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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Carter08]

I’m a fan of 48 leaf rookie but for 3500 you can get a really nice looking 49 Bowman. Great card.

So controversial to call it his rookie and to call it 48 but I like to live dangerously.

[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.

[Billyscards]

Originally Posted by packs

If you can find one for sale:

Not the cleanest but will likely go for a steal.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12572039721...Bk9SR-SlkOK6YQ

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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.

I found your original post coming at me as condescending and insulting to begin with, and so just responded in kind. I asked you for information regarding your research and instead of you responding, someone else linked to your original 2013 thread that supposedly included your research. You had said you previously shared that research on here. Now you're saying that what is in that thread is NOT all the research info after all, and that maybe there's even another thread? So great, where is it? But of course, now you're on mobile and it still isn't available. How about this, before coming back at someone claiming you have this or that detail, facts, evidence, and research to prove your point and basically say you're right and they're wrong, try to actually have the information, data, research, whatever you want to call it, ready and at hand to share and actually back up what you're claiming and saying!!! I can't even begin to guess the number of times on this forum I've dealt with others pulling what seems to be a similar type of action. I'm wrong, they're right, but never answer my questions, provide any factual info, detail, evidence, or logical arguments to back it up, and on and on. It's like a broken record on here many times.

That 2013 thread of yours talked about how the emphasis apparently was to initially distribute to black communities, which makes logical sense to me. it also makes logical sense in that if those Jackie portrait cards were initially only distributed primarily in black communities, to a very small, LIMITED, segment of the population, that would also make perfect sense as to a possible reason maybe why so few of them are still around today. I merely looked at historical demographic and population records to try and determine how much of the population then really had easy and ready access to these cards, based on assumptions YOU had made and put forth in that earlier thread. Now you're mentioning production numbers and distribution records from other newspapers and sources as well and to show where these cards were distributed, and then you go even further and make the claim that you BELIEVE this '47 Bond Bread Robinson portrait card may be the widest distributed card since the start of WW II. I'm assuming when you said widest distributed card you're referring to baseball player cards, and were referring to the 2nd WW, as you weren't completely clear on either point in what you originally said. But then you also state that you'd have to do more research to try and prove that claim/belief. That's just telling everyone that your research maybe isn't so complete to back up all your claims/beliefs after all!!!

I had asked another poster to explain how if this portrait card was so widely distributed, then why are there so few of them still around today. And all they could respond was that they basically didn't have any explanation. Now you're claiming, apparently without really any supporting evidence, detail, or research, that this '47 Robinson portrait card is the most widely distributed baseball card at the time since around 1942. You also posted a newspaper article claiming 2 million Robinson picture cards were printed, and claim these cards were not just regional or limited in their distribution. It is also commonly known and accepted that there would be historic significance placed on Jackie's very first ever card distributed also. So, with all that supposedly behind it, how about you give us a logical, factual, evidentially supported reason or argument why so few of these "47 Jackie portrait cards still exist today then? Based on your research on all the stuff you've been saying, one would expect the exact opposite and that there would likely be more of these '47 Robinson portrait cards out there than anything from maybe '48 and ''49 as well. So, let's hear your logical, factual, evidence and research backed reasoning and answer then as to why there isn't.

And just because a newspaper article claims there were 2 million photo cards of Robinson made, what is it they often say, "If it's on the internet, it must be true!" Well, in 1947 there was no internet, there were newspapers. And don't kid yourself that reporters back then wouldn't bend the truth to sell papers, especially regarding stories that are advertising based to begin with. At all possible someone at Bond Bread maybe inflated numbers they gave to the papers as to how big the distribution was to look good in the public's eye? And the story doesn't definitively say those 2 million cards were all his '47 portrait cards either, did it?

And speaking of answers, you apparently still haven't answered my first question about all your research then. And you also apparently ignored my second question, which was really more of a request, to give us all the one and only definitive accepted definition of a ballplayer's "true" rookie card, that is accepted by everyone in the hobby. Still waiting to hear that response also! You can claim this "47 Robinson portrait card is his "true" rookie card all you want, but it is still only your opinion!!! Even if your research is found to be 100% accurate and proven true, it is still just your opinion that the '47 Robinson portrait card is his "true" rookie card, nothing more!!! Now if you want to say it is the first Robinson card issued showing him as a MLB player, now that I can agree with.

And by the way, why the mention of the Philadelphia Gum Co. and specifically the '48 Sports Thrills card set? Is it because I mentioned that I thought of it as a true card set, so what, now you want to question its distribution to possibly then claim it is only a regional or limited distribution as well? Be my guest. When I said it was more of a "true" card set, by that I meant that it included numerous subjects, not just one sole subject/player, that the cards were numbered, just like you would often expect and see in a "true" card set, it was made of a typical cardboard material and of a typical, uniform size and design, you would expect to see in a "true" card set of that era, and so on. I also imagine that despite any distribution/demographic limits, the Swell cards were likely distributed/sold in all the predominantly white, as well as probably in all the black communities as well, wherever they did end up being sold/distributed. But that is just my guess/opinion. But based on the research I've seen from you so far, being available to everyone where there were initially sold/distributed does not always seem to be the case with regard to those '47 Robinson portrait cards. Regardless, I also never claimed the '48 Sports Thrills Robinson to be his true rookie card anyway.

I think Adam may have hit the nail on the head in an earlier post where he referenced the Emperor's new clothes. Someone puts something out there and for whatever reason people jump on board and believe it, maybe just because they want to. You don't know me, and I certainly don't know you, but stick around long enough and you'll find out I'll always be the kind of person yelling out, "Hey, the jackass is naked!"

[michael3322]

Just sharing some pop counts from PSA for 5 of these cards:

1952 Topps 1321

1950 Bowman 1430

1949 Bowman 1641

1948 Leaf 1652

1953 Topps 3663

[Kutcher55]

52 Topps all the way, no contest, would like a “1” with good eye appeal.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by michael3322

1950 Bowman every day of the week and twice on Sunday...

+1000 on this. Head and shoulders above ALL the rest. Easily the best and best looking of ALL Jackie Robinson baseball cards. It's a no-brainer.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

52 Topps all the way, no contest, would like a “1” with good eye appeal.

So, basically, the opposite of mine

[Exhibitman]

is it time for a "0" grade?

[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.

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

is it time for a "0" grade?

Ha! Right??

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

So, basically, the opposite of mine

I’ve seen worse. And it’s still a 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Ha! Right??

Still sold for $2276.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Still sold for $2276.

It sold for $2,596.(not graded/no tax) on Ebay 12/5/22.

[Exhibitman]

Well, it sold in a CSG 1 holder yesterday for less. Bet that flipper is having kittens today. It is a FUgly example, though, so it doesn't tell us much about the market. I thought about bidding but decided it was too beat to really make it worthwhile.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, it sold in a CSG 1 holder yesterday for less. Bet that flipper is having kittens today. It is a FUgly example, though, so it doesn't tell us much about the market. I thought about bidding but decided it was too beat to really make it worthwhile.

I don't know what to make of it either, but I would have liked to have it in my collection. I guess for less money.

[Exhibitman]

Many of my cards are crappy examples of great cards, like that Robinson. As a collector, I always figured why buy a single nicer card of The Bambino when you can spend the same money on several lesser grade cards and HAVE MORE BABE RUTHS? Made perfect sense to me…

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Many of my cards are crappy examples of great cards, like that Robinson. As a collector, I always figured why buy a single nicer card of The Bambino when you can spend the same money on several lesser grade cards and HAVE MORE BABE RUTHS? Made perfect sense to me…

I do the same. The few higher grade cards, I have in my collection feel very uncomfortable to me.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I do the same. The few higher grade cards, I have in my collection feel very uncomfortable to me.

Ironically, even the lower grade stuff ends up in slabs because it is still too valuable to leave raw.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Many of my cards are crappy examples of great cards, like that Robinson. As a collector, I always figured why buy a single nicer card of The Bambino when you can spend the same money on several lesser grade cards and HAVE MORE BABE RUTHS? Made perfect sense to me…

My thought exactly. No way I would have anywhere near as much in my collection otherwise.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Ironically, even the lower grade stuff ends up in slabs because it is still too valuable to leave raw.

Yes! Because anything in my collection just about is for sale at the right price and I want it ready to sell at any given time!!

[jingram058]

Any playing days Jackie Robinson is perfect. You just ask yourself which one YOU like, and in what condition. For me, personally, I love Jackie Robinson. He is in my top 5 ballplayers of all-time, and depending on when you ask me, he might number one. I think "42" is a great movie, and I think the stress and the weight he was carrying aged him more than anyone I have ever seen. A shame we don't hear more about Larry Doby over in the American League with the Indians. But it is very clear that Branch Rickey got the right man. If the events of the movie are even remotely accurate, then I have admiration for Leo Durocher, Pee Wee Reese, Eddie Stanky and Ralph Branch, and I believe Ben Chapman to be a pariah, and from what I have read, Enos Slaughter and Terry Moore, and later, Solly Hemus also.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Many of my cards are crappy examples of great cards, like that Robinson. As a collector, I always figured why buy a single nicer card of The Bambino when you can spend the same money on several lesser grade cards and HAVE MORE BABE RUTHS? Made perfect sense to me…

That is always a balancing act of trying to find an aesthetically pleasing card you will enjoy while also being able to build somewhat of a collection instead of having just one really good looking card. You need some beaters to build your collection.

With the high prices today, those beaters are becoming more attractive, like when wearing beer goggles...it still gets the job done