I'm curious and would ask the Beckett followers-- do Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson even have Beckett-designated rookie cards and if so, what are they? Are T206 and Cracker Jack "worthy" of Beckett's criteria? How about George Sisler, Casey Stengel and Dave Bancroft? Is Nap Lajoie's rookie his 1934/33 Goudey?

It's my opinion that Beckett has made designations like this to suite there own interests. By designating the Goudey a "RC" it's helps the dealers to give them another angle to market the Goudeys which are so plentiful compared to other earlier Ruth issues.

Not many dealers would benefit by designating the M101 issues or something else more obscure because there's not enough cards to go around. I think it's just a silly, ludicrous marketing ploy myself.

By 1933 Ruth was almost done as a player, there's countless earlier issues. I don't know why some think Beckett has full authority on making RC designations but I digress....

This is not a bashing of the Goudey Ruths either, they're great cards. Plentiful, but great attractive issues. But about the furthest thing from what I'd ever consider a Rookie card!

At a show a year or 2 ago, I had asked to look at a Ruth Goudey (I think the green #181) and when the guy took it out of the case he said that it was Ruth's rookie card and quoted me a price about 3X what I thought the value of it should be.

I did my best not to burst out laughing in his face, politely handed the card back to him and moved on...

Pointed cross-examination indeed. :eek:

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

I can only speak for myself but I think when people want to focus on collecting a player, or having a card represent a player in a collection, they find most ideal an early depiction of the subject-- an image from the embarkation point of a great career. The start and origin, if you will. Hence why cards issued earliest are generally more sought after in the hobby.

With the News being a minor league card, it is surely desirable as an early and rare card, yet minor league depictions are something unique and separate from the majors.

With respect to population supply, I suppose it's all relative to demand. There could only be one existing card of some common player or even semi star, but if no one is after it, not much value there. In contrast, there could probably be a hundred more Ruth M101s and collector demand would gobble them up at a high price point-- Ruth's enduring popularity seems more than up to the task when it comes to generating demand to absorb supply.

There was an episode of History channel's Pawn Stars and I'm pretty sure someone brought in a Baltimore News Ruth that turned out to be either a fake or a reprint. What was interesting is the expert that came in actually mentioned that the Goudey Ruth was the one most desired by collectors. I searched the internet for a clip, but unfortunately couldn't come up with one and I can't remember who the expert was.

One other thing I thought, non-company issued PSA registry sets, sometimes ones that don't even have the word "rookie" in it often include a very early mainstream card of the player as the one required. Red Grange comes to mind on the football side. The 33 Goudey SK is the Grange card in all the sets, but there are a number of earlier cards of Grange.

Finally, the prior poster made a good point - a lot of collectors do have a desire for that "origin card" - the card before whoever was a big star - often the player looks a lot younger than the image we have in our heads, the write up on the back doesn't recognize him as a big star, maybe the position isn't even one he wound up playing, etc. That's part of the historical research aspect of collecting to me.

For me, I have no problem calling the earliest card the rookie even if that makes it out of my reach financially. One thing that hasn't come up yet, as a card collector, I wouldn't feel bad about excluding a matchbook, or a pin, or whatever - I'd want it to be a card, but I'm sure we don't all agree on that either or even what a card is.

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

It seems very obvious to me. A "rookie" card is a card from the player's rookie season, no more or less. For that reason, not every player in a respective sport has a "rookie" card.

1951 Bowman Mantle? Rookie Card
1952 Topps Mantle? Not a rookie card
1979-80 Topps Wayne Gretzky? Rookie card
1981 Donruss Golf Jack Niklaus? Don't make me laugh
1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan? Not a rookie card.

I actually do agree that while rookie cards are part of the hobby, their role is not as substantial or important as they once were. It seems more like the fore-mentioned construct from an earlier age in the hobby.

:D

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

I agee. However, I work with many clients in the industry and have yet to find one who is actively pursing football, basketball or hockey Hall of Famers. Even those who collect baseball rookie HOFers seem to be dwindling. I may be in the vast minority, but as a collector, the prospect of paying several thousand dollars for Babe Ruth as a Red Sox pitcher is not very appealing....even though it is his first mainstream issue. By the way, we should cut the nonsense of national vs. limited distribution. If the card has an ACC designation, it can be a rookie.

I've never really cared about rookie cards either, maybe because I'm old enough to remember that when I started collecting in the 1970s, the concept of a "rookie card" didn't really exist, or at least wasn't a term than anybody used or cared about. The card that popularized the term around 1980 and the years immediately after was the 1952 Topps Mantle, ironically not his actual rookie card by nearly any modern definition. I remember hearing the term for the first time around then and thinking it sounded kind of strange, like an artificial construct somebody came up with to create demand.

From Dave Jamieson's "Mint Condition":
"As more card sets and hobby publications poured into drugstores and card shops, a new term emerged among schoolboys: "rookie card". In years past, collectors had never made much of a fuss over whether a particular card was the player's first to appear. Things changed in the early '80s after Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps rookie card sold for around $3000, then a staggering sum for a postward piece of cardboard. Such sales marked the beginning of a long nostalgia boom, as the boys who'd collected those early Topps sets grew into professionals with incomes to throw around."

I don't think the concept of collecting rookie cards will ever go away in the hobby. Collectors by definition like to organize and categorize. Therefore to categorize and collect players by their cards from their rookie year makes too much sense. Also, if a baseball fan, but not a collector, asks a hobby friend, hey, I'm a big fan of this star (like Derek Jeter), and I'd like to pick up a card from him, but there are 10,000+ different cards for Jeter, what do you recommend? That friend will probably tell him to buy Jeter's rookie card. It's a lot easier to explain why you should buy a rookie card than to say, you know, most people buy Michael Jordan's 1986 Fleer rookie card, but I recommend you buy his Green Metal card. That's tougher to explain to a casual collector.

Still no Ruth Rookie sightings here! Who won the $200,000 example in REA. Come on, bring it out ---- some of us actually love seeing awesome cards.

Change "Rookie" to "Earliest" for less debate
 

In pursuing that card that is the origin of someone's career, it always just made sense to me to try to obtain the earliest card possible. That's the card. Call it a rookie or not, but the earliest card in a player's career is generally undisputed. Now, if you stretch the definition of "card" to include everything that I do, you introduce more debate, but this rookie card stuff is just nonsense. Call it the "Earliest Card" and you generally can't go wrong.

Jason gets it, not that difficult of a concept. When I was doing the BB HOF RC collection, that's what I did. My collection included team postcard appearances, minor league cards such as Zeenuts, etc. Basically, the earliest "card" produced for each HOF'er. I also included things like Cameo Pepsin pins, M101-1's, etc. However, when I wrote reference material, I indicated what true rookie cards were for each HOF'er so the collector has the option to go with earliest collectible or true rookie card or even a mix of both.

Phil: Many things are part of the hobby that I don't agree with. I don't tell others what to collect--if they want to collect rookie cards good luck to them. I just said to me it makes no sense and therefore I would never collect them. As for the Old Judge pose variations, LOL virtually no one collects them all. However, they are part of an established set. Rookie cards are part of a "constructed" set. This is a big difference. Secondly, rookie card collectors can't even agree what the rookie card of a particular player is. No such problem with Old Judge poses. BTW, how is your book coming?

My book has been completed and is ready to print. However, I have not been able to garner sufficient advertising to help cover the printing costs so it is on hold right now.

While all you blow hards talk the talk, I've actually acquired proof that you're ALL wrong. Just got this back from PSA. Babe Ruth ROOKIE CARD. CONFIRMED.

http://s25.postimg.org/h09eklq67/Rut...Card_Final.jpg

We have all been put to shame! Thanks zenpop for lightening the mood.

That's some serious photoshopping there John. Great job!

Perfect, John! Too funny... I was going to post that same childhood image of Ruth and claim it was his "rookie", but your actual OJ card is SO much better. Nice!

+1 how long did it take you to make that?

Funny, I owned probably one of the earliest versions of that Babe baby photo. A single original probably remains tucked away in a family photo album somewhere. Mine was produced around 1920, over 20 years later but still at a pretty early stage of the Babe's career. You would think it would have some value to it but when it came time to sell, I couldn't even get $100, I think I ended up letting it go for something like $60 and it was encapsulated by Beckett, which cost money as well. Guess I was the only one that thought it was pretty cool..............

The rookie card craze does, or did, go too far -- 1992 Bowmans of guys in street clothes.

...about an hour and a half... I just put my kid to bed... and was eating dinner reading the thread, when I thought: "yeah... that'll do."

Thanks for the kind words, good people!

I always considered the Baltimore News card to be his rookie.

I realize that it wasn't nationally distributed nor is it an MLB card, but Babe Ruth was a larger than life figure and the Baltimore News premium is a larger than life card. However, I'll concede the M101 Ruth fits the standard unwritten definition of "rookie card" better than the Baltimore News card.

I think that Jeff summarized it perfectly.

Players in street clothes aren't necessarily limited to modern cards. Here's one from pre-war (not mine, obviously).

C'mon, Gary, don't be embarrassed to show off one of your lesser cards.........

So it that Matty's rookie, or is the 1902 W600 that shares the same image?

My vote would be w600.

There are no words to describe the coolness of that Mathewson card. Just pure cool.

I have and always will sweat that Mathewson card as well. The sh!t is pure pimp.

Those were the exact words that came to my mind too ..... not. :rolleyes:

1901 M128 pose on 1915 W-Unc
 

another possibility, 1901 M128 or that same pose on a 1915 card......and neither would cost a hundred K....

Sporting Life did not offer Matty until Jan 31, 1903.

This would would be the earliest W600 Sporting Life Matty - Type 2 mount issued in 1903:

Ah, so it probably still predates the e107 by a few months, would that matter to RC collectors?

Allow me to translate as I speak old out of touch white guy...

"I have and always will love that Mathewson card as well. The card is neato."

Leon:

The Matty is his earliest collectible, not a rookie card though........

Attachment 189291

Daryl, that is hysterical. Never seen that pic before!

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps5yzmcjbh.jpg

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps0iiynexf.jpg

Hi Phil, I think you're mistaking me for Wonka...

Correct but the 1915 W Unc is a card and is his earliest (rookie) pose on a baseball card. thanks much!! (and could easily fill the 100k hole with the caveat of it is what it is :) )

ps...I am biased as I own (for now) the only known copy..

Now that's the best post in this thread...

1915 rppc
 

True indeed, a much more rare than the M 101s!

Ruth Rookie Card
 

But with Ruth as a mere component of a team picture...sorry Ethan....the 1916 "solo" Ruth is his rookie card!

Ruth Rookie
 

I can agree to the 100 or so M 101s being "listed" as his rookie card. The first card that he appears on alone issued in 1916. That being said, he appears on a card, in uniform as a professional a year earlier. Only a handful of people can claim ownership of the RPPC...

Yes, indeed!

The Team card is very cool, and few abound-- but nowhere near the demand for that piece as compared to the M101.

Ruth rookie
 

I'm not disputing the M 101 as being his rookie. But I also know that you can own an M 101 if you have the money, they are readily available in most major auctions. This thread was initiated by a member that was looking for a low grade M 101 and had a figure in mind to potentially purchase an example...I think that you would be hard pressed to see an owner of one of the 1915 Red Sox Team RPPC part with it for the same price that the lower end M 101 cards are selling for. Maybe I'm wrong....rare and early Ruth continues to dominate the hobby.

I don't know if you are right or wrong but you are definitely biased!

Ha! Knowing me, I'm probably wrong! I had the chance to pick up a low grade M 101 a year ago for about $9,000 less than the RPPC that I have. Some of us like our Ruth rare.

Team postcard is definitely more rare and produced a year earlier. Those two facts there's no questioning regardless of bias.

Team cards however in general almost never draw the same demand as individual player cards. Regular card cards are also collected by a much wider audience than postcards. These two facts outweigh the earlier date and rarity of the postcard so the demand for the m101-4/5 I think will always be higher.

Ruth Rookie Card
 

Rarity has nothing to do with it. There are approx. 60/70 known T206 Wagners and it still stands as the hobby's holy grail and most valuable/desirable card. In fact, sometimes extreme rarity can actually "hurt" a card with the expression "out of sight, out of mind" ringing true. There are THOUSANDS of 52 Topps Mantles and they continue to soar in value every day. Comparitively, roughly 100 graded 1916 Ruth's provide a reasonable number of specimens to keep people "in the hunt", yet a limited supply to augment the value..... a strong balance between relative scarcity and overwhelming demand.

Joe

Agreed...are there less 1915 RPPCs than Baltimore News 1914 cards? What is the combined pop on the B-News?

Demand is always the main factor in value, not scarcity alone. There are a lot of Ruth cards way more rare than his rookie or his rookie Postcard (though it is rare).

Not even close from what ive seen.

No, there are definitely more Boston team postcards than Baltimore News Ruth cards. I know of only 10 BN Ruth’s and more than a dozen postcards. It seems as though new to the hobby postcards are being offered every year and I am sure that there are still others buried in old time postcard collections.

True Ruth Rookie
 

There is minimal debate. Ruth’s 1916 M101 IS his TRUE rookie card. The 1914 Baltimore News card was issued as a minor league card/schedule with Ruth donning his Baltimore uniform; therefore, a “pre-Rookie” minor league issue. As an additional note, the 1915 Boston Red Sox Team Real Photo Postcard (very scarce) is Ruth’s inaugural appearance on any card wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform. However, while an extremely significant issue (and costly I might add), many collectors disregard that as a true Rookie card because it is a full team image. Bottom line is the 1916 M101 Ruth is his first mainstream card issued with him ALONE and wearing a Boston MLB uniform, thus his “true” rookie card.

Please forgive me if this has been answered already in this thread (I haven't read through the entire thing yet), but why does Beckett call the 1933 Goudey a rookie card when it is so much later than so many other issues?

Thanks, and again, sorry if this has been addressed already.

I’m biased but it’s the m101 issue. First featured card of him as a professional. Not going to chime in on the postcard as I’m not a postcard guy. Let market demand decide that.

Well technically... 1914 Ruth

I dont own one but dont understand why there is any debate on this one. Seems quite obvious.

Different people have different "rookie card" definitions. For me it is the first individual baseball card as a major leaguer. This would eliminate the Baltimore News Ruth which is a schedule, not a baseball card, and is not a major league representation. The 1915 Ruth is a team postcard, eliminating it on two accounts (not individual, and for me not a baseball card). That leaves the M101-4/5 Ruth which fits my criteria.

Ruth Rookie
 

Jeff - I stated “wearing a Boston Red Sox uniform”.

By that definition, the 68 Nolan Ryan and 63 Pete Rose wouldn't be rookie cards, which just doesn't make sense. I can sss eliminating the postcard on the grounds it's not really a card, but the fact that there are multiple players depicted shouldn't make something not a rookie.

Right, he's in a Red Sox uniform in the 1914 postcard.

Ruth Rookie
 

The "1914" Love Of The Game postcard is cool...especially if it is Ruth...I've spent some time looking over all of the research and am still left wondering. To me it looks like he has a glove is on his left hand. Why is the PC in a Beckett holder rather than a PSA or SGC? Reduardless, if I'm gonna pay 10k+ for a piece, I want to be able to see who is on the piece that I'm buying.

As for the M101, it's his rookie card.

The 1915 PC (which I have a copy of in an SGC 20 holder) is also a rookie image, pre-dates the M101 and is much, much more rare. What I like about the 1915 Red Sox team PC is that it is the first card that you can see Babe Ruth on in a professional uniform. The 1915 postcard IMO is on the move.

Not sure how anyone can read the research and question if it's Ruth or not.

Don't worry, the 1914 postcard doesn't diminish the importance and value of your 1915 postcard.

very valid point!!!!!

Ruth Rookie
 

Jeff,

I don’t think Ethan is questioning the research as much as he’s simply stating you cannot identify Ruth on the 1914 postcard. The pitcher on the mound presents as an unifentifiable blurry image. I agree with Ethan. If it’s going to take a “war in peace” level of literature to prove it’s Ruth because the Ruth image tells us NOTHING, I prefer to pass as well. That’s just me and my taste, and it certainly doesn’t diminish the potential significance of this find and the great research that was put into it. On that subject, one question for you Jeff. As Ethan stated, the research is awesome and points to it being ruth. However, that appears to be a glove on the left hand of the pitcher. It just seems too large of a haze to be Ruth’s left hand? Your thoughts?

Yes, obviously the image is too blurry to clearly identify Ruth, no one is arguing that. But if you have any doubts that it is actually Ruth that means you have doubts about the research which I can't really understand with all the supporting evidence.

Glove is on the right hand, his left hand is visible. May look a little large due to motion or holding a ball or whatever but again the image is too blurry to really make any kind of credible identification call like that which is why the research is so vital.

I completely understand that this type of item is not for everyone. All I'm saying is that it is 100% definitely Ruth pitching for the Red Sox in 1914.

It’s irrelevant which card is ”the” rookie. The mere fact that they are even in the debate shows that each card is important. The Ruth PC on HA is at 84k with BP right now. Rookie or not, it’s getting a ton of respect as the earliest professional Ruth card. The market will always prefer an individual card to a team card, but that is ok: there are obviously enough collectors who appreciate and will pay big for both.

Pretty simple if you ask me. Baltimore is a minor league rookie and Sporting News is an MLB rookie.

Ruth Rookie
 

Well said!

I'll take the under on that 50K.

Well put, Jeff!

Highest regards,

Larry

+1. IMHO, probably a couple hundred of the 1916 M 101's in total exist. And indeed, good luck finding any example under $20K.

Happy hunting,

Larry

By my recollection, the last time a VG example was under $10K was around 2005 or so.

Good luck in your quest,

Larry