Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

According to Tim Cathey they started printing print group 1 with 350 backs in 1909.

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

It’s unclear, but there is support that 150/350 subjects were released in 1909. That said, it stands to reason that series 150 came before 350, otherwise, why distinguish. Regardless, I don’t want to bicker - you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what qualifies as a rookie, so we will just add this to that list. Regardless of when the t206 red chance came out, it is 0% NOT his rookie.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

It’s unclear, but there is support that 150/350 subjects were released in 1909. That said, it stands to reason that series 150 came before 350, otherwise, why distinguish. Regardless, I don’t want to bicker - you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what qualifies as a rookie, so we will just add this to that list. Regardless of when the t206 red chance came out, it is 0% NOT his rookie.

I would be ok calling all 350 series cards 1910 for the sake of simplicity, but we can be pretty detail-oriented around here so I wanted to get it right. And I'm on board with making the practically non-existent E107 Frank Chance's rookie card, you all beat me into submission. I was just using his T206 as an example.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

According to Tim Cathey they started printing print group 1 with 350 backs in 1909.

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

Thats because the print groups are very generalized. The subjects in print group 1 started in 1909, I have doubts about the 350s actually starting in 1910. (Or maybe I have forgotten, there's so D*** much to remember. )

At any rate, there's The 150 only cards, the real print group 1
Then what I'd call 1A, the ones that started in 150.
Then what I'd call 1B The subjects that carried over from 150-350 Often with subtle or not changes in the masters used.

Add in incidentals, like Magie/Magee which may not have been direct replacements, as Magie has several small but identifiable differences that coincide with back flaws that Magee doesn't have.

And at least some 150's came three different ways, indicating three different press runs even within the 150s.

At least one, possibly a small group of 350's is possibly because of the use of leftover sheet fronts from 150 production.

I think of the Published print groups as a general introduction, one that most people can grasp pretty easily. The expanded info is there, and still open for some debate.

So were all 350's 1910? Maybe not
Were some 350's 1909? Maybe?
The carry overs between 150 and 350 that have differences, have almost no cards that should be 150 but with a 350 back.

What makes for a rookie card is simple compared to those.

[puckpaul]

This is his rookie card!

[Shankweather]

Man that’s just a big old piece of paper. But if you’re looking to get rid of it I’ll take it off your hands.

[h2oya311]

Some might even argue that this is his “rookie” (no longer mine) depending on one’s definition:

1898 The World of Sport Chicago Orphans Team Photo Premium:


Chance is image 12, back row (Catcher)

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Some might even argue that this is his “rookie” (no longer mine) depending on one’s definition:

1898 The World of Sport Chicago Orphans Team Photo Premium:


Chance is image 12, back row (Catcher)

That is F-ing COOL!

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

That is F-ing COOL!

Yes, very cool…but doesnt say he is a “splendid type of manhood” unlike his teammates as does the M101-1!

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Yes, very cool…but doesnt say he is a “splendid type of manhood” unlike his teammates as does the M101-1!

LOL! That is awesome! How did I miss that?? You’ve gotta love the backs of old time baseball “cards”!