![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
View Poll Results: Which card do you believe is the Mantle Rookie card? | |||
1951 Bowman |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
215 | 89.58% |
1952 Topps |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
25 | 10.42% |
Voters: 240. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If a regionally distributed example can be considered a rookie issue but not a rookie card, that means it isn't considered a baseball card. Two questions:
1) Is it fair to say then that T215 Pirates are not baseball cards? 2) Why is it that the only people I know who don't know what a baseball card is are baseball card collectors? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Pirate set is a subset of a larger set that is contained to the T206 set, just as the other various backs are subsets of that one set. We give them different designations as collectors, but it's my opinion that they fall under one large master set. I'd include the Red Cross, Coupons, and their counterparts under that umbrella too. I would also say that in their time it is probably unlikely that anyone collected the cards for the backs, so the backs and their individual appeal to modern collectors is not something I think existed in the minds of the creators or collectors of the sets in the time. I would say the cards were collected for the fronts.
Last edited by packs; 11-08-2017 at 09:12 AM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
And another thing -- if 1955 Topps cards were not sold in, say, Hawaii, Oregon, Montana, or West Virginia but 1956 Topps cards were, would 1956 Topps be considered Roberto Clemente's rookie card now?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No, you could buy a pack of 1955 Topps anywhere and have the same chance of pulling the card. Don't you see a distinct difference in NOT being able to collect New York cards in Tip Top bread packages because you lived in Saint Louis and only had access to Saint Louis cards?
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sure, Saint Louis isn't in Oregon.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() Last edited by Paul S; 11-08-2017 at 09:26 AM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That isn't what "if" means.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
For those who care about the regional/national distinction, let me know if I'm misinterpreting you, but I believe your position is:
If the average collector could buy a pack of cards by traveling 8 miles to a grocery store, then what is in that pack of cards might be a rookie card. If the same collector had to drive 408 miles to buy the same pack of cards, then what is in the pack is no longer a rookie card. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Who is in charge of this hobby anyway ? Whoever it is should issue an authoritative definition of a "rookie card" And while at that also define a "true variation". I have been at this since 1957 and need some clarity . Seems simple enough
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() My cynical definition - A rookie card is a card issued of a player roughly around the time they began playing in the majors, unless it's part of a subset or something. It also must exist in large enough quantities that most any dealer can profit from it without too much effort or investment. Steve B |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1962 Topps FS: Mantle, Mantle AS, (2) Rookie Parades and more | autograf | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 12-01-2014 10:22 AM |
One determined bidder........ | Brian Van Horn | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 06-07-2014 06:47 AM |
Mr. X ... was it ever determined who he/she/them were? | Howe’s Hunter | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 01-29-2012 11:13 AM |
'57 Topps Brooks Robinson Rookie, '58 Topps Ted Williams, '68 Topps Mickey Mantle | mcreel | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 3 | 10-24-2011 08:29 AM |
'57 Topps Brooks Robinson Rookie, '58 Topps Ted Williams, '68 Topps Mickey Mantle | mcreel | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 1 | 10-22-2011 08:06 PM |