Lajoie Rookie?
 

I have noticed both Goldin and now REA calling the W600 Lajoie type 1 (awesome cards, don't get me wrong...though two in a month?) his rookie card. the Sporting News card came out a full 2-3 years earlier, so that just seems like unnecessary hype to me.

my Sporting News...anyone have a nicer copy I can buy?

Paul

Define "Nicer".

And maybe, since the W600 is on card stock it's a card, or maybe it's hype.

I don’t believe the hobby recognizes supplements (among other things) as “cards”. What constitute a rookie is an entirely different debate (and one worth having), but I think most recognize true cards, post cards, and cabinets as “rookie” worthy. I am not sure composites, pictures/photos, supplements qualify. One conundrum is the team PC- which is Ruth’s Rookie?

Both are Ruth's rookie, rookie team card and traditional rookie card.

Agreed, rookie cards need to be cardboard.

I prefer this one of Lajoie from 1897:

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...%20Lajoie1.jpg

Or neither are rookie cards.

If it's listed in Bob Lemke's Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards... it counts for me! Other things do, too. Collect what you like.

I know that this is always a debated topic, but I see where where Ryan is coming from and agree with Jeff regarding the possibility of there being both a rookie team card and a traditional rookie card for some players. In addition, for many players, there are pre-rookie (pre-mlb) cards also.

I love the M101-1s and other supplements. At the end of the day, I go with what Ken said and collect you like.

That is an awesome supplement. I have seen it before, but I never realized it was from 1897.

One way of looking at it, but I disagree in regards to the M101-1 “supplements”, these were a “set” with playing biographies on the back, not just an endless string of photos. Sure is closer to a Goudey “card” and the cards that followed up through modern times than an exhibit would be...like the Gehrig. That seems like more of a photo than a card to me. These Just happened to be on paper stock instead of cardboard. But I certainly acknowledge the “cardboard” aspect.

I think the M101-1s and Natl Copper Plates are awesome. Is there another set with biographies until the CJs and then Goudey’s? A real document of the times.

I would add that I think they are quite rare, but are hurt more by PSA not grading them then by what they are made of.

Depends on what you mean by biographies... the T205s had biographical info on the back.

oops, forgot those...well, anyway, the only ones before that for ten years. or am I missing another one?

I've often wondered about the earliest biographical or statistical "cards" and I believe they might be the 1889 Goodwin Round Albums (A35). I only have the King Kelly, but it lists his basic stats on the back. Sorry for the off-topic discussion!

T202. The biographies of not only the end panels (basically T205) but also the info on the center panels is really interesting. The whole back of a T202 makes for interesting reading.

Love it! Nice graphic of Lajoie.

Anyway, I get the hobby consensus that it must be made of cardboard to be a rookie but I feel paper is just as acceptable. Cardboard is nothing more than layers of paper.

I completely agree that it's "awesome" but it's not a supplement, it the cover of a Leslie's Weekly issue.

Also, in my opinion, the m101-1 has way more claim to "rookie card" than the w600.

Here's mine (but not for much longer).

Doug

I tend to agree with you in theory, but I don’t think the “hobby” does. There is a copper plate Wagner on eBay for like $50k. It’s been there for a long long time. It’s much earlier than the W600 type 1 wagner and e107 wagner and approximately as scarce. Yet the one on eBay sits and sits on eBay for $50k, and the other two, cardboard pieces sell for far in excess of $200k.

Thanks for the correction.

Yes. the copper Plate and Sporting News backs are really very interesting as well. here is Cap Anson's back on his Copper Plate...known as the "father of Base Ball" in 1898.

T207s.

Exactly! Which is why I wrote the hobby consensus is that it must be made of cardboard and I understand it entirely.

Even if PSA slabbed the the M101s or NCPs, it might increase their value but they would never realize what the more traditionally accepted rookies are of some of these players.

Not that one's budget should be a factor in defining a rookie card but for many in the hobby who cannot afford some of the traditional rookies, having a broader definition of "rookie card" might be necessary.

Hard to say...have those wagners sold at those prices raw? Also, i dont think the Gehrig exhibit was thought of like it is today for most of time....look at it now!

Since the advent of grading, I highly doubt an E107 or W600 Wagner would have sold ungraded. Agree on the Exhibit Gehrig...All of the Exhibits have been slow to be appreciated. Lots of tough Exhibit rookies.

From my POV I feel the NCP Wagner would be his rookie but I am certain I am in the minority.

Here’s the proper way to identify each Lajoie and I think makes just about everyone happy with their own version (the last one is a little bit iffy but didn’t want to leave it out completely):

Earliest Collectible (in a professional baseball uniform) - 1897 Leslie’s Illustrated

Rookie - 1899 M101-1

Rookie Card - 1902 W600 (Type I) mount

Traditional Rookie Card - 1903 E107

+1 ...There are a lot of things that I consider cards when others might not. I guess a card, by definition, should be made of cardboard?

.

PSA is grading M101s...but of the “2” (M101-2) variety. I think the M101-1s are still a little too big. But, since M101-2s have started to be graded (by PSA), their values have really shot up...Even though they are paper thin. It’s only a matter of time before the floodgates are opened for other paper premiums/issues.

Exactly! No one is paying a big premium on EBay for a raw paper card (that seems an odd place to sell that card for that $$)...but grade it and I bet you that Wagner is going to fly much higher. You could buy worse things for that money.

Only the Standard Biscuit is Ruth's Rookie Card. RC stands for Rookie Card, NOT supplements, newspaper clippings, post cards, Type 1/2 photos, ect. The Postcard is exactly what it says. Its meant to be mailed and thrown away, or can saved as memorabilia from a loved one of a favorite item or team. The Standard Biscuit card is meant to be collected and traded to complete a set or just have the most. People are just grasping for what ever money they can suck out of you all the time. Goldin Auctions knows very well what they are doing and I hope the owners realize that it's a supplement is not an actual RC.

The National copper Plate was printed to be a set that was collected. Hence the bound volumes with them that could be ordered. It is not actually a supplement.

but it is paper thin...so I guess it's not technically a "card". It needs to meet both criteria. It does have the benefit of being listed in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, so maybe that should be the criteria.

That said, I'd love to have the NCP of Wagner. Call me crazy, but I'd take the NCP over his E107 or W600 based on my definition and pursuit of each HOFer's "earliest collectible".

1914-15 Cracker Jacks are paper thin. Are they not cards?

Bottom line is that the hobby does not accept supplements as cards and, therefore, that is not Lajoie’s rookie card and will not sell for anything close to what Lajoie’s accepted rookie cards sells for. PuckPaul, you are doing a noble job trying to promote your supplement, likely in an attempt to increase value, but it is not treated as Lajoie’s rookie card. At least for now, your Lajoie supplement will continue to sell for a fraction of what the W600 Type 1 (green and traditional) and e107 Lajoies sell for. Sorry. Puff all you want, but whether you like it or not (and regardless of what I think), them’s the facts.

It is always interesting to see everyone’s takes on this subject. Lots of different views.

Ryan, happy to have either set do well (my Lajoie W600 below), and I am not currently a seller. I do think the NCP are one of the best (most beautiful and most interesting) sets ever, as well as the M101-1s, and with grading someday and maybe more turnover and trading in them (might be too rare?), they will appreciate to higher levels. I find them far more appealing than the Breisch Williams set, which copied many of the same portraits but smaller and several years later, but that’s me. I do love the W600s, which I find incredibly attractive and important.

Lastly, I think they should appreciate on their own merits. The rookie designation is not critical (hence the 52 Topps Mantle).

I too think the M101s, and especially the copper plates, are awesome. And there is no doubt they are earlier (in some cases earliest) renditions of most players and are worthy of the title “rookie”. The hobby just isn’t there. I love Honus Wagner and I have been looking at the copper plate on (and off) eBay for years, but I just can’t pull the trigger bc I am not sure it’s a smart buy. Grading could help, but if PSA/SGC has not graded them to date, I am not sure what will change there; and the fact that Beckett does slab them does not help, considering Beckett is very poor on vintage.

Post cards are a different topic all together. I tend to agree that the 1915 Red Sox team PC is not Ruth’s rookie - not bc its a post card but bc its a team picture. It certainly is his earliest major league appearance, but I think his 1916 cards, which are dedicated to him alone, are his rookie. But all those 1907 post cards of Cobb.... At this point I think it’s fairly established that (aside from w600) all of those 1907 postcards are Cobb rookies (cabinets are another, similar debate).

Who knows. Collect what you like!! And I fully agree that M101s are very likeable!

With as busy as PSA is I do not see them making an even larger holder that would accommodate the NCP or the M101-1s but maybe one day they will. Until then the hobby is stuck with Beckett, who as Ryan has pointed out, does not have the respect with their graded vintage.

I personally feel that postcards are very much baseball cards. They had a dual purpose, especially in the early 1900s: to be used as correspondence through the mail and also to collect on their own. The majority of the baseballs postcards that pop up today have never been postmarked and were instead purchased as a collectible. Just look at how many scrapbooks from the early 1900s surface that are comprised of someone’s postcard collection from the day.

Well, when they were issued as a set, i would agree. I mean, whoever designed the postcards and issued them decided to use the likeness of the player to attract customers. Then they must have decided to use a group of players or images and not just one player. That defines a “set” then. So if it can be collected as a set, and isnt just a one off photo of a player on a postcard, then I would consider them cards.