Stan Musial Rookie Cards

[bk400]

I've been reading a lot lately about Stan Musial and have decided to start collecting him. Sounds like there is some debate about what his "true" rookie card would be: 1946 Propagandas Montiel, 1948 Bowman or 1948 Leaf. I believe that there a couple of other candidates out there as well.

Any thoughts?

[cgjackson222]

‘47 Bond Bread?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sophisticates will say Propagandas, the rest of us I think would say Bowman.

[Lucas00]

I am partial to the 1942 Donora Zinc Works Employee athletic association Premium photo! 🤣

[G1911]

The Leaf is from 1949.

[BioCRN]

I love the bitching about RC pecking order. It's so damn subjective. I actually like this about pre-war (and immediately after post-war) issues.

Are we counting over-sized?

Are we counting table game cards, silks, and leathers?

Are we counting regional issues (some M101-4 types) in the 1920s, but not the ones in the late 1940s (1947 Tip Top Bread)?

Are we counting the earliest issued 1887+ Old Judge cards as well as later issued OJ's with an updated team as the same issue, therefore both RC?

I don't think many would die on the hill of arguing the Propagandas Montiel over the Bowman, though some may have strong opinions one way or another...and some may say the 1946 Sears postcard counts as his RC.

[Swadewade51]

Sears

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Baseball Rarities]

Here is his 1946 Sears postcard. The set contained players form the Cardinals and the Browns. I am only aware of 2 Musials, but I assume that there are more.

[Casey2296]

I'm not a rookie card guy, more of an image collector. His 48 Bowman is an early portrait, readily available, affordable, and a fantastic image.
You can't go wrong adding that one to your collection along with his 52 and 53 Bowmans.

[The Detroit Collector]

I guess it's how you interpret a rookie card.

The mainstream rookie, which was well populated, created by larger company's and available to the country would be 48 Bowman 49 Leaf.

The less mainstream rookie, scarce production, not available to the entire country would be the propagandis, sears and bond bread.

[Lucas00]

I am far more in line with pre war people. If it's on paper stock and the player is in a major league uniform/the issue is from a players ML days I don't care what size it is. Stans rookie is his m114 (Which is very likely a 1941 or 1942 issue, not 1943 like its stated most places). Or the Donora Zinc works premium photo from 1942 in my eyes. How something 5 or even as much as 8 years later can be called his rookie issue instead, I have no idea. Maybe if your definition includes the words standard Card size or mainstream release. Which are boring ways to think IMO. And one of the reasons postwar (During war in this case) rookie oddballs haven't caught on nearly enough compared to pre war. I do like the folks who've said Sears and Prop so far, that's the right direction.

And then personally I'd take it a step further and say if the player has a minor league card that would be the "pre" rookie to me (think DiMaggio zeenut). But that's a whole new can of worms.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Two easy solutions to help the cause:

1. Pre-MLB issues would be considered Pre-Rookies such as Zee-Nuts, 1958 Omaha Bob Gibson, etc.

2. Non-card issues such as the M114 Musial qualify as Rookies without the term rookie cards being applicable, by definition, a supplement is not a card.

I think Musial is an easy one, Sears & Propagandas Montiel. For transparency, I own a Propagandas, Bond Bread, 2 Bowman’s and Leaf. Obviously, no Sears, as Kevin indicated, that one is a near impossibility to find.

[rman444]

M114 for me

[h2oya311]

My vote is for the 1942 Donora program premium that Lucas mentioned...but I would be open to calling the 1943 M114 (which I own) or the 1946 Propagandas or 1946 Sears PC "rookie" issues as well. Everything else is, well...close.

But because everyone has their own definitions of what constitutes a "card" or a "rookie", I've updated my "HOF Earliest" website to show everything that could fall into the realm of "rookie" or "earliest" for Musial. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any proposed edits or additions!

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/...est/stanmusial

[bk400]

Thanks, all, for the thorough discourse. H2oya's list of "Earliest" products is eye opening. My instinct for now is to stick with rookie cards, with "cards" defined in a way that Potter Stewart might. That probably leads me to the 1948 Bowman and, less realistically, the Propagandas.

I can see how going down the M113 or the 1942 route for the Stans would create massive mission creep for the rest of my collecting ambitions.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Here is his 1946 Sears postcard. The set contained players form the Cardinals and the Browns. I am only aware of 2 Musials, but I assume that there are more.

For the win!

But let me inject another wrinkle: 1946 Sports Exchange Photo:



https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...w602-and-w603/

It ran in the April 1946 issue of the Sports Exchange Trading Post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Thanks, all, for the thorough discourse. H2oya's list of "Earliest" products is eye opening. My instinct for now is to stick with rookie cards, with "cards" defined in a way that Potter Stewart might. That probably leads me to the 1948 Bowman and, less realistically, the Propagandas.

I can see how going down the M113 or the 1942 route for the Stans would create massive mission creep for the rest of my collecting ambitions.

I think that's sensible. I've bought the occasional "pre rookie" or alternative rookie, but only in addition to the mainstream (Potter Stewart) rookie for all my postwar HOFers.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Here is his 1946 Sears postcard. The set contained players form the Cardinals and the Browns. I am only aware of 2 Musials, but I assume that there are more.

Nice card, Kevin. I also, always think there are more cards than we know of.
My mainstream rookie I had to have because of the centering..

[Exhibitman]

The Leaf is a pretty card. Grabbed mine because of the front registration. The back, not so great.

[Beercan collector]

My schmooz - Stamp on the back doesn’t bother me at all

[brianp-beme]

I like my rookie cards to be right before a player becomes a former ballplayer. So for me this 1963 Topps of Stan should be considered his most relevant post-career pre-rookie card.

topps1963musial (310x400).jpg

Brian (I need to buy one of those convex mirrors designed for hidden driveways, because additional collecting angle perspectives are essential for the budget collector trying to avoid a financial crash)

[Snowman]

I define a player's rookie card as their first card that I'd actually want to own. For Stan Musial, that's the 48 Leaf. And for Pete Rose, I consider the 64 Topps to be his rookie.

And no, I don't care about anyone else's definition of what a rookie card is. I only care about mine.

[ALR-bishop]

The Cardinals had some great years in the 40s but were terrible in the 50s. Musial had a very sound year in 63, his last. It was too bad he missed the team’s resurgence in the 60s, particularly 64

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I define a player's rookie card as their first card that I'd actually want to own. For Stan Musial, that's the 48 Leaf. And for Pete Rose, I consider the 64 Topps to be his rookie.

And no, I don't care about anyone else's definition of what a rookie card is. I only care about mine.

I hear what you're saying. For me, Dwight Gooden's rookie card will always be the 1985 Topps card. Why? Because at the time, my buddies and I thought that only weird, middle aged men who hung out at card shows even knew what the Traded Series were, much less knew where to buy them.

[Dave-Illini]

Not his rookie card but the most attractive Musial of that era.

[darwinbulldog]

I'd say Sears, mainly on the grounds that Propagandas are paperstock and therefore not cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Forgot about one more candidate, 1947 Sports Exchange Mini.

[Exhibitman]

The problem with the Sports Exchange cards is that they were issued over three years, so to be sure of the actual issue date you have to do some digging. That said, the advertising for the large format cards started in November 1946 with set one. Musial's large card is from Set 2, so I believe it is a 1947 card. The smaller version advertising still eludes me. if anyone has old TPSE issues and can check for the minis, that would be great.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't care about anyone else's definition of what a rookie card is. I only care about mine.

I feel exactly the same way about parking rules.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The problem with the Sports Exchange cards is that they were issued over three years, so to be sure of the actual issue date you have to do some digging. That said, the advertising for the large format cards started in November 1946 with set one. Musial's large card is from Set 2, so I believe it is a 1947 card. The smaller version advertising still eludes me. if anyone has old TPSE issues and can check for the minis, that would be great.

I read a long time ago in SCD that the minis can be dated by the color on the borders. I have only red border and gold border cards in my collection, and I have them listed as 1948 for red and 1949 for gold based on what I read. By process of elimination, I'm guessing that the green borders are 1947, but I no longer have the SCD article and don't remember what it said about those. I think those are the only colors, but someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cubanball]

Here is a page from a program from 1945 for a Navy all-star game with players from both the American and National leagues. Not a card but I thought it is an interesting pre Bowman rookie baseball item.