Babe Ruth Rookie

[nolemmings]

'Promotional' cards refers to cards used to promote something (i.e. the Sporting News cards had advertisements on the back

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

[nolemmings]

Next tell me that Sporting News was regional. The m101 Ruths were distributed from California, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana and Washington DC. They were distributed by a national periodical--at that time likely the pre-eminent baseball paper--to anywhere the US mail was received.

Can you show me that Goudey gum was that widely distributed?

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I see, kind of like Goudey Gum, wouldn't you say?

"This is one of a series of 240 Baseball Stars
BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM
GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON"

A photograph of a member of either American or National league will be found in every 5 and 10 cent package of our products. There are 200 to the set.
STANDARD BISCUIT CO,
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL."

Fair enough - my definition of 'promotional' may have technically been a bit off and there's surely a better way of saying it. But the gist of my argument is that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News mainstream cards - which is why they have always called the Goudey Ruth cards his rookies. Right or wrong, I believe that has always been their stance.

[nolemmings]

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider his rookie card?

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Which is why I cited the wide distribution. What is "mainstream"? Is it when the East coast has bunches of a product? How much more "mainstream" can you get when anyone in the country who gets mail can receive the cards--and many likely did?

BTW, how many baseball cards did not promote a product? Old Judge, T206, Cracker Jack? Seems other than a couple of anonymous sets and most strip cards, that was the very purpose of the animal.

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

Ah, up above we see the old, "Well there are a bunch of us who still think the world is flat!" routine.

Humanity has a funny way of-- occasionally-- getting smarter as time goes on. Don't know who these "rookie card deniers" are, but the simple fact is that to the overwhelming majority of hobbyists, a rookie card is the first appearance of a player in Major League uniform-- some might choose to add that it be a card nationally distributed. That's exactly what the M101 Ruth is.

Except it wasn't nationally distributed. For example, being available only in San Francisco and not in Los Angeles or anywhere else in the state of California doesn't make the set distributed in California.

The cards were bought as complete sets from the printer by a few individual business and given away as premiums in a few locations. It does not meet the definition of nationally distributed or rookie card.

As far as "your definition" of rookie card, I guess that you don't think the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera is a rookie card, but the 1975 SSPC George Brett is.

[MetsBaseball1973]

I think the M101 is Babe Ruth's rookie card, is what I think. Curious what you believe bets fits that slot?

[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.

[1880nonsports]

an apt comment that has multiple applications here and elsewhere. Beware what the coming digital era will bring.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

This is obviously Ruth's rookie card.

[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.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not true. There are many collectors and dealers who don't consider the Sporting News a Rc. It doesn't fit the definition of a Rc. For many years it wasn't considered a Rc. The best that I can figure out is this is a product of the auction house era of the hobby. I don't know what your opinion of "standardizations for those who collect rookie cards" is, but it obviously isn't the long held hobby definition.

From what I have heard, this whole collecting rookie cards didn't even exist in the hobby until the 70s/80s where it was perpetuated by some card dealers in order to increase business. So, it's not like kids in the 1930s were jumping for joy after opening a 1933 Goudey pack and find Babe Ruth's "rookie" card, and then sending the card into their favorite TPG to be properly entombed. So whatever "long held hobby definition" of rookie cards that there has been, really hasn't been held for that long of a period.

[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.

[MetsBaseball1973]

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest solo card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

What simply can't be disputed is that the M101 is Ruth's earliest card in a Red Sox uniform. On the merits of that alone, it will always be an enormous card in the hobby, coveted by many.

Well, theoretically the 1915 Red Sox team postcard shows Ruth in a Red Sox uniform one year earlier.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Put me with guys who prefer solo cards over group/team shots. I should edit my last post to say "solo" card, to be more precise. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

Btw Rats never offered his rookie opinion. Which card is it then?

He never has offered his opinion-- it has been asked of him multiple times, as has his definition of a rookie card. He does not because he cannot. Similarly, he has not offered the names of long-time collectors or dealers who share what was the "long-held" hobby opinion of some other Ruth rookie from the so-called old days. He is a troll.

What part of being available through a National publication and thus mailed throughout the entire country (at least) he does not understand is beyond me. And has been pointed out to him previously, many m101s were doled out one at a time--look at the very Standard Biscuit ad I quoted. He does not offer that Goudey gum was even available in California in 1933, or that it was found West of the Mississippi for that matter, yet apparently concludes that it was, well, just because.

So yes, continue to call him out on it-- he is the one claiming it is not a rookie, while offering absolutely nothing to support his claim nor ever offering an alternative or an explanation as to what is the long-held hobby definition of Ruth's rookie. His view is no more meaningful than that of Peter Chao.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

He is a troll.

.

Not so, trolls are anonymous and Rats is Flo.yd Pa.rr


And as a reminder everyone who gives an opinion of a person or company needs their name by their post or in their sig line. And that goes for any kind of snarky comments too. Nothing personal, just the rules.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

You'd have to ask Beckett for their definition. I used that term because, I honestly believe that's the term they've used in explaining away their rationale in old price guides. I've been trying to find their 'official' definition that I've seen in the past but not having any luck online.

Again, calling the 1933 Goudey Ruth's rookie card is not my contention any more than saying the Sporting News card isn't. I merely pointed out that Beckett doesn't consider the Sporting News card 'mainstream' enough by their own standards. Hence, the Rookie Card designation for Ruth and many others in the 1933 Goudey set.

Perhaps, this helps explain why serious collectors of pre-War cards don't send their cards to Beckett for slabbing.
Val

[bcbgcbrcb]

The true Ruth RC............

[ALR-bishop]

Book it.

[Enfuego]

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Enfuego

This guy knows his Bambino RC's...SMH

https://youtu.be/jMJawcBMfs8

I'm guessing he is a long time subscriber to SCD!

[Peter_Spaeth]

1948 Leaf, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1948 Leaf, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

Dunno Peter...I think the 1976 topps sporting news ruth is the true rookie. No wait...that was a "promotional" card wasnt it?

[Enfuego]

I always thought it was the 60's "Ruth hits 60" was his RC??? You guys are pulling my leg.

[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?

[bcbgcbrcb]

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

During the 1980's, greedy sellers were trying to place the rookie card tag on almost anything to inflate values. Remember the FTC (first Topps card), FDC (first Donruss card), etc. With all of the resources available in today's market, much of that nonsense has been eliminated and it is very possible to determine legitimate rookie cards for both pre-war and post-war baseball players. Much easier in football, basketball and even hockey, but to a somewhat lesser extent.

I agee. However, I work with many clients in the industry and have yet to find one who is actively pursing football, basketball or hockey Hall of Famers. Even those who collect baseball rookie HOFers seem to be dwindling. I may be in the vast minority, but as a collector, the prospect of paying several thousand dollars for Babe Ruth as a Red Sox pitcher is not very appealing....even though it is his first mainstream issue. By the way, we should cut the nonsense of national vs. limited distribution. If the card has an ACC designation, it can be a rookie.

[trdcrdkid]

I've never really cared about rookie cards either, maybe because I'm old enough to remember that when I started collecting in the 1970s, the concept of a "rookie card" didn't really exist, or at least wasn't a term than anybody used or cared about. The card that popularized the term around 1980 and the years immediately after was the 1952 Topps Mantle, ironically not his actual rookie card by nearly any modern definition. I remember hearing the term for the first time around then and thinking it sounded kind of strange, like an artificial construct somebody came up with to create demand.

From Dave Jamieson's "Mint Condition":
"As more card sets and hobby publications poured into drugstores and card shops, a new term emerged among schoolboys: "rookie card". In years past, collectors had never made much of a fuss over whether a particular card was the player's first to appear. Things changed in the early '80s after Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps rookie card sold for around $3000, then a staggering sum for a postward piece of cardboard. Such sales marked the beginning of a long nostalgia boom, as the boys who'd collected those early Topps sets grew into professionals with incomes to throw around."

[glchen]

I don't think the concept of collecting rookie cards will ever go away in the hobby. Collectors by definition like to organize and categorize. Therefore to categorize and collect players by their cards from their rookie year makes too much sense. Also, if a baseball fan, but not a collector, asks a hobby friend, hey, I'm a big fan of this star (like Derek Jeter), and I'd like to pick up a card from him, but there are 10,000+ different cards for Jeter, what do you recommend? That friend will probably tell him to buy Jeter's rookie card. It's a lot easier to explain why you should buy a rookie card than to say, you know, most people buy Michael Jordan's 1986 Fleer rookie card, but I recommend you buy his Green Metal card. That's tougher to explain to a casual collector.

[MetsBaseball1973]

Still no Ruth Rookie sightings here! Who won the $200,000 example in REA. Come on, bring it out ---- some of us actually love seeing awesome cards.

[JLange]

In pursuing that card that is the origin of someone's career, it always just made sense to me to try to obtain the earliest card possible. That's the card. Call it a rookie or not, but the earliest card in a player's career is generally undisputed. Now, if you stretch the definition of "card" to include everything that I do, you introduce more debate, but this rookie card stuff is just nonsense. Call it the "Earliest Card" and you generally can't go wrong.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jason gets it, not that difficult of a concept. When I was doing the BB HOF RC collection, that's what I did. My collection included team postcard appearances, minor league cards such as Zeenuts, etc. Basically, the earliest "card" produced for each HOF'er. I also included things like Cameo Pepsin pins, M101-1's, etc. However, when I wrote reference material, I indicated what true rookie cards were for each HOF'er so the collector has the option to go with earliest collectible or true rookie card or even a mix of both.

[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?

[bcbgcbrcb]

My book has been completed and is ready to print. However, I have not been able to garner sufficient advertising to help cover the printing costs so it is on hold right now.