REA fun!

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by griffon512

Included in this rookie card status should be Jackie's Homogenized Bond Bread, not just the Bond Bread Portrait. Both were issued in 1947 (see long thread from Ted Zanidakis where he recalls collecting Homogenized Bond Bread cards in 1947). SGC correctly identifies the Homogenized Bond Bread card as being distributed in 1947. As Shaun and Joe point out, Bond Bread was not a regional issue by any reasonable definition of the term, but we're getting into semantics. There is no threshold between local, regional, and national distribution.

Even if a card was only distributed in limited locations during a rookie year, whose to say that it's not a rookie year card?

Let's keep it simple: if a card was distributed in the player's first year, it's a rookie year card, regardless of the size of the issue (lou gehrig 1925 exhibit is an oversized issue but that shouldn't mean it's not his rookie year card) or how many locations it was distributed in.

Spot on James!

[Orioles1954]

Not every player has a rookie card.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Not every player has a rookie card.

Bite your tongue (but don't spit in the cauldron)!

[oldjudge]

I think this is hilarious. Ten years ago very few people cared about these cards. All of a sudden someone calls it a rookie card and now people are tripping over themselves and apparently paying six figures for the card. Sometimes I think cards should come with warning labels.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Reminds me of the T205 Matty Cycle back 37-1, was no big deal until it was auctioned off with misleading information about how tough they were. From that point on people have been paying a huge premium for the card. All it seems to take is the right person to give out some information and "Boom Goes the Dynamite" :-). As as the buyers are happy that is all that counts.

[CharleyBrown]

Originally Posted by Sterling Sports Auctions

Reminds me of the T205 Matty Cycle back 37-1, was no big deal until it was auctioned off with misleading information about how tough they were. From that point on people have been paying a huge premium for the card. All it seems to take is the right person to give out some information and "Boom Goes the Dynamite" :-). As as the buyers are happy that is all that counts.

Not sure about the T205 Matty, as that has never been an area of collecting interest for me, but wrt the "Boom Goes the Dynamite", I don't think it is necessarily the "right person giving out information." We've seen a good number of cards experience an explosion at some point in time... whether it be the Sporting News Ruth, the e121 Ruth (Throwing variation), the '25 Exhibits Gehrig, '55 Topps Clemente, '47 Bond Bread, etc.

With each of those players, there is an element of intrigue that transcends the sport. With that, there has always been a premium placed on rookie cards.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by CharleyBrown

Not sure about the T205 Matty, as that has never been an area of collecting interest for me, but wrt the "Boom Goes the Dynamite", I don't think it is necessarily the "right person giving out information." We've seen a good number of cards experience an explosion at some point in time... whether it be the Sporting News Ruth, the e121 Ruth (Throwing variation), the '25 Exhibits Gehrig, '55 Topps Clemente, '47 Bond Bread, etc.

With each of those players, there is an element of intrigue that transcends the sport. With that, there has always been a premium placed on rookie cards.

Ruth, Gehrig, Jackie, Clemente. . . .if you are in this for investment purposes only there's most of your business plan right there. Transcend the sport. Iconic intriguing figures. Throw in Michael Jordan, Bobby Hull, maybe . . . a few others.

I thought the recent Kareem Abdul Jabbar auction at Golden was very instructive. An iconic figure who made a tremendous impact on his sport. Seemed to me that there was pretty muted demand for his stuff. Many items had one bid last time I looked at that auction (now closed). Hell, a week before it closed a ton of his stuff had zero bids. Yet people will pay $30,000 for a basketball card of a player frankly I have never heard of. I guess to each his own.

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by Sterling Sports Auctions

Reminds me of the T205 Matty Cycle back 37-1, was no big deal until it was auctioned off with misleading information about how tough they were. From that point on people have been paying a huge premium for the card. All it seems to take is the right person to give out some information and "Boom Goes the Dynamite" :-). As as the buyers are happy that is all that counts.

Lee, I'm not sure which auction you're talking about but I think the Cycle Matty is pretty tough to come by these days in relation to price. (Caveat.. I own one as a Matty collector) SGC has graded 25 of them out of a total of about 500. Obviously PSA numbers are skewed lower since they haven't recognized it as long. Compare this to a non HOFer like the T206 O'Hara Polar Bear version where SGC has graded 120 out of a little over 300 total and check that price in relation ($10K for a PSA 4!!). I get in that case, the greater percentage of O'Hara's St. Louis are graded. Plus, I've been searching on the BST here and other places for a PSA/SGC 4 + Cycle Matty for a while and haven't seen one in years.

[CharleyBrown]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think this is hilarious. Ten years ago very few people cared about these cards. All of a sudden someone calls it a rookie card and now people are tripping over themselves and apparently paying six figures for the card. Sometimes I think cards should come with warning labels.

Can't speak for the '25 Gehrig Exhibit card (wish I bought one when it was more affordable), but regarding the Bond Bread set...

Ten years ago, a renowned movie director with unlimited connections sought out these cards... and couldn't put together a complete set (He got 12 out of the 13). One of the biggest whales in the hobby spent 6 years during that time period trying to complete his first complete set. It is one of the few items he kept after selling much of his collection. It was only a matter of time before the card / set got noticed by "mainstream collectors."

I wish I had held onto the cards I sold.

[oldjudge]

Alfred Hitchcock? No wait, he's dead. Steven Spielberg?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Alfred Hitchcock? No wait, he's dead. Steven Spielberg?

Spike Lee I assume.

[CharleyBrown]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Alfred Hitchcock? No wait, he's dead. Steven Spielberg?

I wonder if Hitchcock was a baseball fan?