1920s rookie card questions

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

Had a question for the board concerning a players true rookie card from sets from the 1920s. If a player has a card from 1921, such as Jess Haines with his Exhibit card and Ross Youngs with his 1921 Koesters, those, I'm assuming, are the definative rookie cards for those players and cards from 1922 (ie...e121, e120, w573, etc...) simply count as the second year. However, what about players such as Pennock and Sewell who have e220 cards? These cards were produced in 1921-1923 so would they count as the definitive rookies? Or would the cards of those players from 1922 also be considered rookie cards? Is there a way to determine the year on e220s?

Also, for players such as Pie Traynor, who has both an e120 and a w573, would both of these and any other card of his from 1922 be considered his rookie (so theoretically, he could have 4-5 different cards counting as his RC)? Or has some attempt been made to determine which set came out first in 1922 so that only the specific card from that set would be considered an RC?

Hope that's not too confusing although I see cards of some of these players passed off as rookies (ie...an e120 Sewell) that perhaps shouldn't be and was hoping for some clarification. Thoughts anyone?

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Brian,

I think that this topic has been discussed in part previously (though it may have been on Leon's competing board back when there were two boards going).

Generally, I believe that the consensus opinion was that any card in the same year was a rookie card - not just the card from the first set released.

As for your e220 question - good question and one that I was also curious about.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

But I don't think that it is possible to determine what year the e220 cards were produced. As far as I know there are no marks to make an estimated guess - although a more informed posted may see differently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

Perhaps there are slightly different backs on the e220s from year to year? Similar to the t206s where only certain backs were released in 1909, 1910, etc...?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The "1921-23" National Caramel cards cannot be attributed solely to 1921...

so the 1922 cards are also rookies in those situations (like Pennock).

For the Haines situation, where there is clearly a 1921 exhibit card for him, then the 1922 cards do not count.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I was also wondering about Lefty Grove. On Brett's website, it lists the 1926 Major League Die Cuts as the first "issue" of Grove. Would this be considered his rookie card? or does this even qualify as a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

NOT a card.

Just my opinion... but it seems to be a pretty widely accepted opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

I'd agree that die-cuts are considered by many to not be "actual" cards. Pennock and Goslin have cards from the '21 Diecut issue as well and those are never even mentioned as rookies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

And I thought that I had just picked up Grove's rookie at such a good price

Just curious, how were these distributed? They look like game pieces that belong in a stand for a board game or something.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

it is easy to pin down the issue date of the base exhibit sets, but the PC back set was issued in several iterations over the years from 1925-1929. The first wave has blank backs or backs that read "this side for correspondence". Next up are the same cards with backs that read "not to be used in exhibit machines". From there, at least two additional subsets were issued. These were referred to in olden times as set 81, set 82 and set 83. It is clear to me that they were part of a continuum of one issue from the same maker and probably are better understood as series, not distinct sets, as the back markings varied. I base my dating on the analogous boxing issue, which can be pinned down as to dates based on fighters' title changes and the existence of 1924 stats backs on the first wave of the cards. The baseball issue appears to have run for the same time frame and with a similar pattern of changes.

I bring this up here because there are very early cards of Grove and Foxx in the issue, possibly some of the other 1930s players (I don't collect rookies so I don't know), and we have no way of knowing precisely when they were issued in the timespan. For example, the assumption is that the A's greats were issued ca. 1929 when Mack had that insane team, and I know that the Lefty O'Doul was issued after he was traded away from the Giants after the 1928 season, but more precise than that we cannot be. I wish I had a few postally used cards or some advertising stock from the sets but I don't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Good points, Adam. Glad you stayed!

No way of knowing when these cards were actually issued:





My vote (of course) is 1925, since both players made their ML debuts early in that year!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I think many diecuts qualify as cards, for example the E125 American Caramels and the Middy Breads. But I would agree that the diecuts being discussed in this thread aren't cards. They don't actually picture any player. They're just generic drawings with names assigned to them. To me, that would make an unsatisfying rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

What's the status of Diaz Cigs, which would have been issued as the big-league rookies of Ted Lyons and Dazzy Vance? No go because they're offshore, or are they recognized? Jimmy crack corn to me, but I know many others are interested.

BTW, anybody notice how well Vance's 1928 exhibit sold for on e-bay, advertised as a rookie?:
<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5240731914&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEDW%3AIT&rd=1"

It's not even his first exhibit card. The seller made a nearly identical statement on a recent 1927 Wilbert Robinson York card, saying it was one of his rarest and earliest cards--in fact, it's Robinson's penultimate card, preceded by more than a dozen others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Brian,

We have discussed this before, and the consensus is that there is no consensus. Everyone has their own opinions, and they are entitled to them. I am convinced that in many cases, there is no such thing as a "true" rookie card.

The one thing that I am sure about is that everyone who is selling a card (myself included) that "could" be considered a rookie, is going to advertise it as such, given how hot the rookie card craze is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Me personally...

I say that the Diaz Cigarette cards count.

They show Major League players with their Major League teams.

If "regionally issued" cards can count, then so should these.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

That would be one way of deciphering when in the run your cards were issued. Blank backs or "correspondence" notation backs are the earliest ones.

On an unrelated note, do we consider Zeenuts and Obaks to represent rookies? If so, there are a whole pile of rookies there. If not, what about the 1928 PCL Exhibits, which have Averill and Reese, among other lesser lights.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

NO, you can't count MINOR league cards as "rookie" cards.

Part of my definition of a "rookie" card is that it is the first card to show the player on his MAJOR league team.

Having said that...

there are a lot of modern "rookie" cards that show players like Chipper Jones and Manny Ramirez in their street clothes or their high school uniforms as "Number One Draft Picks."

These also should not count in my book... but since the vast majority of the modern card collecting world DOES count them... there's not much I can do about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'm with Hal. The card has to depict the player with his major league team. We dont' consider players in the minor leagues for rookie of the year, so why should card collectors be considering minor league cards as rookies? It may be their first card appearance, but it is not their rookie card.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I am not a Zeenut expert, but weren't all Zeenuts of minor leaguers? and all Obaks as well?

The 1992 Bowman set that Hal refers to is a Major League baseball set - licensed by the MLB. It depicts players in the major leagues and players soon to be in the major leagues. I think that is the difference. If Zeenuts and Obaks also depicted current major leaguers, then I think people would feel differently about the rookies from those sets.

Sets which were distributed as strictly minor league sets over the past few decades have never been considered rookie cards. Best, Upper Deck Minors, Classic, etc.

A side note - the 1992 Bowman Manny Ramirez is considered his rookie, but Chipper Jones appeared in the 1991 Bowman product so his 1992 Bowman is his 2nd year card.

Also, since everyone is so hung up about appearing in a major league uniform, what would you consider a W600 Mathewson in street clothes? Does that qualify as his rookie? or only the "in uniform" version? Makes no sense to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If a player depicted in the minor leagues can't be considered a rookie card, I guess there goes the 1914 Babe Ruth Baltimore News card. Destined for the trash bin.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Why do you think I didn't buy it?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

A quarter of a million dollars could have something to do with why you didn't buy it, too. Just a guess. But you know what, it is Ruth's first appearance on a baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

Not to confuse the issue with Die Cuts and Lefty Grove, but Lefty's die cuts come with either "Grove" or "Groves". When Lefty first came to the majors, he was known as Lefty Groves. Sometime shortly after that, he started going by Lefty Grove. Therefore, I would think that the "Groves" die cut would be more of a rookie card than the "Grove" die cut.