Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Mike Heatherly</b><p>Is the 1926-1929 Exhibit considered one of, or his distinct rookie? Doe's anyone know the ballpark value of this card in a 3 grade?

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The exhibit is his rookie, and since I have one on ebay closing in a couple of hours, I will let someone else appraise it.

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Mike Heatherly</b><p>Nuff said, thanks for your imput!

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Do not forget HBL rookie card rule No. 5 - If one card was issued over a series of years, another card issue during such period is also a rookie card. Hence, the 1927 W560 Foxx is a rookie card.

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thus begins the debate. I think there are some cards where there is more than one rookie, especially when it's not clear which was issued first. For example, 1934 Goudey Greenberg vs. 1934 Batter-Up Greenberg.

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Actually, Greenberg is governed by HBL rookie card rule No. 6 - If one card was issued over a range of years (e.g., 1924-36 Batter-Up), another card was issued solely during the first year of such range (1934 Goudey or Tigers Team Issue), then the card issued solely in the first year is teh sole rookie card. And so it has been written.

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If Batter Up was issued between 1934 and 1936, it's reasonable to assume some Greenberg's were printed in 1934. Did they precede the Goudey issue? I have no idea. I understand your point, but there is always a debate.

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>HBL rookie card rule No. 2 - it matters not which card was released first to market during a particular year (The answer could easily vary by geographic location.)

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What are the HBL rules? Are those Hal's initials?

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Yes.<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />For purists like us, I'm sure we would not consider the 1933 Goudey, Jimmy Foxx #29 a rookie. But the SCD has indicated that it is now significantly more valuable than the other Foxx in the 1933 Goudey set. What's up with that.<br /><br />Peter

Foxx Rookie?
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>The 1st series Foxx card #29 was printed on inferior cardboard (coarse stock). Therefore, this card<br /> is much more difficult to find in nice shape. As is the 1st 50-55 cards in this set. Besides the fact<br /> that Bengough is the #1 card the same applies to his card. Goudey used very crude cardboard in the<br />first series.<br /><br />The higher # Foxx always shows up in better condition.