Most overrated pre-war card?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.



Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.



Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.



Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.

So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby. I'm sorry that I tried to educate you because you are such a stubborn person who doesn't care that he is wrong. Maybe one day you will go back and read hobby publications like SCD and Beckett from the 80s and actually learn about the history of this hobby, rather than true to impose your false beliefs on those who know better. Condescending? Look in the mirror.

Flo.yd Pa.rr

[Tao_Moko]

This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

+2, extra one for that photo.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

I have no dog in this fight, but, out of curiosity, what do you feel is this definition?

[celoknob]

As Yogi Berra might perhaps say, "T206s are overrated but they are better than most people think."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by rats60

So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

Careful - there is no consensus for most of them. Whoever owns one that is 'in the mix' will consider it to be the rookie. Doesn't matter if it's an individual player, major league or minor league, photograph, team photo, premium - it's whatever the 'rookie collector' happens to own, or is in his budget. Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

[packs]

Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

[nolemmings]

C'mon Scott, sure there is was/is consensus. Educate yourself--consult SCD and Beckett's from the 80's to learn about this hobby, lest you fuel the ignorance.

For those new to the forum, here's a thread from about 6 1/2 years ago when several of our members discussed the Ruth rookie--some of these ignorant tools (probably stubborn too)seemed to think it was the m101-4/5 Sporting News:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...e+Ruth+Rookie-

Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

Good point. Beckett, that hobby bastion to which all true hobbyists swear exclusive allegiance, for some time listed 1933 Goudey as Ruth's rookie cards, after he'd been playing for what, 19 years? Here's a thread from a couple of years ago, and some may recall that Peter Chao brought this topic to the forum in '06 or '07:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=81278

It's a shame we mostly either forgot about the hobby consensus on Ruth's rookie card from the good old days or allowed ourselves to manipulated by the dealer-driven hype of the rookie craze. Seems our opinions on the subject--or at least mine-- are no longer of any value.

[Dan Carson]

Is the 1911 Bohen Zeenut the most overrated or just hard to find like so many other Zeenuts?

[nolemmings]

Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

I didn't find those threads, but when I tried to figure it out for myself I noticed that Ping Bodie played only in the PCL in 1915 and 1916, so while it could technically be a 1916 issue, Bodie would have been a very odd choice for the set if it was issued prior to 1917. 1916 is more or less definitive as an earliest possible date since Baker is depicted as a Yankee. Larry Doyle played his final MLB game in 1920, so it seems unlikely to be later than a 1920 issue.

I've seen them labelled as 1916-20 (PSA and SGC), 1918-20 (Standard Catalog), and 1920-21 (Old Cardboard), but I think of them as 1917-20. If someone else finds one of the threads about this though I'd appreciate the link.

[nolemmings]

I think this was the main one:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=cadore