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

[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.

[iwantitiwinit]

For me it would be the 1953 Topps. First card in the set, great colors and love the bottom black box, head shot and great demand.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 48 Swell specifically commemorates his breaking the barrier. I'd go with that or a 47BB.

[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.

[Exhibitman]

Emperor - clothes = 1949 Leaf is Jackie Robinson's rookie card.

[CharleyBrown]

I'd be interested in the print numbers of various sets featuring Jackie from '48-50.

Obviously, we know the impact that WWII had on baseball. There was also a documented paper shortage that impacted the printing of trading cards and just about everything else, including congressional speeches.

General Baking was one of the largest and best-selling bread companies during that time and saw Jackie as an advertising goldmine from the jump. As early as May 1947, they approached Jackie with a reported significant offer to get him onboard... an offer he initially rejected:



He later accepted a follow-up offer in June, and Bond Bread / General Baking immediately went to work, with the first advertisements featuring the Portrait image appearing in newspapers. Despite the documented paper shortage, they printed a significant number of the Portrait card. It wasn't until 1948 that other companies like Bowman Gum Company, Leaf International, and Philadelphia Gum Company began to mass-print trading cards, with Bowman and Leaf distributing cards in packs and Philadelphia Gum Co. (Swell) offering cards for free with the purchase of 2 pieces of gum.

The Portrait cards began to be distributed in July 1947, starting in Harlem and expanding to much of the nation. It was reported that 2,000,000 cards were printed and distributed by shop owners, bread delivery drivers, by mail, and in packages of 2 slices of bread. See the following from the Baltimore Afro-American.



The success of the Bond Bread campaign was noted by other major corporations, including Phillip Morris, Pepsi-Cola, and more... as noted in this 1948 newspaper from Norfolk, VA. These corporations recognized the benefit of advertising in press that targeted African-Americans / the black community.



From a July edition of the New York Amsterdam:

The campaign, which started in Harlem, was aimed at both white and black families.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by CharleyBrown

I'd be interested in the print numbers of various sets featuring Jackie from '48-50.

Obviously, we know the impact that WWII had on baseball. There was also a documented paper shortage that impacted the printing of trading cards and just about everything else, including congressional speeches.

General Baking was one of the largest and best-selling bread companies during that time and saw Jackie as an advertising goldmine from the jump. As early as May 1947, they approached Jackie with a reported significant offer to get him onboard... an offer he initially rejected:



He later accepted a follow-up offer in June, and Bond Bread / General Baking immediately went to work, with the first advertisements featuring the Portrait image appearing in newspapers. Despite the documented paper shortage, they printed a significant number of the Portrait card. It wasn't until 1948 that other companies like Bowman Gum Company, Leaf International, and Philadelphia Gum Company began to mass-print trading cards, with Bowman and Leaf distributing cards in packs and Philadelphia Gum Co. (Swell) offering cards for free with the purchase of 2 pieces of gum.

The Portrait cards began to be distributed in July 1947, starting in Harlem and expanding to much of the nation. It was reported that 2,000,000 cards were printed and distributed by shop owners, bread delivery drivers, by mail, and in packages of 2 slices of bread. See the following from the Baltimore Afro-American.



The success of the Bond Bread campaign was noted by other major corporations, including Phillip Morris, Pepsi-Cola, and more... as noted in this 1948 newspaper from Norfolk, VA. These corporations recognized the benefit of advertising in press that targeted African-Americans / the black community.



From a July edition of the New York Amsterdam:

The campaign, which started in Harlem, was aimed at both white and black families.

Very interesting info, thanks for sharing.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.

No, PSA recognizes both the 1949 (mislabeled by PSA 1948) and the 1949 Bowman Jackie Robinson as his two rookie cards as has the hobby since at least the early 80s. While a few on here have been trying to convince people that regionals should be his rookie card instead of these two, my Leaf Jackie Robinson has gone up more than 20 times in value. You can call whatever you want a rookie card, but the hobby has spoken with its wallets that the Leaf RC is the card to have.

Through out the Topps era, there are many players who have cards earlier than their Topps rookie cards, with smaller print runs, that sell for a fraction of what their rookie cards sell for. That is because collectors want nationally released cards like Topps, Bowman and Leaf over regionals. Buy what you like and let others do the same.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, PSA recognizes both the 1949 (mislabeled by PSA 1948) and the 1949 Bowman Jackie Robinson as his two rookie cards as has the hobby since at least the early 80s. While a few on here have been trying to convince people that regionals should be his rookie card instead of these two, my Leaf Jackie Robinson has gone up more than 20 times in value. You can call whatever you want a rookie card, but the hobby has spoken with its wallets that the Leaf RC is the card to have.

Through out the Topps era, there are many players who have cards earlier than their Topps rookie cards, with smaller print runs, that sell for a fraction of what their rookie cards sell for. That is because collectors want nationally released cards like Topps, Bowman and Leaf over regionals. Buy what you like and let others do the same.

PSA on 48 Leaf: This is the only true rookie card of baseball's first African-American representative and hero to all. You cannot say enough about the importance of this man or this card.

[Exhibitman]

What PSA says has nothing to do with facts. Once it stakes out a position it does not alter it, not even in the face of indisputable facts. Look at the 1961 (well, 1963) Topps Die Games, or the 1932 US Caramels with the 1933 write-ups on the backs and don't get me started on all of the wrong labels on boxing slabs from PSA.

Nor does sales price equate to rookie. Look at the 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps Mantles. No matter how you slice it, the 1952 Topps came after the 1951 Bowman, but you'd not know it from the prices.

The Leaf card is very, very expensive compared to the others and it came after some others, so for my money, one of the others is a better deal on a budget.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

What PSA says has nothing to do with facts. Once it stakes out a position it does not alter it, not even in the face of indisputable facts. Look at the 1961 (well, 1963) Topps Die Games, or the 1932 US Caramels with the 1933 write-ups on the backs and don't get me started on all of the wrong labels on boxing slabs from PSA.

Nor does sales price equate to rookie. Look at the 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps Mantles. No matter how you slice it, the 1952 Topps came after the 1951 Bowman, but you'd not know it from the prices.

The Leaf card is very, very expensive compared to the others and it came after some others, so for my money, one of the others is a better deal on a budget.

The (incorrect) fact presented to me was psa does not recognize 48 leaf as his true rookie. You can disagree with its conclusion but it’s a fact as to what it considers his rookie. “No matter how you slice it.”

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The (incorrect) fact presented to me was psa does not recognize 48 leaf as his true rookie. You can disagree with its conclusion but it’s a fact as to what it considers his rookie. “No matter how you slice it.”

I am not disputing the 'fact' that PSA made a statement that the 1949 Leaf (it was copyrighted in 1948 but issued in 1949) is his RC; for all I know that is what PSA said. But that doesn't mean the opinion of whoever wrote that piece for PSA that the 1949 is accurate, any more than the view of anyone that the 1947 Bond Bread is the RC makes it so.

[CharleyBrown]

Out of curiosity, what do you consider Ruth's RC to be?

Originally Posted by rats60

No, PSA recognizes both the 1949 (mislabeled by PSA 1948) and the 1949 Bowman Jackie Robinson as his two rookie cards as has the hobby since at least the early 80s. While a few on here have been trying to convince people that regionals should be his rookie card instead of these two, my Leaf Jackie Robinson has gone up more than 20 times in value. You can call whatever you want a rookie card, but the hobby has spoken with its wallets that the Leaf RC is the card to have.

Through out the Topps era, there are many players who have cards earlier than their Topps rookie cards, with smaller print runs, that sell for a fraction of what their rookie cards sell for. That is because collectors want nationally released cards like Topps, Bowman and Leaf over regionals. Buy what you like and let others do the same.

[CharleyBrown]

The Leaf certainly is the more valuable card, though the increase in value has been across the board. FWIW, my Portrait card has increased more than 36 times in value when looking at the most recent sale in November.

Originally Posted by rats60

While a few on here have been trying to convince people that regionals should be his rookie card instead of these two, my Leaf Jackie Robinson has gone up more than 20 times in value. You can call whatever you want a rookie card, but the hobby has spoken with its wallets that the Leaf RC is the card to have.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.

I think the definition of a rookie card is an individual one as to the nuances, especially on issues in the 1940s and earlier. I am sure this position would even be challenged by some.