For 3500, which Jackie would be your one/only?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

The only sense in which one of Jackie's 1947 cards should be disqualified from rookie card status is if you want to argue that his rookie year was actually 1945 and therefore, if your definition of rookie card requires it to have been issued during the player's rookie season, he doesn't actually have a rookie card. In any case, he did win Rookie of the Year in 1947, so you have that going for you if you're in the his-rookie-cards-are-the-1947-Bond-Bread-cards camp. But anyone who's trying to argue that something from 1949 is his rookie card is just factually incorrect. We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our facts. You could have 8 billion people firmly believing that Mickey Mantle had a rookie card issued in 1952, and their belief itself might be a notable fact, but they'd still be wrong.

Jackie Robinson played in the Majors in 1947, and he had baseball cards in 1947. There could be zero or a billion surviving copies of those cards today, but in neither case would it have any bearing on what his rookie cards were. Whether or not it is a baseball card at all is, as ever, a function of its physical characteristics. Distributing an object in a larger number of regions does not magically convert it into a baseball card. It could have been issued in 1 city or 3 countries or 5 continents or 7 planets. A 1956 Topps Hank Aaron is no more a baseball card than a 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson is.

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

Correct, a card doesn't have to be universally cited as a Rookie Card to achieve great heights in value and desirability, which circles back to the card I proposed....

There is nothing more celebrated in MLB than Jackie Robinson's debut in MLB and the struggle it was for him to achieve...and there happens to be one baseball card made in 1948 that does just that better than any...

The 1948 Swell Sport Thrills Jackie Robinson.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

We agree on that as well. Per MLB, his 1945 season is now considered to have been a Major League season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 48 Swell specifically commemorates his breaking the barrier. I'd go with that or a 47BB.