For 3500, which Jackie would be your one/only?

[CharleyBrown]

Bob,

I have provided research on this very forum which indicates the number of portrait BB cards distributed in 1947.That research has been used by all the major auction houses, and it appears Beckett as well. To call that card a limited release or a regional release is to ignore that research to fit a narrative.

The set of 13 is a true card set. Its distribution has been documented. Of the 13, the portrait was released first and constitutes his true RC. Following the Portrait and prior to the release of the Swell Sport Thrills set, 6 more Bond Bread cards were distributed, as was the Kneeling Old Gold card (Sept 47 release). None of those take away from the value or significance of the Swell Sport Thrills, which is a beautiful card that deserves its increase in price.

Originally Posted by BobC

I had actually already seen and read that very article before posting my response and question to you, just to make sure I wasn't missing, forgetting, or otherwise unaware of some other circumstances or facts surrounding the set. Of course that card set is important, and exactly why it would be expected that if it had been widely issued, and not more of a regional or other extremely limited type of issue, that one would expect there would be a heck of a lot more of them out there and still around today. And my original reason for researching that particular article was to do a double check before making an earlier post and statement I had had made about how the '48 Sports Thrills card was the first sports card to my knowledge to actually refer to Jackie's historic MLB debut. Though the back of one of his Bond Bread cards does go into a history of Jackie's accomplishments, it still doesn't mention him being the first ever Black MLB player in history. And I'm also well aware and don't disagree at all with you that the Bond Bread items first came out in '47, the year before any other card issues with Robinson in them. That was never the question or issue, just that some people may not view it as a "true" card issue, and/or maybe more as a limited/regional type issue.

Still, that article doesn't answer my question at all, it actually just does the opposite, and was one of the main things I came across that actually prompted me to then ask you the question I did in the first place. Which you still haven't answered by the way!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by CharleyBrown

Bob,

I have provided research on this very forum which indicates the number of portrait BB cards distributed in 1947.That research has been used by all the major auction houses, and it appears Beckett as well. To call that card a limited release or a regional release is to ignore that research to fit a narrative.

The set of 13 is a true card set. Its distribution has been documented. Of the 13, the portrait was released first and constitutes his true RC. Following the Portrait and prior to the release of the Swell Sport Thrills set, 6 more Bond Bread cards were distributed, as was the Kneeling Old Gold card (Sept 47 release). None of those take away from the value or significance of the Swell Sport Thrills, which is a beautiful card that deserves its increase in price.

Great Shaun,

All I was ever asking was for some factual or other logical or detailed information as to the distribution and such for the '47 Robinson Bond Bread cards to then explain why it seems there are so few of them still available then. Also, I had merely said that some people believe the Bond Bread cards are more of a regional or limited issue, which some do, and is therefore an absolutely true statement. I also said that I agreed that the Bond Bread cards first came out in 1947, the year before any other of Robinson's ML cards issues did, which is also absolutely true, and makes the 1947 Bond Bread card Robinson's first ML card appearance. But there are still many people that do not consider food/bread or other such specialty/advertising issues as a "true" baseball card set, and therefore eligible to include a player's "true" rookie card. And for you to state otherwise, and say that without a doubt you are right, is really nothing more than simply your opinion, which you are entitled to. But so are the other people that don't necessarily agree with you that a '47 Bond Bread is Robinson's "true" rookie card, regardless of your research, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS, AND JUST AS RIGHT ABOUT THEM, AS MUCH AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!!!

I am all for learning and finding out new things in the hobby, and that is why I very often ask questions of others. I also often make very long and detailed posts myself, just like this one is turning out to be, trying to be thorough, and giving as much factual, logical and common sensical info and data as i can to put forth my own theories and thoughts, and still retain an open mind. But unfortunately, at least on this site, I've found only a very few people that even try to return the favor, without being ridiculous, demeaning, or simply pushing their "I'm right and you're wrong!" mantra over and over again. I always try to keep an open mind and am very willing to look at things from different viewpoints as well. And I absolutely don't mind telling people I was wrong about something if they can actually show me facts and evidence, along with other logical information and arguments, which can convince me their point or theory is actually the correct one, and not just another opinion. Sadly, I usually only get back a couple lines or so from people responding to me for something like this, and they never seem to bother answering any of my questions either, or they just blow me off with their TLDR crap, and/or continue throwing the previously mentioned "mantra" at me, over and over.

You state that you've done research showing the number of portrait cards distributed in '47, and it has been used by AHs and Beckett, and that you've provided that very research here on this forum. Great, then why didn't you just lead with that and at least provide a link to where this data and research is here on the forum, or just recreate and include the research here in this thread? Instead, you say it proves that people that believe this '47 Bond Bread issue was a limited or regional release are ignoring your research. Did it ever occur to you that no one is ignoring it at all, because maybe no one knows it even exists?

I've been a collector and in this hobby for decades. And I've seen many auctions and used to buy Beckett price guides/magazines myself back in the day. I've never seen or heard of this research of yours before now, and I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that a vast majority of those in the hobby haven't seen or heard of your research either. Otherwise, if it were that overpowering and convincing, why would there be many collectors out there that still don't seem to think of the '47 Bond Bread cards as Robinson's true rookie card? And that isn't pushing a narrative, that is just stating a fact!!!

So, I asked a previous poster to answer a question. And now I've got one question and one request for you.

1. What is this research data you are mentioning, can we actually see it?

2. Do some research and come back to share with everyone in this thread what you find is the definitive definition of what ALL baseball card collectors throughout the ENTIRE hobby have agreed to as the one and only complete and accurate definition of what is an MLB player's "true" rookie card. (And make sure it has been affirmatively agreed to by everyone in the hobby, and that you can actually prove that is true!)


P.S. As for how great the research you did for Beckett and others was, go back to Post #38, and the article that packs linked to in trying to debate some of my thoughts/thinking. I believe that is a Beckett article, right, same people you gave/showed your research to? You did such a fantastic job convincing everyone over there that you are right about the '47 Robinson Bond Bread card as being his "true" rookie card that they couldn't help but talk about it in articles they published about the set. Just read the very first line of that article saying how everyone was now convinced those '47 Bond Bread cards were his "true" rookie cards, oh........wait.....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great Shaun,

All I was ever asking was for some factual or other logical or detailed information as to the distribution and such for the '47 Robinson Bond Bread cards to then explain why it seems there are so few of them still available then. Also, I had merely said that some people believe the Bond Bread cards are more of a regional or limited issue, which some do, and is therefore an absolutely true statement. I also said that I agreed that the Bond Bread cards first came out in 1947, the year before any other of Robinson's ML cards issues did, which is also absolutely true, and makes the 1947 Bond Bread card Robinson's first ML card appearance. But there are still many people that do not consider food/bread or other such specialty/advertising issues as a "true" baseball card set, and therefore eligible to include a player's "true" rookie card. And for you to state otherwise, and say that without a doubt you are right, is really nothing more than simply your opinion, which you are entitled to. But so are the other people that don't necessarily agree with you that a '47 Bond Bread is Robinson's "true" rookie card, regardless of your research, AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS, AND JUST AS RIGHT ABOUT THEM, AS MUCH AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!!!

I am all for learning and finding out new things in the hobby, and that is why I very often ask questions of others. I also often make very long and detailed posts myself, just like this one is turning out to be, trying to be thorough, and giving as much factual, logical and common sensical info and data as i can to put forth my own theories and thoughts, and still retain an open mind. But unfortunately, at least on this site, I've found only a very few people that even try to return the favor, without being ridiculous, demeaning, or simply pushing their "I'm right and you're wrong!" mantra over and over again. I always try to keep an open mind and am very willing to look at things from different viewpoints as well. And I absolutely don't mind telling people I was wrong about something if they can actually show me facts and evidence, along with other logical information and arguments, which can convince me their point or theory is actually the correct one, and not just another opinion. Sadly, I usually only get back a couple lines or so from people responding to me for something like this, and they never seem to bother answering any of my questions either, or they just blow me off with their TLDR crap, and/or continue throwing the previously mentioned "mantra" at me, over and over.

You state that you've done research showing the number of portrait cards distributed in '47, and it has been used by AHs and Beckett, and that you've provided that very research here on this forum. Great, then why didn't you just lead with that and at least provide a link to where this data and research is here on the forum, or just recreate and include the research here in this thread? Instead, you say it proves that people that believe this '47 Bond Bread issue was a limited or regional release are ignoring your research. Did it ever occur to you that no one is ignoring it at all, because maybe no one knows it even exists?

I've been a collector and in this hobby for decades. And I've seen many auctions and used to buy Beckett price guides/magazines myself back in the day. I've never seen or heard of this research of yours before now, and I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that a vast majority of those in the hobby haven't seen or heard of your research either. Otherwise, if it were that overpowering and convincing, why would there be many collectors out there that still don't seem to think of the '47 Bond Bread cards as Robinson's true rookie card? And that isn't pushing a narrative, that is just stating a fact!!!

So, I asked a previous poster to answer a question. And now I've got one question and one request for you.

1. What is this research data you are mentioning, can we actually see it?

2. Do some research and come back to share with everyone in this thread what you find is the definitive definition of what ALL baseball card collectors throughout the ENTIRE hobby have agreed to as the one and only complete and accurate definition of what is an MLB player's "true" rookie card. (And make sure it has been affirmatively agreed to by everyone in the hobby, and that you can actually prove that is true!)


P.S. As for how great the research you did for Beckett and others was, go back to Post #38, and the article that packs linked to in trying to debate some of my thoughts/thinking. I believe that is a Beckett article, right, same people you gave/showed your research to? You did such a fantastic job convincing everyone over there that you are right about the '47 Robinson Bond Bread card as being his "true" rookie card that they couldn't help but talk about it in articles they published about the set. Just read the very first line of that article saying how everyone was now convinced those '47 Bond Bread cards were his "true" rookie cards, oh........wait.....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I followed the below thread in real time, and I got the sense that many others here did as well. As has been mentioned, Shaun’s Bond Bread research has been cited many times. I remember even seeing direct links to this thread in AH item descriptions. Big thanks to Shaun and all others who have done this type of legwork and shared their findings freely.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171169

[mrreality68]

All interesting stuff and the Bonds Bread Series of cards is great.

The pricing maybe tough to get a quality card in his price range.

And how people define what is a rookie card or not is a whole other conversation.

Ie TyCobb has probably ten’s of rookie cards and people call the post cards for him also his rookie card.
I have seen many times the 1933 Goudey cards called Rookie cards for Ruth and Gehrig

How about Mantle Rookie Card 1951 Bowman vs 1952 Topps. How can player have Rookie cards from 2 different years

End result $3500 is starting to get tough to get some of his cards that a few years ago could have gotten a nicer one.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I followed the below thread in real time, and I got the sense that many others here did as well. As has been mentioned, Shaun’s Bond Bread research has been cited many times. I remember even seeing direct links to this thread in AH item descriptions. Big thanks to Shaun and all others who have done this type of legwork and shared their findings freely.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171169

Thanks for posting the thread Ian. I never saw or remember seeing it back then in 2013. But I have read through the entire thread now, and any links that were still viable. This thread doesn't say one damn thing different than I've been saying and mentioning all along, and in fact, goes to prove the point that this most certainly was a limited distribution set, at least initially in 1947. I would also argue that it technically proves this most definitely was a regional type of distribution as well.

Without doing any of this detailed research, in earlier posts I had already opined that Bond Bread may likely have been limited to distribution, at least initially, to just predominantly black communities. And things I had read, along with what was put forth in this old thread now, seem to concur and confirm the exact same thinking and conclusions.

So let's do some math, shall we. In doing some online lookup, I found where the U.S. population was estimated to be about 144.13 million as of July 1, 1947. Census numbers for 1940 and 1950 are appropriately lower and higher, respectively, so that figure seems to be in the ballpark, and I'll leave it at that. I couldn't quickly find a 1947 population estimate for just black Americans, but found 1940 and 1950 numbers of 12,865,518 and 15,042,286. respectively. So if I figure the difference in the black U.S. population between those two points as 2,176,768 (15,042,286 - 12,865,518),and assume ratable population growth throughout the decade, that means the black population should have grown by about 65% (6.5 yrs. (from 1/1/40-7/1/47) / 10 yrs. (from 1/1/40-1/1/50) through July 1, 1947, or up to 14,280,417 as of 7/1/47 ((2,176,768 X 65%) + 12,865,518). I'll round that black population estimate up to a more even 14.3 million then, and divide by the total US population figure of 144.13 million to arrive at an estimated black U.S. population of approximately 9.92% (14.3M / 144.13M), as of 7/1/47. Now in looking at regional maps from around today, more than half the black U.S. population still lives in the South, around 56%. Back around 1960 that percentage was more around 60%, and read that is was even greater in earlier years going back to 1947, but couldn't find specific maps and figures for back then, so I'll just use the probably too low, 60% figure Now since the definition of the South does include states such as West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Washington DC, I'm going to make an assumption and knock that estimated Black Southern population estimate all the way back to just 50% as of 7/1/47, to account for black communities in places like Baltimore, that did apparently have these Bond Bread promotions in 1947 for Jackie cards. I feel that is more than fair.

So with that all said, and the total black population of the U.S. at only about 9.92% in 1947, of which 50% or so was in the South and likely not part of the initial Bond Bread distribution promotion (and I'm not even factoring in the blacks in the Western U.S. that likely weren't made part of these Bond bread promotions either initially in 1947), that means these initial '47 Bond Bread distributions were directed at approximately only around 4.96% (9.92% X 50%) of the total U.S. population at that time (and that is likely being generous that it was even that high). So, someone explain to me how in the F%$K limiting your distribution to a targeted audience of less than 5% of the total U.S. population is an any way, shape or form, somehow not a limited distribution!!!!!

And as for the regional issue argument. In looking up the population of New York City proper in 1940 and 1950, I found some estimates that it was around 7.45 million and 7.89 million, respectively. So again extrapolating based on ratable growth over 65% of the decade up to 7/1/47, that would put the NY City population at approximately 7.736 million as of July 1/1947 (((7.89M - 7.45M) X 65%) + 7.45M). Now using my earlier population figures, that means the NY City population alone would be about 5.367% (7.736M / 144.13M) of the total U.S. population as of 7/1/47. And in the immortal words of Arte Johnson from the old Laugh-In show, "Veeeerrryyyyyy Innteeerrrrressstinggggg!!!"

In that superb(?) research thread back in 2013 it was claimed that the original thinking was that the initial Bond Bread release may have been limited to just Brooklyn, and was therefore only a regional issue. But after it was later found out and determined to have actually gone to various black communities in other cities as well, it was immediately deemed as not possibly being a regional issue at all. Now here's the really interesting part. Had Bond Bread actually just left the initial '47 distribution of that Jackie card as a regional issue in just the New York City area, and not just limited it to black people and black communities around the city, it would have actually been available to a bigger percentage of the U.S. population (5.367% vs. 4.96%) than when they supposedly made the issue non-regional and non-limited. How the F$%K does that happen?!?!?!

And who the hell ever said the word "regional' only defined a contiguous area? The coastal region of the U.S. comprises all coastal areas of the U.S., not exclusively just the East coast, the West coast, the Gulf coast, etc. Now many people may decide to refer to a specific sub-region, such as the Gulf Coast, for more specific directions or descriptions, but that doesn't mean the U.S. coastal region is any less ALL the coastal areas of the U.S. Just exactly like all the black communities scattered around various U.S. cities combine to form a black urban U.S. region. I could probably find elementary and/or junior high school kids who would easily understand the math and logic, and be able to do it themselves, and easily agree with this proper thinking and logic in a heartbeat!!!!! Yet this crap has been out there for what, ten years now, and NO ONE has ever before pointed out the idiocy that these numbers clearly point to?!?!?!? It only took me about 10-15 minutes to really figure this out myself, after finally having the chance to read through that research thread. I was reserving doing any more work till I saw this research that people kept talking about and referring to, and was expecting some profound and really interesting data and evidence. Boy, did I get a load of crap.

I'm going to say this very clearly. These Bond Bread Robinson cards issued initially in 1947 most clearly and logically appear to have been limited in their initial distribution after all, and were initially only regionally distributed as well, based on information and facts that ALL YOU OTHERS in this and that earlier thread brought forth and presented. I merely took your info and then applied and added the math/number logic. Otherwise, your facts and information boys, not mine.

And feel free to go back and redo any of my calculations and numbers. As I said, I just did some quick online searches, and didn't always come up with exact, specific population numbers, but feel the ones I did use were at least pretty darn close. And I also made sure that whenever I was estimating something, I purposely tried to round the numbers to work against me. So I have what I think is a lot of cushion in the final figures I did come up with. Regardless, even if someone does go back and redo my calculations, the percentages are already so far skewed towards this issue being a limited
distribution, unless someone will actually have the gall to try and argue that only giving one or two people out of every ten a chance for something doesn't make that a limited distribution. But after seeing a lot of the crap that many on this site will try to argue is correct, lord only knows!

Maybe you should all start focusing more on the round-cornered, Bond Bread Robinson cards supposedly issued with the loaves of bread instead!

[Exhibitman]

No, Bob. What I said was that Major League Baseball was a regional sport and the cards were released in every MLB city so if you define MLB as a national entity then the BB cards were national releases. As for the numbers, your reasoning is fallacious (not a ton of cards today does not negate the facts around the release). I suspect that BB supplanted the Jackie release with the 44 subject MLB issue that is found in large numbers. It too has a rookie. The portrait card was released first, as that superb research proved.

[darwinbulldog]

The only sense in which one of Jackie's 1947 cards should be disqualified from rookie card status is if you want to argue that his rookie year was actually 1945 and therefore, if your definition of rookie card requires it to have been issued during the player's rookie season, he doesn't actually have a rookie card. In any case, he did win Rookie of the Year in 1947, so you have that going for you if you're in the his-rookie-cards-are-the-1947-Bond-Bread-cards camp. But anyone who's trying to argue that something from 1949 is his rookie card is just factually incorrect. We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our facts. You could have 8 billion people firmly believing that Mickey Mantle had a rookie card issued in 1952, and their belief itself might be a notable fact, but they'd still be wrong.

Jackie Robinson played in the Majors in 1947, and he had baseball cards in 1947. There could be zero or a billion surviving copies of those cards today, but in neither case would it have any bearing on what his rookie cards were. Whether or not it is a baseball card at all is, as ever, a function of its physical characteristics. Distributing an object in a larger number of regions does not magically convert it into a baseball card. It could have been issued in 1 city or 3 countries or 5 continents or 7 planets. A 1956 Topps Hank Aaron is no more a baseball card than a 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson is.

[packs]

Whatever you prefer if you buy any of his cards you should win out. He’ll always be collected.

[Casey2296]

In that price range I would buy the nicest 53 Topps you could find. Great image of a great ball player for you and your family to enjoy.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

The only sense in which one of Jackie's 1947 cards should be disqualified from rookie card status is if you want to argue that his rookie year was actually 1945 and therefore, if your definition of rookie card requires it to have been issued during the player's rookie season, he doesn't actually have a rookie card. In any case, he did win Rookie of the Year in 1947, so you have that going for you if you're in the his-rookie-cards-are-the-1947-Bond-Bread-cards camp. But anyone who's trying to argue that something from 1949 is his rookie card is just factually incorrect. We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our facts. You could have 8 billion people firmly believing that Mickey Mantle had a rookie card issued in 1952, and their belief itself might be a notable fact, but they'd still be wrong.

Jackie Robinson played in the Majors in 1947, and he had baseball cards in 1947. There could be zero or a billion surviving copies of those cards today, but in neither case would it have any bearing on what his rookie cards were. Whether or not it is a baseball card at all is, as ever, a function of its physical characteristics. Distributing an object in a larger number of regions does not magically convert it into a baseball card. It could have been issued in 1 city or 3 countries or 5 continents or 7 planets. A 1956 Topps Hank Aaron is no more a baseball card than a 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson is.

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

Correct, a card doesn't have to be universally cited as a Rookie Card to achieve great heights in value and desirability, which circles back to the card I proposed....

There is nothing more celebrated in MLB than Jackie Robinson's debut in MLB and the struggle it was for him to achieve...and there happens to be one baseball card made in 1948 that does just that better than any...

The 1948 Swell Sport Thrills Jackie Robinson.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Mostly agree, except the rookie designation is reserved for MLB cards, not minors. Doesn't change the financial facts. A Zeenuts Joe DiMaggio is way more desirable than a 1936 Goudey or National Chicle.

I don't recall seeing a legit card of Robinson from the NL or Montreal days; closest I can think of is the 1946 Parade Sportive premium, which is super-desirable but debatable as to card status.

We agree on that as well. Per MLB, his 1945 season is now considered to have been a Major League season.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

The only sense in which one of Jackie's 1947 cards should be disqualified from rookie card status is if you want to argue that his rookie year was actually 1945 and therefore, if your definition of rookie card requires it to have been issued during the player's rookie season, he doesn't actually have a rookie card. In any case, he did win Rookie of the Year in 1947, so you have that going for you if you're in the his-rookie-cards-are-the-1947-Bond-Bread-cards camp. But anyone who's trying to argue that something from 1949 is his rookie card is just factually incorrect. We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our facts. You could have 8 billion people firmly believing that Mickey Mantle had a rookie card issued in 1952, and their belief itself might be a notable fact, but they'd still be wrong.

Jackie Robinson played in the Majors in 1947, and he had baseball cards in 1947. There could be zero or a billion surviving copies of those cards today, but in neither case would it have any bearing on what his rookie cards were. Whether or not it is a baseball card at all is, as ever, a function of its physical characteristics. Distributing an object in a larger number of regions does not magically convert it into a baseball card. It could have been issued in 1 city or 3 countries or 5 continents or 7 planets. A 1956 Topps Hank Aaron is no more a baseball card than a 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson is.

It is fact that the BobC's definition of a Rookie Card is accepted by most of the hobby. It's your opinion that this "official definition" should be rejected, for the (obvious) reasons you noted.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It is fact that the BobC's definition of a Rookie Card is accepted by most of the hobby. It's your opinion that this "official definition" should be rejected, for the (obvious) reasons you noted.

Many definitions require the card to be widely distributed so penny arcade cards might not qualify in the eyes of some. That includes PSA, which says his Leaf is his one and only true rookie. They are wrong, I am wrong, many are wrong though. It has been declared such here.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by BobC

Maybe you should all start focusing more on the round-cornered, Bond Bread Robinson cards supposedly issued with the loaves of bread instead!

Uh, ok, I/we will. Also a rookie. Thanks to Ted Z for his research and sharing his first hand experiences collecting these ones in 1947.

I agree with Packs however. Jeff has a lot of good choices and most any Jackie will be a good buy in the long run. His legend will only grow over time.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...read+imposters

[Belfast1933]

As the OP to this thread, thank you! So much great information and informed opinions…

While I appreciate the significance of the earliest cards, I’m not a huge fan of black and white only cards, especially those which are blank backs. To me, they look more like small photos than traditional baseball cards.

As I mentioned, while I love the 48/49 Leaf set, I’ve never found the Jackie image to be a nice image of him. I like the 1950 Bowman a lot but wish he was also in the 51 set because I prefer to have the players name on the card (yes, I am picky about my card choices!)

That leaves 52 to 55 Topps (I have his 56) - of those, LOVE the 52 card because of the importance of the set and the bold red background. But obviously to get a nice looking eye appeal, centered even at low grade would easily blow past my budget.

Ugh - what to do! (My son is pushing me to pick up a Hank Aaron RC instead and just keep the 56 Jackie as my one/only! Am actually considering that)

Welcome to “inside Jeff’s head when making a big card purchase!” I imagine I’m not the only overthinker here! Makes the hobby fun - when I finally pull the trigger, I have left no stone unturned!

Thx again for your help and opinions on this one - Net54 rarely disappoints!

Jeff

[CharleyBrown]

Bob, I am on mobile, so I don't have easy access to my research, but I believe there may have been another thread as well, in which I provide substantial evidence to the number distributed, citing research from multiple newspapers across the country.. which also provides evidence as to where the cards were distributed.

Your subtle digs are rather insulting tbh, particularly given that you hadn't taken the time initially to track down any of the posts / research. The research was done for the benefit of the collecting community to get a deeper understanding of Jackie's first endorsement deal. Period. I would have to research further, but I believe, when it was released, the BB portrait card was the widest distributed card since the start of the world war.

FWIW, Philadelphia Gum Company was in its infancy in 1948. I'd be interested in knowing how widely that set was distributed. From what I remember, 1948 marked the year that the U.S. was coming out of a paper shortage, which led to Bowman releasing its 1948 set. It appears as though the Swell Sport cards were given out by shop owners that sold Swell Gum.

[CharleyBrown]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

As the OP to this thread, thank you! So much great information and informed opinions…

While I appreciate the significance of the earliest cards, I’m not a huge fan of black and white only cards, especially those which are blank backs. To me, they look more like small photos than traditional baseball cards.

As I mentioned, while I love the 48/49 Leaf set, I’ve never found the Jackie image to be a nice image of him. I like the 1950 Bowman a lot but wish he was also in the 51 set because I prefer to have the players name on the card (yes, I am picky about my card choices!)

That leaves 52 to 55 Topps (I have his 56) - of those, LOVE the 52 card because of the importance of the set and the bold red background. But obviously to get a nice looking eye appeal, centered even at low grade would easily blow past my budget.

Ugh - what to do! (My son is pushing me to pick up a Hank Aaron RC instead and just keep the 56 Jackie as my one/only! Am actually considering that)

Welcome to “inside Jeff’s head when making a big card purchase!” I imagine I’m not the only overthinker here! Makes the hobby fun - when I finally pull the trigger, I have left no stone unturned!

Thx again for your help and opinions on this one - Net54 rarely disappoints!

Jeff

Best of luck Jeff! Can't go wrong with a 52 Topps, or as your son recommends, the 54 Aaron!