New York Times Leaf Article

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

[e107collector]

When I first saw the post, I actually thought the story was in reference to this video posted 2 days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x3wC9QoSc

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

The most knowledgeable collectors in the Hobby have been on board the 1949 train for a while and have decided what Jackie’s rookie card(s) is/are based on the criteria they deem relevant.

However, the majority of collectors put their trust in PSA or other Hobby authorities to figure such things out for them, and this is where PSA has been and remains:

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

Right, because Ted Zanidakis (rest in peace) used to complain about it all the time on here. However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

I personally think that the 49' Bowman baseball cards are a great buy right now. The gap between both sets (Bowman and Leaf) will start to close over the years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

[packs]

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

He's also in 1947 Homogenized BB, but I don't think most people would go there either.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

Agree. If you consider Jackie's true rookie to be the 47BB, then logically the Montiel must be Musial's rookie card (or at least supersedes the 48B for rookie card status).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Agree. If you consider Jackie's true rookie to be the 47BB, then logically the Montiel must be Musial's rookie card (or at least supersedes the 48B for rookie card status).

Logically we could distinguish a US baseball issue from a Cuban multisport issue, no?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

Certainly it predates the others, but doesn't something have to be a card to be a rookie card? The Montiels are just paperstock cutouts that otherwise look like baseball cards.

[Pat R]

So what baseball card did Ken Keltner show to the bartender?

December 24 Wisconsin newspaper
1948 Ken Keltner Baseball card The_Post_Crescent_1948_12_24_21.jpg

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Certainly it predates the others, but doesn't something have to be a card to be a rookie card? The Montiels are just paperstock cutouts that otherwise look like baseball cards.

I’ve never heard of anyone refer to the Montiel Desportes set as being hand cut. They have received number grades for as long as I’ve been familiar with them.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

1949 Leaf Spahn and Kiner are not rookie cards. PSA designates players with both 49 Leaf and Bowman as having two rookie cards, so no change there.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by rats60

1949 Leaf Spahn and Kiner are not rookie cards.

Many people will point to 1948 Bowman for both of them...some will point to 1947 Tip-Top Bread for both of them...

Grover C Alexander...his RC depends on whether you count supplements, leathers, silks, transfers/stamps, or table game cards that came before his 1914 Cracker Jack card many say is his RC.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Many people will point to 1948 Bowman for both of them...some will point to 1947 Tip-Top Bread for both of them...

Grover C Alexander...his RC depends on whether you count supplements, leathers, silks, transfers/stamps, or table game cards that came before his 1914 Cracker Jack card many say is his RC.

I was of the notion for a long time that Alexander's rookie card, being issued in 1914, but now have to go with the '14 CJ CJ, as that seems to be the common belief. Shame there aren't more cards of 'Ole Pete', given his significance to the game.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

The New York Times? Big deal. Were it the Wall Street Journal writing about it, I might then pay attention.