Jimmie Foxx Rookie?

[kevinlenane]

Just curious what most of you would consider a Jimmie Foxx rookie card. You've got the 26-29 exhibit, the 1927 W560 playing card, the 1928 R315 and the 1929 Kashin (actual dates could be off a year on the "R"a and then the 1930 tiny Baguer. Obviously 1933 offers a variety of great choices (and 32 US Caramel) but I'm leaning on the exhibit given the great image. Any thoughts - I'm sure I'm missing something huge...

[h2oya311]

I think most would vote for the 1926-29 Exhibits. A select few might opt for the 1927 W560 simply because they don't like postcard sized cards.

My vote would be for the 1926-29 Exhibits. Pricing has risen considerably over the past 5+ years.

[brianp-beme]

Here is what it shows on the Old Cardboard site in their Hall of Fame rookie card database:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rook...ail.asp?id=120

Brian

[kevinlenane]

Any idea why they consider the p/c back the rookie vs the blank back?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by kevinlenane

Any idea why they consider the p/c back the rookie vs the blank back?

no difference, IMO.

[darwinbulldog]

I would also say the '26-'29 Exhibit card.

[C-mack]

I'm vote r315 but only cause I own one lol

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by kevinlenane

Any idea why they consider the p/c back the rookie vs the blank back?

The backs provide key printing clues. The initial runs of the issue were made with blank backs or backs that had a postcard design with the words “THIS SIDE FOR CORRESPONDENCE” printed on them. Later runs use the phrase “NOT TO BE USED IN EXHIBIT MACHINES”, and still-later print runs add “MADE IN USA” to the card backs. These back characteristics match my experience in collecting the set. In every case where I have run across a card that “should” be an early short-print , the card has been either blank-backed or “correspondence” backed. The backs are critical to analyzing whether a card may be characterized as a rookie. If you find one that is blank-backed it could be a 1925 printing. A 'correspondence' back is probably a 1926 card or perhaps a 1927.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

Could a blank back also have been first issued in 1928 or 1929? Same question for the "Correspondence" back.

Thanks,

Phil

[Exhibitman]

I said that a blank back could be a 1925 printing. It also could have been issued at any time later, perhaps by accident. With the # of Topps and Bowman and Leaf unintended blank backs I have seen, it is certainly possible that the company accidentally issued a blank back. The Gehrig portrait card, which has been seen in blank back and touted (incorrectly) as a RC, is a later issue because the pose itself is a later one. My point is better said in the negative than the positive: if you are looking at certain backs (like the "not for use" back especially with the USA legend), you are not looking at an early print run. Similarly, if you have a later pose it is not an early card regardless of the back.

As an aside, there are also instances of the premium advertising back from the 4 on 1 cards issued out of date and of the first 4 on 1 cards issued with the incorrect backs. I suspect they just ran with whatever stock they had on the shelf if they ran low. No one thought that a bunch of card-nerds would be dissecting this 100 years later.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

Sorry, one more related question. Are there any backs that we know could not have been issued before 1930 such as "made in U.S.A." or is anything possible?

[Exhibitman]

Highly unlikely that the sans serif typeface not to be used with USA back was issued before 1929. That's about it.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ok, thanks again, Adam.