New York Times Leaf Article

[samosa4u]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/598.../?redirected=1

75 years later, new findings reshape the Jackie Robinson rookie card discussion
By Michael Salfino
Dec 10, 2024

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

Collecting chaos.

That’s the issue now with the 1948 Leaf baseball cards, which had been the exclusive rookie cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige. And they were given co-rookie card status with the 1948 Bowman cards of Stan Musial, Warren Spahn and Ralph Kiner, among others.

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.

But Brian Kappel, author of the book “re: Leaf: The story of a collector, a candy company, a stack of baseball cards and a search for answers,” has done ample research — even looking at court documents from the period in question — and concluded that no Leaf 1948 cards were shipped until 1949. That’s at most a couple of months before the 1949 Bowman cards shipped.


Jackie Robinson’s first Leaf baseball card. (Photo: Sotheby’s)

That could mean that the 1949 Bowman Robinson and Paige deserve rookie status previously only awarded to the Leaf issues. And even more consequentially, the 1948 Bowman Musial would thus be the only Musial rookie card, no longer sharing that designation with the 1948 (really 1949) Leaf issue. That Leaf card, if reclassified, would be a second-year card no different than the 1949 Bowman Musial.

According to Kappel, the smoking gun is the 1949 court filing forwarded to him by a collector in researching his book. The filing addressed Bowman contention that Leaf violated its exclusive player contracts.

In the response, Kappel says, “Leaf states in plain English, when the first cards left the factory (March 14, 1949), as well as acknowledging that when the paperwork was processed (March 30), the cards had been in stores for a few weeks.” The parties agreed that Bowman, as of March 1949, had not yet issued its comparable baseball card product for that year.

Kappel forwarded to The Athletic a Leaf advertising flyer announcing its baseball cards with a 1949 copyright on it.

Typically, all first cards of professional players issued in the same year are considered the player’s rookie cards, regardless of which company issued the card first that year.

Jason A. Schwartz, Co-Chair, Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) Baseball Cards Research Committee said, “Without a doubt, I classify the Leaf set as ‘1949 Leaf’ based on definitive evidence that no cards were distributed prior to March 1949.” He added, “I make no distinction between Leaf and 1949 Bowman as far as rookie cards are concerned. The situation is analogous to comparing the 1983 Topps, Fleer, and Donruss cards of Tony Gwynn.”

This is tremendously important when it comes to card value, as rookie cards are most prized by collectors and generally generate the largest investment returns.

For example, the Leaf Musial that today is considered a 1948 issue/rookie card sells for $2,400 decently centered in PSA 3 (very good) condition. The 1949 Bowman, because it’s considered a second-year card, sells in the same condition for just a fraction of that in the same condition — about $500. The number of graded Leaf and 1949 Bowman Musials are about equal.

The 1948 Bowman Musial, considered less desirable aesthetically for their smaller size and black-and-white image, sold recently for just $725 in the same “very good” condition. But if the Bowman card is now the only true Musial rookie, given it was issued about a year earlier, it stands to reason the price of that card would increase. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Musials as the Leaf Musials, according to GemRate, which tracks graded card populations.

Rookie card status can impact value more than population numbers. Consider that the 1948 Bowman Yogi Berra, his unquestioned rookie card, sells for more than twice the amount of the 1949 Bowman, in the same condition. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Berra cards as 1949 Bowman Berras.

“If a player has a card in 1948 Bowman, then there is no basis for regarding the Leaf card as a rookie,” Schwartz said.

The biggest card in both the Leaf and 1949 Bowman sets is Robinson’s, which, according to Schwartz, should share rookie-card designation. An SGC 3 of the 1949 Bowman card sold recently for $4,151.51. But an SCG 3 of the Leaf Robinson recently sold for $11,400. The populations of both the 1949 Bowman and Leaf Robinsons are nearly identical, according to GemRate.


Jackie Robinson’s 1949 Bowman baseball card. (Photo: eBay)

“I am not sure I would completely reclassify the ‘48 Leaf (Robinson),” said Jason Eggert, a top collector of Robinson cards and memorabilia. “To many, it will always be his rookie card. Kind of like modern cards, I have no problem having several different early cards be considered rookie cards.”

The Paige card is a short print in Leaf but that, in addition to its rookie status, gives that card a value of about $40,000 in SGC 3. The Bowman 1949, considered a second-year card, goes for about 1/10th that amount. GemRate says there are about six times as many graded 1949 Paige Bowmans than Leafs, so the “rookie” designation of the Paige Leaf card is still a considerable part of its value.

“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”

Brian Dwyer, president of Robert Edward Auctions, says collectors will impact the future value of the cards.

“How prices for these Leaf and Bowman cards fluctuate in the months and years ahead will be determined by the collectors themselves, but we wouldn’t be surprised to see a noticeable uptick in the interest of these cards,” Dwyer said. “While some may perceive them differently now, there are passionate fans and collectors of these sets (who) will continue to view both sets as 1948 issues for rookie card collecting purposes.”

[packs]

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

[e107collector]

When I first saw the post, I actually thought the story was in reference to this video posted 2 days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x3wC9QoSc

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

The most knowledgeable collectors in the Hobby have been on board the 1949 train for a while and have decided what Jackie’s rookie card(s) is/are based on the criteria they deem relevant.

However, the majority of collectors put their trust in PSA or other Hobby authorities to figure such things out for them, and this is where PSA has been and remains:

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

Right, because Ted Zanidakis (rest in peace) used to complain about it all the time on here. However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

I personally think that the 49' Bowman baseball cards are a great buy right now. The gap between both sets (Bowman and Leaf) will start to close over the years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

The New York Times? Big deal. Were it the Wall Street Journal writing about it, I might then pay attention.

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

The Portrait IS his rook.....now you tightwads out there, start paying up!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

What issue is this?

[brunswickreeves]

While I like rookie cards because they depict the youngest version of the player when they have so much potential ahead of them, I love a player’s last issue card because it memorializes their career in achievements and stats.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Tabe

What issue is this?

That is the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait. It was the first depiction of Jackie in a major league uniform. The rest of the Jackie set was released after the portrait, which was used as a promotional item.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

That is the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait. It was the first depiction of Jackie in a major league uniform. The rest of the Jackie set was released after the portrait, which was used as a promotional item.

Gracias.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.

Originally Posted by rats60

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money.

Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

Which dealers were those, and when?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Which dealers were those, and when?

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

[citation needed]

Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

[Touch'EmAll]

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

Not all of us collectors:

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.



Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.







Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor.

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers.... It's literally human nature.

The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible....

Here, let me give you one of those sources:

Originally Posted by P.T. Barnum

There's a sucker born every minute.

These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea.

That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I love my Ken McMullen rookie card.

Source?

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

...is insulting and ignorant.

Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by balticfox

so what? The "1948" leaf cards of jackie robinson and satchel paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'nuff said.

[citation needed]

[bcbgcbrcb]

Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.

[Jstottlemire1]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.

The Bond Bread Jackie’s were issued from 1947-1949 the Portrait with facsimile auto is the most abundant of the set and its earliest of releases.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

For a while there was some validity to most rookie cards being worth more.
And it was all about the survival rate of those cards.

Kids typically collected as kids for maybe 3-4 years. Yes, there were outliers like me and probably a bunch of others here who never really stopped.

And the occasional purge of "stuff" by mom was a thing. Sometimes a favorite card or two would be saved, but most got thrown away or given away.

So for example, a kid gets a 54 Aaron. Bit loses interest in cards a bit into 55. By spring cleaning 56, he's not really interested. Maybe isn't a Braves fan, and probably not a fan of then kid who hit a decent number of home runs but isn't flashy like Mays or Mantle and who knows if he will get any better?

So the favorite player and maybe a few stars get saved, but the Aaron rookie goes in the bin with the rest of the cards.
So they were less common.

By the late 70's, that was less of a thing. The hobby was more advanced and popular. Not that kids collected longer, but the Rookie card thing had been established. So they got saved more often than not.

By the junk wax era - yeah, it was nothing buy hype. And Beckett for better or worse promoted guidelines that said local issues couldn't be rookie cards. They had to be major nationally issued sets.
I would say that for most sets since the mid 70's the rookie cards are more common than all but a few stars. But not by much.

It's sort of silly for prewar cards, and even late 40's cards.

A few other things influence it, mostly that people have a bit of a fascination with "firsts" . Sort of like a first edition of a book, or a card of someone who was the first to do something.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Identifying a few historical examples where the RC was not the most valuable does not prove the hobby never cared about rookie cards. Even today there are such examples, not only Mantle. Pedro Martinez' RC isn't worth a nickel. In high grade, a 71 Munson and I think too a 71 Vida Blue are worth more than their RCs. There may be others. Nobody is contending relative abundance/scarcity is entirely irrelevant. Do people care now more than ever about RCs, perhaps, but again that does not show there was a time they did not.

[packs]

Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by packs

Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I love my Ken McMullen rookie card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I collect all major sports and there is only ONE RC I refuse to own because it's so hideous -- Moses Malone 1975 Topps. Opted for a 1976 instead.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.

I am amused that direct primary source evidence and even the text of the back write-ups on the cards themselves is not "official", but the proclamation of incompetent self-proclaimed expert authorities is "official". It has been clear to anyone that read the backs that this is not a 1948 release.

Originally Posted by samosa4u

“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”

If PSA "will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations" then they would stop lying about the 1948 date. The two statements by PSA for the article are directly contradictory. If they are considering facts, they would change the label. If they are not changing the label, they obviously are not considering demonstrable facts.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by G1911

If PSA "will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations" then they would stop lying about the 1948 date.

They will consider new information for cards that have a low population or not graded before, but they have 30,800+ reasons to ignore this one as long as possible.

That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

They will consider new information for cards that have a low population or not graded before, but they have 30,800+ reasons to ignore this one as long as possible.

That said, a money printing machine like PSA should suck it up and deal with it...imo...

I would have some respect for PSA if they instead announced that they don’t care about facts, because what matters is juicing the investment and the 1948 date lends itself to better investment gains than the truth, and that they are happy to lie because customers will never hold them responsible or expect them to be honest or competent, as in their desire to profit the customers will continue to submit to PSA no matter what PSA does and how transparently incompetent or unknowledgeable about the items they sell their alleged expertise on they are. Probably wouldn’t even hurt their business! At least it wouldn’t be an incredibly obvious lie.

[dealme]

Delete.

I'm not sure what happened to my response, but it looked like absolute nonsense when posted.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeoPoto]

Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Thank you to Samosa for showing the Paige. Ugly, or not, beautiful example of a hard-to-get card. I'm guessing they had the right to use that image and Paige was a tough negotiator. Or hard to find.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

Leaf had zero agreements in place with players or teams. You can read a ton about their approach to photos and images here. https://sabrbaseballcards.blog/2024/...leaf-us-alone/

[jason.1969]

The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The discussions of Robinson, Musial, Spahn, and others only emphasize the fact that there is no universal definition of rookie card. In truth, there is not even a universal definition of “baseball card.” On one hand, the inherent subjectivity of it all creates ambiguity and chaos. On the other hand, it creates freedom and choice.

Well said. For me, a player's "rookie card" is the first card printed of a player that I'd actually want to own. So for Musial, that's the 48/49 Leaf, and for Pete Rose, that's the 1964 Topps.