Morris Moe Berg Rookie??
 

Took a chance on this recently---had no idea this Moe even existed!
I have a few other players from this set, and it looks/feels like the real deal to me. If that's the case this would be Moe's earliest issue. I know these die-cuts are not very popular or well researched, but does anyone have a somewhat reliable checklist of known players for the 1921-30 MLB Die Cuts??

Given the wide spread of potential dates, I'd say his Kashin is the rookie

https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/...972/restricted

Character
 

..He was certainly one of the great characters of the game , and the history of the era ; This is his Burke 4 x 6 when he was with Boston :

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...ERGHORNSBY.JPG
..

..

International News photograph from 1933 while he was with the Washington Senators:

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1688149794

I have to agree with this because the dating is so wishy-washy and the set is so poorly tracked.

Berg was basically defaulted into a catcher role in September of 27’ due to injury and as a journeyman, his job was to fill. He was never designated as a true starter at catcher that season, just journeyman as Bill Hunnefield had taken his SS role leaving him without a position.

As the card lists his position as catcher and he did not officially debut as a starting catcher until 1928, I would assume the card would be the following year at the earliest because of release and print time. So at best it would have been same year as the Kashin. However, it could be a 1930 as well.

Without proof I would guess 1929 Kashin is a safer play as a rc.

Unpopular opinion, but for once I think the 1933 Goudey actually is a rookie.

As I recall (mine are buried somewhere in a box I can't find with a quick check), the 1929 Kashin's are very thin, a paper photograph. I do not think this is a card because a card requires cardboard. Happy to stand corrected if my memory is wrong.

Same thing for his 1930 Chicago Evening Pin; often appears on card lists and catalogs but a pin is not a card.

The Die-Cut pre-dates the Goudey, and it names Berg, and it is on cardboard, but that picture is not Berg. I think a rookie card kind of has to actually show the player, not just slap a random name on a generic picture.

That leaves the Goudey as his first actual card - first card (cardboard), picturing Moe Berg.

Here's the card Greg is endorsing as Berg's RC:

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1688236520

R316 definitely cards
 

R316s (1929 Kashins) are definitely cards, printed on card stock that is thinner than Goudeys but more rigid than a paper photograph. IMHO those diecuts are game pieces, not cards. The images are generic, the labels are interchangeable and they can't be tied to a specific year. Thus, they don't seem to qualify as a "rookie collectible," let alone a "rookie card."

I have heard similar arguments before and always thought it odd. By the same argument are 1914 Cracker Jacks not a card or the innumerable other issues that are paper, or just photo paper that are widely accepted cards not cards if deemed so?

I am not picking on you, I’ve just always thought the paper stock discussion never held much water without completely disregarding hundreds of widely accepted issues (including some near entire catalogues such as Cuban releases).

Widely accepted doesn't mean correct. I don't care about preserving value or status quo, I just follow the basic logic when I determine what is or is not a card in my collection or any other question. A card is cardboard, as is in the name. A paper thin item is not a card; there is no cardboard or card stock. That's why a newspaper picture cut out is not a card. That's why a photo I take on a 1980's camera is not a card.

For Cuban example, 1946 Propagandas are not cards; they are paper. That doesn't make them less cool nor less collectible, it just literally is not a card. I made the same point about them in the boxing pickup thread recently when I got a James Jeffries. It's just not a card, by definition.

My position is to just use the literal, any item that is not on cardboard or card stock cannot be a card because it lacks the definitional characteristic of a 'card'.

In turn, not picking on you, but your formulation here assumes the answer as a required condition of the question. If we cannot find anything that "completely disregard[s] hundreds of widely accepted issues"; we are dictating the answer without inquiry. If we decide that to answer the question, we cannot find anything that says general hobby understanding, definitions, perceptions or beliefs are incorrect, then we dictate the answer without any reason entering into it or any examination. This is a normal thing people do, to postulate that we cannot find what we do not want to find, but of course it is the opposite of logic. This is a very unimportant issue, but one doesn't arrive at truth by determining that the answer to a question must be that the status quo is right. From unimportant categorization to where and when cards were printed to things outside the hobby that actually matter, one arrives at the truth by following logic and the evidence, not pre-concluding the outcome of an inquiry. This is probably why the genuine research threads are so barren; it requires a different starting point and basis than the hobby generally likes in its discussion. If we don't determine the conclusion before the inquiry, we often find what we thought before is wrong. I certainly have many times.

As I said for the Kashin, I'm going off memory as mine are buried in the bottom of the safe, if the post prior to this is right and they are a thinner cardboard but still cardboard then the Kashin is Berg's rookie card. If it is paper, then it is not his rookie card. It can be a rookie picture, a cool item, but a rookie 'card' is a 2 condition statement; the item must be a rookie and a card both. This stands for every player and every item.

I think the much more debatable standard I gave is the one dismissing the die cut; that a rookie card must actually picture the subject. That one is very arbitrary.

I own none of the cards in this thread and do not plan on acquiring them, no vested interest

In answer to the OP's question:
I have not been able to find a checklist -
Pre-War Cards says:
1921-30 Major League Ball Die-Cuts Overview
Major League Ball Die-Cuts -The 1921-30 Major League Ball Die-Cuts set is an issue that spanned over many years throughout the 1920s.

The die-cut cards featured the names of specific players but the cartoon renderings were used over and over for various players over the years. Because of that, they’re part generic and part player-specific. And because images were reused over and over, it is practically impossible to determine all of the years of all of the cards in the set.

In addition to basic information about players, the set also included some unique things such as the player’s batting side and their order in the batting order.

The cards featured color images using relatively dull colors. Each die-cut had a square printed at the bottom with the player’s name, position, and team. While they all had the same general look, it’s worth pointing out that some of the fonts used for the player’s information at the bottom varied a little.

While Old Cardboard says this:
1921-30 Major League Ball Die-cuts

FRONT
BACK
Year(s) Published: 1921-30
Hobby Designation: --
Set Name: Major League Ball Die-cuts
Card Size (inches): varies
Number of Cards in Set: 224+
Est. Value (common; VG): $14

Set Summary
From 1920's game by National Game Makers of Wash, DC
Game: "Major League Ball--The Indoor BB Game Supreme"
Fourteen die-cut player cards used for each team
All 16 teams represented; roster varied each year
Generic player position poses repeated for each team
Same pose for each position; coloring keyed to team

Thankfully, we can make up the rules for our own beliefs as we see fit. It might not gel with the generally accepted school(s) of thought when trying to sell an item, though!

It also bugs me when I see a pin, a Salada coin or anything 3-D among a checklist of a player's cards. Stop it! Being exclusively an autograph guy, I just imagine the sheer silliness of trying to get a player to sign some of these items. I've actually seen a collector or two online who get the Jell-O coins signed. Really, you're sending a round item the width of a poker chip with a teeny photo recessed into a piece of plastic to a 90 year old man and want him to sign it legibly? Jeez, don't torture the poor guy. The instance of this which I laughed at the most was where someone sent one to Johnny Romano, I believe. You want the guy to fit 12 letters on that surface?! If Ed Ott was old enough to have appeared in the set, then OK, maybe...

I fully understand your (Greg's) feelings that a card requires cardboard to be considered a card, but here I like to bend my own rules a little bit in regards to signed cards. Some players/executives may not have a card printed until much later in their careers, if at all. Additionally, their card RC may have an astronomical value attached to it, whereas the earlier-issued premium is both older and can sometimes be had for a song. I don't mind owning a premium, especially if it's autographed! The closer in size to a CARD card, the better, though.

Love the reply, and thank you for understanding how different opinions work. Sadly a lost art in today’s society. :)

I can see your point and respect your conclusions. I just collect on a looser definition of whatever the first release to the public consumption is the rookie and any paper ephemera is qualified to be a card. I guess as the true entomology of the word card is not a shortened version of cardboard (as the invention was hundreds of years later) but derived from the Latin for a leaf of paper, (or papyrus which would disqualify everything lol) thus by my interpretation, anything made of paper can fit under the umbrella.

Thanks for the reply here, and all of the other replies too.
These die-cuts are monstrous set/issue, and seems like there are plenty of unknowns still in regards to it. I really like all of the eccentricities of the Die-Cuts and tried to punctuate my post with numerous question marks and my main hope was to have some lively dialogue---and so far, so great!
Cheers everyone

I consider this Ray Caldwell Cracker Jack his rookie card, as it definitely fits the thicker than paper requirement, being that it is mounted on a 5/8" thick wooden plaque. Unless, of course, it is actually a 1915 and not a 1914 Cracker Jack card. My jigsaw has been itching to uncover the card's backside orientation. Ray's 1913 felt pennant I believe does not qualify for rookie card status, as felt is not easy to shellack.

Brian

Very nice piece. I have a couple of letters signed by FDR which the original recipient thought would be a neat-o idea to do that to. :mad: