Lajoie Rookie?

[puckpaul]

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

[Dardevl]

Define "Nicer".

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

[Rhotchkiss]

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?

[Bicem]

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

Agreed, rookie cards need to be cardboard.

[h2oya311]

I prefer this one of Lajoie from 1897:

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I prefer this one of Lajoie from 1897:

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

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I prefer this one of Lajoie from 1897:

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bicem

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

Agreed, rookie cards need to be cardboard.

Or neither are rookie cards.

[triwak]

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.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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?

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.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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?

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.

[Ricky]

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

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Ricky

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?

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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?

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.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

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.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

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".

[Baseball Rarities]

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

[puckpaul]

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).

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

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.

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.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

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