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.