Jackie Robinson RCs taking off

[investinrookies]

Has anyone else noticed the high prices the last few 48 leaf rookies got at auction? Maybe everything going on in the world today is playing a part in this increase and people are starting to pay notice to how significant he really was as a person and a player. Looks like his cards are starting to take off, will they keep going from here? His 49 bowman issue is also considered a true rookie is it next to move up big?

Crazy prices these all got, especially ending on the same night.

6/15-1948 leaf PSA 7-$38,988
6/15-1948 leaf SGC 6.5-$18,656
6/15-1948 leaf UGLY PSA 4-$10,800

[toppcat]

As usual I sold my 49 Bowman and 52 Topps Jackie's way too early. Story of my life in this hobby and while I do it for fun, I am the bottom of the market when I sell. You have been warned.

[G1911]

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

[mrmopar]

Widely distributed (and more substantially sized sets) like Leaf and Bowman vs smaller, perhaps even regional issues. I guess it depends on your own belief of what a rookie card should be. Earliest item, regardless of origin? Does a premium promotional or retail sold photo or PC get the same credit as a trading card?

Here is one to be pondered. There is a current hockey guy, don't follow the sport and don't recall the name. He is apparently in the stands and captured in the background of a then current players card. 94 or 95 Pinnacle is the set.

Clearly, this is coincidence that this kid in the game action photo goes on to be a star in his own right, but people are now paying substantially more for the common card because this future star is pictured. Definitely a rookie for that guy, but is likely the earliest national issue picturing him.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

Widely distributed (and more substantially sized sets) like Leaf and Bowman vs smaller, perhaps even regional issues. I guess it depends on your own belief of what a rookie card should be. Earliest item, regardless of origin? Does a premium promotional or retail sold photo or PC get the same credit as a trading card?

Here is one to be pondered. There is a current hockey guy, don't follow the sport and don't recall the name. He is apparently in the stands and captured in the background of a then current players card. 94 or 95 Pinnacle is the set.

Clearly, this is coincidence that this kid in the game action photo goes on to be a star in his own right, but people are now paying substantially more for the common card because this future star is pictured. Definitely a rookie for that guy, but is likely the earliest national issue picturing him.

I would take a pretty literal definition of a 'card' and say photos do not count, a postcard does. It doesn't affect Jackie though, I don't think anyone can argue that Bond Breads and Swells are not cards.

If Bond Bread (which must have been distributed over a fairly large area for the set featuring many players, as there are tons of these cards today) is too minor or not a major manufacturer, then I don't think Leaf is. The 1949 Leaf set was illegal, using players images with no licensing rights which got the set pulled. I'd think that wouldn't count either then, making his 17th issued card, the 1949 Bowman, a "Rookie", which seems pretty absurd to me. It's not like the Bonds or Swells are some truly obscure issue even put out only in some town. At least the 1952 Topps Mantle "Rookie" is his third issued card.

[irv]

The same can be said of the Beehive hockey cards. Many stars are in that large set which all pre-date their actual hockey cards.
This was a set where proof of Beehive products got you pics/photos of star players yet these photos/pics rarely get mentioned or are collected.

Gordie Howe, Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, the list goes on and on with these players who had their photos taken, sometimes years before their actual hockey cards came out.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

Arbitrary regional vs national distribution standards set in the 80's by various publications is why. Jackie transcends anyway.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Arbitrary regional vs national distribution standards set in the 80's by various publications is why. Jackie transcends anyway.

I don’t believe either the Swell or the Bond Bread round corners were regional, just the Robinson-specific Bond cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

It is believed that half the Bond Bread cards were issued after 1948. We know some of the photos were taken during the 1949 season. So there is some debate as to issue date. PSA has only graded more than 20 of 2 of the 12. The promo is believed to be a giveaway card, PSA has graded 109 of these. PSA doesn’t grade the regular Bond set. The Swell card is more a highlight card than a standard baseball card. Is the 1960 Topps World Series game 5 card Maury Wills RC? PSA has graded 156 of the Swell cards. PSA has graded 1344 of the 1949 Leaf cards. We can see by the numbers available that the Leaf cards were more of a national issue and the others regional. It is also from a traditional set with 98 different players, not a set only featuring 1 player or a set of highlight cards. That is why the hobby considers Leaf a RC instead of the others.

[ALR-bishop]

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

1952 Topps for me-which is currently the only one I own. I think that card is so under appreciated, better image and more rare than any of the others. Nearly impossible to find nice centered examples.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

Your question also makes me wonder...if you could have either a 51B mantle or a Robinson Leaf/Bowman Rookie which one would you rather have?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

Yeah, that Leaf Jackie image is not good. The 52 Topps though, is fabulous.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is believed that half the Bond Bread cards were issued after 1948. We know some of the photos were taken during the 1949 season. So there is some debate as to issue date. PSA has only graded more than 20 of 2 of the 12. The promo is believed to be a giveaway card, PSA has graded 109 of these. PSA doesn’t grade the regular Bond set. The Swell card is more a highlight card than a standard baseball card. Is the 1960 Topps World Series game 5 card Maury Wills RC? PSA has graded 156 of the Swell cards. PSA has graded 1344 of the 1949 Leaf cards. We can see by the numbers available that the Leaf cards were more of a national issue and the others regional. It is also from a traditional set with 98 different players, not a set only featuring 1 player or a set of highlight cards. That is why the hobby considers Leaf a RC instead of the others.

Jackie is a Round cornered Bond, a 1947 issue. The square corner lower quality cards were 1949 or later. The 1947 round corner is not a rare card, there are 6 on eBay right now. See the large composite thread on these. There are 10 of his Swell listed on eBay right now. These are not difficult cards to find, and PSA not grading one of them of course means the pop report is not a good tool here. Are Leaf 2nd series cards not rookies, because they were distributed in only a couple regions very briefly and are rare? The standards here flip flop depending on the player to call whatever is desired a rookie card.


The Swell set has many past players, and Jackie’s card does commemorate his rookie season. It is a portrait photo of him and only him and quite specifically names him. This is nothing like a World Series highlight card naming another player specifically on which Wills is not the focus.


Again, I’m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

[ALR-bishop]

Invest---agree with you on 52 Robinson and 51 Bowman Mantle. The 54 Topps is good too....and then there is the 1973 Topps 1953 Reprint, which is a fairly scarce card from a very mysterious set

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, I’m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?

Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.

[Republicaninmass]

Didnt believe it, but it sure is.

Still find it hard to believe being a double print.

Rare is a relative term I guess


49 bowman 1196
48 leaf 1,133
52 topps 949

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk