Most overrated pre-war card?

[oldjudge]

Todd--this whole "rookie" card thing is dealer contrived to make some extra money. The M101 Ruth never had the reputation it has had in the last ten years. It was a Ruth card, but an ugly, common one. The Boston Store/Collins McCarthy from that period was always the preferred card. The funniest thing is when some unscrupulous auctioneers hype the blank back Ruth's as the first of the M101 group. Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up.

[nolemmings]

Jay, while I don't know why you want to start something with me, as I was just setting the record straight, allow me to disagree in large part. First, while I believe the rookie chase craze was indeed dealer contrived, that doesn't alter the fact that the m101/4 is in fact Ruth's rookie card, which is what I said. Moreover, until 10-12 years ago, the E135s were wrongfully dated as 1916 cards, giving the collector the impression that Ruth had two different rookie cards. I submit that some collectors seeking the E135 may have thought differently had they known the true facts, whatever their aesthetic preference. I also disagree completely that the card was ever ugly or common, but acknowledge that the E135 is much more difficult to find. Finally, while I too have trouble with dealers claiming that all blank-back Ruths are m101-5 when they are more likely not, I have seen no evidence at all to show that "Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up." I would love to see that evidence.

Edited to add: I recognize that 10-12 years ago many thought m101-5 was dated 1915 as well. My point is there was confusion surrounding what may have been Ruth's rookie card, which confusion no longer exists. To that extent, I modify my earlier response which stated that m101-4 always had been considered his rookie-- I was referring to the relatively recent phenomenon that the Baltimore News card should be considered as such.

[oldjudge]

Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

+1

Of course they would - but where's the fun in chasing something you can't realistically get.

[Vintagecatcher]

The Honus Wagner T206 is certainly the most overrated baseball card ever.

Are the Honus Wagner T206 cards scarce...without a doubt... when only about 55-60 are known by the hobby. However, there are many pre-war cards that are have fewer examples remaining.

In my humble opinion, the Gretzky Wagner T206 has come to symbolize all that is wrong with the hobby. It was a card that was not shipped in a pack of cigarettes but according to hobby lore ...was cut from a sheet...then trimmed to the size of issued examples.

This altered example then became the poster child for greed when it became the first card graded by a now well known grading company. How poetic is it that the baseball card grading started with a lie...in fact, out right fraud. That's all one needs to know about the grading companies. Just follow the money.

Honus Wagner was a great all around ball player. The T206 set is a wonderful tobacco set. But when you mix in the quest for perfection, and greed enters the picture, you have the perfect recipe for disaster.

Patrick

[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.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

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.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

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.

As for 2 [that the Sporting News was sold nationally]& 3[that the cards were available individually and in groups of twenty], those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

How is the DeLong Gehrig a fantastic image, you can't even make out his face?