re: Hank Aaron. I read there was a 1952 Indy Clowns postcard set that included Aaron. OldCardboard.com has a pic, though I suppose I don't know for sure it's authentic.

Given that we generally accept postcards as RCs and given that we accept non-MLB for other Negro League players (e.g., Josh Gibson), should we not consider the 1952 Indy Clowns P/C as the Aaron rookie?

Am assuming the answer is "pre-rookie" because Aaron later played in the bigs. However, I'm less comfortable applying that approach to the Negro Leagues than I am the minor leagues.

I will further note that the 1915 CJ Ed Rous(c)h RC depicts him with the Federal League Indianapolis club, which I do realize is still treated as the big leagues but is nonetheless a bit harder to clearly differentiate from the Negro Leagues.

Am not looking to assert more knowledge than the OP here. Certainly I am nowhere near. Rather, just pointing out what seems to be a curious case.
__________________
Thanks,
Jason

Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 01-22-2016, 04:56 PM
Vintageclout Vintageclout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 516
Default Rookie card

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankphenom View Post
I was talking about the mounted Weiser photo, Jimmy, not the "Weiser Wonder" PC, which in any case was probably issued in 1910. If you did mean to compare the Weiser mounted photo to the T5 Johnson, the former's a photo and the latter a card, IMO.
Gotcha Hank!
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 01-22-2016, 06:19 PM
rainier2004's Avatar
rainier2004 rainier2004 is offline
Steven
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Spartan Country, MI
Posts: 2,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason.1969 View Post
Will raise a question re: Hank Aaron. I read there was a 1952 Indy Clowns postcard set that included Aaron. OldCardboard.com has a pic, though I suppose I don't know for sure it's authentic.

Given that we generally accept postcards as RCs and given that we accept non-MLB for other Negro League players (e.g., Josh Gibson), should we not consider the 1952 Indy Clowns P/C as the Aaron rookie?

Am assuming the answer is "pre-rookie" because Aaron later played in the bigs. However, I'm less comfortable applying that approach to the Negro Leagues than I am the minor leagues.

I will further note that the 1915 CJ Ed Rous(c)h RC depicts him with the Federal League Indianapolis club, which I do realize is still treated as the big leagues but is nonetheless a bit harder to clearly differentiate from the Negro Leagues.

Am not looking to assert more knowledge than the OP here. Certainly I am nowhere near. Rather, just pointing out what seems to be a curious case.
Good point...I guess the question becomes if the negro leagues are considered the big leagues. At this point I think they would.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 01-22-2016, 07:14 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Jason:

You can definitely make a good case for the Aaron postcard as a rookie card. My stance on it is yes to the Negro League part of the equation (although it pre-dates Aaron's time in Jacksonville, which would be considered pre-rookie time), yes to the postcard part of the equation but, in the end, no because it is a unique real photo postcard (only one known as far as I could tell). Since there are a few other Indy players issued in the same format, could be considered part of a "set" and thus could qualify for rookie card status.

This one could really go either way, I chose to stick with the 1954 Aaron issues as rookie cards....
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 01-23-2016, 02:36 PM
jason.1969's Avatar
jason.1969 jason.1969 is offline
Jason A. Schwartz
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 1,890
Default

That's a good way to look at it. Hadn't realized there was only one. And with that verdict, I can once again take pride in knowing I own an Aaron RC (54T). :-)
__________________
Thanks,
Jason

Collecting interests and want lists at https://jasoncards.wordpress.com/201...nd-want-lists/
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 03-04-2016, 09:03 AM
dougscats dougscats is offline
Doug Doremus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Breezy Point, NY
Posts: 1,394
Default

A couple of questions, Phil:

-In a case like McCovey, where there are two cards in the 1960 Topps set, are both cards considered his rookie card?

-In the 1975 set, where there is a mini-size as well as regular-size set, are both sets considered rookie cards?

-What are the rookie cards for the most recent inductees [Griffey, Piazza, any others]?

I collect hall-of-famers, and, inspired by your list, I've started to actively collect their rookie cards of late.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 03-04-2016, 09:27 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Whilst you are waiting for Phil, clearly only the regular issue McCovey and not the AS is his RC, and both Bretts are his rookie from the separate sets.

Griffey has a 1987 Bellingham Mariners card.

Piazza has a 1989 Salem Dodgers card.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 03-04-2016, 10:05 AM
mechanicalman's Avatar
mechanicalman mechanicalman is offline
Sam Sw@rtz
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,134
Default

This thread, while incredibly informative, led to the very humbling realization that, contrary to my previous understanding, I have, in fact, no rookie cards.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:32 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

While the Griffey & Piazza cards mentioned are first cards for each, they are both minor league cards and do not qualify as true rookie cards but are instead pre-rookie cards. Griffey has several 1989 rookie cards, with top billing always going to his Upper Deck #1 issue. Piazza's top rookie card is typically his 1992 Bowman, some like his 1992 Fleer Update.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:44 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
While the Griffey & Piazza cards mentioned are first cards for each, they are both minor league cards and do not qualify as true rookie cards but are instead pre-rookie cards. Griffey has several 1989 rookie cards, with top billing always going to his Upper Deck #1 issue. Piazza's top rookie card is typically his 1992 Bowman, some like his 1992 Fleer Update.
Upper Deck may be iconic for 89 Griffey cards, but Bowman Tiffany is more valuable.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:55 PM
CMIZ5290 CMIZ5290 is offline
KEVIN MIZE
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: VALDOSTA, GA.
Posts: 6,301
Default Oh, by the way...

I have a 87 Bellingham Griffey Blank back Gem Mint. Any interest? Thanks...
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-05-2016, 08:41 AM
dougscats dougscats is offline
Doug Doremus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Breezy Point, NY
Posts: 1,394
Default Unlisted RC's--

Thanks for your reply, Peter, and your qualification, Phil.

May I take it then that:

Maddux RC is 1987?
Pedro Martinez, 1991 or 1992?
Frank Thomas, 1990?

Phil, if it's not too much trouble,
Could you update your opening list to include the past 2-3 years inductees?

I'm counting seven that aren't listed: Maddux, Martinez, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey.
Am I missing any?

And good luck, Sam, on your first h-o-f RC--Hope you've got one of the new ones--

Last edited by dougscats; 03-05-2016 at 10:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-05-2016, 08:47 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougscats View Post
Thanks for your reply, Peter, and your qualification, Phil.

May I take it then that:

Maddux RC is 1987?
Pedro Martinez, 1991?
Frank Thomas, 1990?

Phil, if it's not too much trouble,
Could you update your opening list to include the past 2-3 years inductees?

I'm counting seven that aren't listed: Maddux, Martinez, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey.
Am I missing any?

And good luck, Sam, on your first h-o-f RC--Hope you've got one of the new ones--
If you are looking for major league rookie cards and not first cards, then you have all three right. I think there is only one option for Pedro, Upper Deck Final Edition, but there are several options for Thomas and Maddux.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-05-2016, 09:05 AM
Rookiemonster's Avatar
Rookiemonster Rookiemonster is offline
Dustin
Dustin Mar.ino
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Nj
Posts: 1,451
Default

First major league card of any hall of famer would be the answer . Topps is usually the first release set every year . But that would answer most of your questions . Minor league card are not rookies . Just look for the release dates on the year of the rookie your looking for .
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-05-2016, 09:50 AM
dougscats dougscats is offline
Doug Doremus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Breezy Point, NY
Posts: 1,394
Default Correction on Martinez?

If Pedro didn't pitch in the major leagues until 1992, then that is his rookie card, no?

My original post stated 1991; sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-05-2016, 10:01 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougscats View Post
If Pedro didn't pitch in the major leagues until 1992, then that is his rookie card, no?

My original post stated 1991; sorry.
No, rookie card is first appearance in licensed major league set such as Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, etc. Many guys have RCs long before their major league debut. The rules about appearing in a set may have changed but back then you could picture a kid long before he played. Pedro's RC is 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 03-05-2016 at 10:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-05-2016, 10:53 AM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Sure, Doug, I'll update my master list over this weekend. Here are the additional HOF'ers to be added:

Maddux, Pedro, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey, Biggio, Big Unit, LaRussa (MGR), Cox (MGR) & Torre (MGR)

Last edited by bcbgcbrcb; 03-05-2016 at 11:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-05-2016, 11:09 AM
glchen's Avatar
glchen glchen is offline
_G@ґy*€hℯη_
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
No, rookie card is first appearance in licensed major league set such as Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, etc. Many guys have RCs long before their major league debut. The rules about appearing in a set may have changed but back then you could picture a kid long before he played. Pedro's RC is 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition.
Is that the rule? I thought the rookie card rule was that the card listed the player on a Major League team? (as opposed to a minor team team or international team)

Edit: I guess these definitions are basically the same except Peter's stricter definition would exclude non-licensed sets like Panini from having "official" rookie cards.

Last edited by glchen; 03-05-2016 at 11:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:09 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glchen View Post
Is that the rule? I thought the rookie card rule was that the card listed the player on a Major League team? (as opposed to a minor team team or international team)

Edit: I guess these definitions are basically the same except Peter's stricter definition would exclude non-licensed sets like Panini from having "official" rookie cards.
I didn't even know Panini made baseball cards so I wasn't really speaking to that issue.

I can't even follow the really new stuff, I see for example 2008 cards saying Strasburg rookie from major manufacturers but then others from 2010 say rookie also.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:09 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:20 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.
Phil I assume that where a player has an issue in a regular season set you intended to exclude an update set from a different manufacturer even thought it would be from the same year? E.g. Maddux Fleer Update, Griffey Topps Traded?

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 03-05-2016 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:27 PM
dougscats dougscats is offline
Doug Doremus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Breezy Point, NY
Posts: 1,394
Default

Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:30 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougscats View Post
Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.
Right at the bottom of his first post.
LATEST HOF INDUCTEES

Craig Biggio (1988 Score Traded/Fleer Update)
Bobby Cox (1969 Topps)
Tom Glavine (1988 Donruss/Fleer/Tops/Score)
Ken Griffey Jr. (1989 Upper Deck/Bowman/Fleer/Donruss)
Randy Johnson (1989 Upper Deck/Topps/Fleer/Donruss/Score)
Tony LaRussa (1964 Topps)

Greg Maddux (1987 Donruss/Leaf)
Pedro Martinez (1991 Upper Deck Final Edition)
Mike Piazza (1992 Bowman)
John Smoltz (1988 Fleer Update)
Frank Thomas (1990 Leaf/Bowman/Topps/Score)
Joe Torre (1962 Topps)
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:36 PM
dougscats dougscats is offline
Doug Doremus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Breezy Point, NY
Posts: 1,394
Default Oy!

Thanks for pointing that out, Peter.
I was looking for them in alphabetical order and missed the new additions at the bottom.

And thanks again, Phil.
I see there were several other new inductees that I left out.

Last edited by dougscats; 03-05-2016 at 01:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:39 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

I guess it's not clear to me why a 1989 Topps Traded Griffey wouldn't also be a rookie card, for example, since he was not in the Topps regular series. It's still a 1989 card and while it was released later than the regular issue sets from that year, if priority within the year matters we would have to research which of the regular sets was issued first and only pick the first one. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:54 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

After 1981, when Fleer and Donruss entered the game along with Topps, more and more sets were produced throughout the year by the card manufacturers. Anything issued during the same calendar year would also be considered a rookie card if a base card (not an all-star card, league leader card, etc.) from a set such as Topps Traded, Fleer Update, Donruss "The Rookies", Upper Deck Final Edition, etc. In recent years, there are so many and all are so plentiful that I don't bother making an exhaustive list. If you are doing a BB HOF RC collection, you may only be looking for one example for each anyway.

So, yes, the 1989 Topps Traded Griffey is definitely a rookie card example, also known as an XRC because it comes from a traded/extended set issued later in the year via hobby sources only.

Last edited by bcbgcbrcb; 03-05-2016 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:58 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.
I don't feel you made an error, but would like to ask why the 36 world wide gum over the Joe dimaggio zeenut? I have heard others claim the 38 goudey is his true rc. I would like to pick up a dimaggio rc but want to make sure I get the one accepted by most as the rc.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.

Last edited by pokerplyr80; 03-05-2016 at 01:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:58 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Phil in that case I think you may be missing several Griffeys and Madduxes from your list. Griffey had at least a Topps and Score Traded and Maddux had a Fleer Update and Topps Traded. Also Piazza had a 92 Fleer Update.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 03-05-2016 at 02:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:03 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:08 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,914
Default

Thanks for the quick response Phil that makes sense. I am a fan of both cards and hope to have one of each eventually. I collect HOF RCs though and a dimaggio rc would fit in nicely.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:12 PM
itjclarke's Avatar
itjclarke itjclarke is offline
I@n Cl@rke
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.
I definitely get the idea of pre-rookie vs. MLB rookie cards, but then wonder why a card like Kid Nichols' N172 is considered a rookie as it pre-dates his big league career. What makes this different than any Zeenut pre-rookie card?

Will say, I'm more than happy to own either, or both, or many versions of these early cards, rookie or not... Zeenut Dimaggio, 1936 R312 Dimaggio, 1938 Goudey Dimaggio, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:15 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Peter:

I knowingly included just regular issues and left out update sets whenever that was the situation. All would still be rookie cards as I mentioned previously.

For the most part all of the post-1948 HOF RC's are pretty well identified in Beckett's price guides. There are a few cases where my choice may differ from theirs, but for the most part, a collector can look up any post-1948 baseball card and if deemed a rookie card, it will have the RC designation in the catalogue. As more and more of the modern era guys start getting into the Hall that have 10 - 20+ rookie cards each, it doesn't make sense to me listing 20+ different choices so I pick a few of the best ones and leave it at that. Again, just about every choice is plentiful and easy to obtain.

The real value in this master list and the reason that I created it was for the pre-1948 rookie cards as almost none are identified in the guides, at least not correctly. When I spoke with Bob Lemke at one time about the possibility of adding some, he wasn't comfortable with doing it so things never moved forward.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:20 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

Last edited by bcbgcbrcb; 03-05-2016 at 02:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:31 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.
67 Topps Venezuela was mostly or overall a major league set I think, so why not Bobby Cox?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 03-05-2016, 05:45 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-05-2016, 07:10 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

Thanks for the correction on the Cox RC, Peter. I am making the change right now to the master list.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 03-06-2016, 01:10 AM
itjclarke's Avatar
itjclarke itjclarke is offline
I@n Cl@rke
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb View Post
Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.
Thanks for the explanation Phil, makes sense enough. I'm not trying to complete anything, nor do I worry about the definitions within my collection, but I do have fun picking up some of the earliest examples of HOFers I can. Thanks to the board, and in large part this list for opening my eyes to some cards I'd have otherwise never gone after--- R315 Hubbell, Chong Rickey Henderson, Dietsche Cobb, Bond Bread Robinsons, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 03-06-2016, 07:03 AM
JMANOS JMANOS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,557
Default 1908 Morgan Bulkeley PC Hartford Bridge dedication?

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-06-2016, 09:09 AM
pawpawdiv9's Avatar
pawpawdiv9 pawpawdiv9 is offline
Chr!$ M!ll!c@n
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: GA
Posts: 2,707
Default zeenut dimaggio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.
Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.
__________________
LOOKING TO BUY:
1916-20 UNC Big Heads
Need List:
Ping Bodie, Sam Rice

Last edited by pawpawdiv9; 03-06-2016 at 09:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-06-2016, 11:14 AM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9 View Post
Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.
I agree, I don't like the big heads and design of the 38 goudey. That zeenut is a pretty cool card but a little out of my range at this point.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-06-2016, 11:50 AM
h2oya311's Avatar
h2oya311 h2oya311 is offline
Derek Granger
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMANOS View Post
I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...
Actually, there are at least four variations, but who's counting? Bulkeley also has some pretty cool campaign pins that pre-date the 1908 PCs.
__________________
...
http://imageevent.com/derekgranger

HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 244/342 (71.4%)
1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 114/119 (95.8%)
1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate............: 177/180 (98.3%)
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 10-25-2016, 03:01 PM
philhjr1 philhjr1 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 4
Default Jacob Ruppert rookie card

Does anyone know of what card would be considered Jacob Ruppert's rookie card for PSA's registry purpose? The 1962 Topps card, does not count/qualify for Jacob Ruppert. I have been going back and forth with PSA for 2 weeks now, and they flat out refuse to allow it. They also offered up no other suggestions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 10-25-2016, 05:17 PM
h2oya311's Avatar
h2oya311 h2oya311 is offline
Derek Granger
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,383
Default

I like this one for Ruppert - a 1901 Cabinet photo. No idea what PSA would consider to be his rookie, but it would likely be a HOF Plaque card or something of that nature.

__________________
...
http://imageevent.com/derekgranger

HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 244/342 (71.4%)
1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 114/119 (95.8%)
1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate............: 177/180 (98.3%)
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 10-25-2016, 06:59 PM
bcbgcbrcb bcbgcbrcb is offline
Phil Garry
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,817
Default

For traditional cards, I would also go with the 1962 Topps. I understand the issue and PSA's position, the same goes for Tom Yawkey's rookie card appearing in the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set.

Derek's piece is far superior and is one of Ruppert's earliest, if not the earliest, but doesn't qualify as a rookie card.

It's been a long time since I researched this but I recall Ruppert's beer company putting out a premium picturing a couple/few Yankees along with Ruppert. I think it was sometime during the late 1930's, maybe early 1940's. Again, not a card, but a nice option as a career contemporary piece and not as impossible to find as Derek's.

Last edited by bcbgcbrcb; 10-25-2016 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:53 PM
triwak's Avatar
triwak triwak is offline
Ken Wirt
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Durango, Colorado
Posts: 1,022
Default

That's fantastic, Derek!!
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 05:55 PM
Baseball cards and Addiction BleedinBlue Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 38 10-10-2009 09:42 AM
Betting on baseball cards article from CNN Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 08-16-2006 07:54 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.


ebay GSB