The First Baseball Card?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I don't care about a card being a rookie unless I am selling it. I really don't get the craze of owing someone's "first" card over owning their second. Apparently many other's agree since they would rather own Mantle's 52 topps over his 51 bowman.

Back to the subject though. I don't see how it matters in THIS case the picture of a significant person in baseball history is important to the hobby no matter if it is called a "card" or not. If you must have a "rookie" of Harry Wright then I assume it depends on if you own this piece or not.

You are obviously in the minority because there are plenty of examples of a rookie card being worth more than a 2nd year card

There are also many more baseball card collectors than there are baseball photo collectors, and obviously some don't agree that this is a baseball item as indicated above.

While a rookie baseball card appeals to a huge mass of the collecting population, an item like this, whatever you want to call it besides the "first baseball card"(for argument sake) would not appeal to the same huge group of people. When you have less serious bidders vying for the item, chances are the price would be lower.

Basically, a baseball rookie card has mass appeal in the hobby, so it would obviously go for more money. You can't always get people to go outside their collecting zone with question marks surrounding the item, in this case, what to call it exactly. That alone will likely scare off potential bidders.

I don't have the money to spend on this, but if I did have those kind of funds, I'd be much more interested in the item if it was the first baseball card, because I mainly collect cards and that would be a significant one to own.