Questionable HOF RC's

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Bicem

1915 Red Sox team postcard?

Just my opinion, but there is nothing anyone could ever say to convince me that a team card is anyone's RC. Four on a card is my maximum or I guess, if you have to take out a magnifying glass to find the player, it doesn't count as a RC.

[Bicem]

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

[packs]

Can't be one. Too many 60s and on HOFers are featured on cards with two, three, or four players. The whole "Rookie Stars" era of Topps.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

Good question, I knew someone would ask that. I guess because the players are clearly noticeable on the Exhibit 4-1 cards. Are there any cards with 5 or 6 players that may be questionable RC's? If so, I'd probably be OK with that as long as I didn't have to study the card for a half an hour or stop by CVS for some eye drops to find the player.

I guess its more that I can't imagine anyone getting a Boston Red Sox team card in a 1975 topps pack and telling someone they have Jim Rice and Fred Lynn's RC. It sounds ridiculous to me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Over the years, Topps went with a max of 4 on their rookie star cards, that's the primary reason. Would anyone consider 1964 Pete Rose's RC because he appeared with 3 others on the 1963 card? I think not......Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

[packs]

I could be mistaken but wasn't there a league leader card that pictured someone before they had an actual "card"?

[nolemmings]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

1962 had several with five players.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by DanP

Just my opinion, but there is nothing anyone could ever say to convince me that a team card is anyone's RC. Four on a card is my maximum or I guess, if you have to take out a magnifying glass to find the player, it doesn't count as a RC.

This one sold for nearly $96K after BP (Link), so I wonder if the team card is gaining traction as Ruth's rookie card. Ruth's image is small, but still relatively clear. (I wish I had won one from the Grey Flannel auction. Dang you, Jeff! ). I assume this is the highest price paid for any postcard or any team card.

[bcbgcbrcb]

WOW, Gary, you think someone overpaid for that one? I don't think any previous examples sold for over $30K.........

You're right about the '62's, Todd. I would consider those to be rookie cards as well since Topps' intention was quite obvious there, just added one additional player as compared to later years. This scenario is far different than a 1915 Red Sox team photo or 1906 Detroit team composite issued on postcards with the entire team present. These can still be earliest major league baseball appearances on cards for Ruth and Cobb, just not rookie cards.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

WOW, Gary, you think someone overpaid for that one? I don't think any previous examples sold for over $30K.........

Yea, I agree that price seems very high. Will just have to see if future sales for this issue will all rise like this or if this is just a one-off outlier.