Babe Ruth Rookie

[MattyC]

Mets, my man, you are just gonna drive yourself crazy locking horns with people on the internet. It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it. Why waste time arguing semantics over what terms like "nationally distributed" means with strangers? Though last I checked SF was in California. The M101 is his first MLB appearance on a card. For the huge majority, that suffices. It's impossible for all humans to agree 100% on anything, let alone a hot-button topic as toxic and contentious as baseball cards, LOL.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It's his rookie card. Everyone collecting today knows it.

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true. LOL.

[MattyC]

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

I am not the one claiming the card is his rookie.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Neither does saying the opposite. You think your way and I'll think mine.

You got that right Matty! Ruth's inaugural 'solo appearAnce' on a MAJOR LEAGUE Card is the 1916 Issue. Game...set.....match!

[nolemmings]

I'm curious and would ask the Beckett followers-- do Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson even have Beckett-designated rookie cards and if so, what are they? Are T206 and Cracker Jack "worthy" of Beckett's criteria? How about George Sisler, Casey Stengel and Dave Bancroft? Is Nap Lajoie's rookie his 1934/33 Goudey?

[yanksfan09]

It's my opinion that Beckett has made designations like this to suite there own interests. By designating the Goudey a "RC" it's helps the dealers to give them another angle to market the Goudeys which are so plentiful compared to other earlier Ruth issues.

Not many dealers would benefit by designating the M101 issues or something else more obscure because there's not enough cards to go around. I think it's just a silly, ludicrous marketing ploy myself.

By 1933 Ruth was almost done as a player, there's countless earlier issues. I don't know why some think Beckett has full authority on making RC designations but I digress....

This is not a bashing of the Goudey Ruths either, they're great cards. Plentiful, but great attractive issues. But about the furthest thing from what I'd ever consider a Rookie card!

[yanksfan09]

At a show a year or 2 ago, I had asked to look at a Ruth Goudey (I think the green #181) and when the guy took it out of the case he said that it was Ruth's rookie card and quoted me a price about 3X what I thought the value of it should be.

I did my best not to burst out laughing in his face, politely handed the card back to him and moved on...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'm curious and would ask the Beckett followers-- do Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson even have Beckett-designated rookie cards and if so, what are they? Are T206 and Cracker Jack "worthy" of Beckett's criteria? How about George Sisler, Casey Stengel and Dave Bancroft? Is Nap Lajoie's rookie his 1934/33 Goudey?

Pointed cross-examination indeed.

[oldjudge]

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

[MetsBaseball1973]

I can only speak for myself but I think when people want to focus on collecting a player, or having a card represent a player in a collection, they find most ideal an early depiction of the subject-- an image from the embarkation point of a great career. The start and origin, if you will. Hence why cards issued earliest are generally more sought after in the hobby.

With the News being a minor league card, it is surely desirable as an early and rare card, yet minor league depictions are something unique and separate from the majors.

With respect to population supply, I suppose it's all relative to demand. There could only be one existing card of some common player or even semi star, but if no one is after it, not much value there. In contrast, there could probably be a hundred more Ruth M101s and collector demand would gobble them up at a high price point-- Ruth's enduring popularity seems more than up to the task when it comes to generating demand to absorb supply.

[TanksAndSpartans]

There was an episode of History channel's Pawn Stars and I'm pretty sure someone brought in a Baltimore News Ruth that turned out to be either a fake or a reprint. What was interesting is the expert that came in actually mentioned that the Goudey Ruth was the one most desired by collectors. I searched the internet for a clip, but unfortunately couldn't come up with one and I can't remember who the expert was.

One other thing I thought, non-company issued PSA registry sets, sometimes ones that don't even have the word "rookie" in it often include a very early mainstream card of the player as the one required. Red Grange comes to mind on the football side. The 33 Goudey SK is the Grange card in all the sets, but there are a number of earlier cards of Grange.

Finally, the prior poster made a good point - a lot of collectors do have a desire for that "origin card" - the card before whoever was a big star - often the player looks a lot younger than the image we have in our heads, the write up on the back doesn't recognize him as a big star, maybe the position isn't even one he wound up playing, etc. That's part of the historical research aspect of collecting to me.

For me, I have no problem calling the earliest card the rookie even if that makes it out of my reach financially. One thing that hasn't come up yet, as a card collector, I wouldn't feel bad about excluding a matchbook, or a pin, or whatever - I'd want it to be a card, but I'm sure we don't all agree on that either or even what a card is.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Not sure why anyone cares about rookie cards. It is simply a construct to add value where there was none before. That aside, I consider the Baltimore News Ruth to be his first professional card and thus his rookie. I consider the M101-4/5 Ruth's to be amongst the most common of all M101s. After all, all cards are equally produced in each set, some players (Cobb, Thorpe) only had cards in the M101-4 set, and given Ruth's mega star status only a few years after issue whose cards were saved the most?

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

[Orioles1954]

It seems very obvious to me. A "rookie" card is a card from the player's rookie season, no more or less. For that reason, not every player in a respective sport has a "rookie" card.

1951 Bowman Mantle? Rookie Card
1952 Topps Mantle? Not a rookie card
1979-80 Topps Wayne Gretzky? Rookie card
1981 Donruss Golf Jack Niklaus? Don't make me laugh
1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan? Not a rookie card.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

I actually do agree that while rookie cards are part of the hobby, their role is not as substantial or important as they once were. It seems more like the fore-mentioned construct from an earlier age in the hobby.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Jay, that's not a very smart statement. Rookie Cards are part of the hobby, like it or not, and are here to stay. Who really cares about the thousands of Old Judge pose variations where Joe Blow has one card picturing his right arm at a 45 degree angle and another card where his right arm is at a 90 degree angle?

Phil: Many things are part of the hobby that I don't agree with. I don't tell others what to collect--if they want to collect rookie cards good luck to them. I just said to me it makes no sense and therefore I would never collect them. As for the Old Judge pose variations, LOL virtually no one collects them all. However, they are part of an established set. Rookie cards are part of a "constructed" set. This is a big difference. Secondly, rookie card collectors can't even agree what the rookie card of a particular player is. No such problem with Old Judge poses. BTW, how is your book coming?