Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[DanP]

Not that it matters to me, but sorry, that doesn't make sense. It's your list and you can make whatever rules you want but you researched and determined that 1926-29 Exhibits could not have been issued until 1929 based on uniforms (I haven't heard anything regarding any of the N54 experts agreeing).

Rhett (and two others) did research and determined that the W560's could not have been produced until at least 1929. Not trying to cause trouble, but when Rhett speaks I listen.

Not blaming you, but this is a perfect example of why many collectors don't want to get involved in pre-war HOF RC collecting.

I guess I'd have to make my own list to get this right (lol). Both cards should be listed as acceptable RC's based on what I'm hearing. Understand this doesn't affect my personal collection since I have both cards for both players. I'd just like to get the list as consistent and accurate as possible.

No hunger strike threat this time!

Thanks for listening.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Although the postcard-back exhibits were produced over several years, the Foxx and Grove examples in question could not have been produced until after 1927 based on the uniforms, since these are large-size cards it is possibe to make that determination without needing Net 54 experts to agree with me.

I am not necessarily doubting that the W560 series was produced later than 1927 but am not sure what the exact date is.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Although the postcard-back exhibits were produced over several years, the Foxx and Grove examples in question could not have been produced until after 1927 based on the uniforms, since these are large-size cards it is possibe to make that determination without needing Net 54 experts to agree with me.

I am not necessarily doubting that the W560 series was produced later than 1927 but am not sure what the exact date is.

I'm gonna side with Phil on this. When there is evidence based on uniforms that a card could not have been produced before a certain year(especially in a multi-year run), then you have to go with it, basing each card individually on it's own characteristics. Whereas, with the w560's, there is evidence to support the fact that they could've been produced over a few years, but nothing to support any claims of a definitive starting point. And apparently '27 came from somewhere, so we gotta trust it until proven otherwise. We could call it 1927-29 w560 for now, but couldn't definitively call it simply 1929 w560...

[DanP]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I'm gonna side with Phil on this. When there is evidence based on uniforms that a card could not have been produced before a certain year(especially in a multi-year run), then you have to go with it, basing each card individually on it's own characteristics. Whereas, with the w560's, there is evidence to support the fact that they could've been produced over a few years, but nothing to support any claims of a definitive starting point. And apparently '27 came from somewhere, so we gotta trust it until proven otherwise. We could call it 1927-29 w560 for now, but couldn't definitively call it simply 1929 w560...

OK, understood. My opinion would be if there was a question, why not list both cards? However, it's Phil's call.

Phil, here is the link to the thread regarding 1932 US Caramel having to be issued in 1933. This would mean that any player that has a 1932 US Caramel as their RC should also have their 1933 Goudey listed as an acceptable RC.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...+lis%20%20ting

One more question: for the HOF'ers who have 1904 Allegheny listed as their RC, there's a second acceptable RC card listed. Is this because there is only one Allegheny for each HOF'er known to exist?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Dan:

Yes, the Alleghenys are unique so I listed a second card for those players as per someone's request earlier in this thread.

Listing a second card for the W560's with the set's date in question isn't a bad idea, I will go ahead and work on that today.

The only US Caramel RC is Lefty Gomez so I will go ahead and list his 1933 card(s) as alternative RC's.

Thanks again for your input!

[DanP]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Dan:

Yes, the Alleghenys are unique so I listed a second card for those players as per someone's request earlier in this thread.

Phil,
Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing (1924 Diaz Cigarettes); I believe there is only one known copy for each player (Mark, RustyWilly has one of them). Similar to the Allegheny RC's shouldn't these two also have a second card listed?


Chic Hafey (1928 Star Player Candy); Only 1 graded (by SGC). I've never seen one, have you? Could we also assume there's only one know copy?

Hack Wilson (1925 W504); Early Wynn (1948 Safe-T-Card/Gunther Beer Postcards): Pop 0 for PSA and SGC; I've never seen one (for any player), can't be many around?
Thanks

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by DanP

OK, understood. My opinion would be if there was a question, why not list both cards? However, it's Phil's call.

Phil, here is the link to the thread regarding 1932 US Caramel having to be issued in 1933. This would mean that any player that has a 1932 US Caramel as their RC should also have their 1933 Goudey listed as an acceptable RC.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...+lis%20%20ting

One more question: for the HOF'ers who have 1904 Allegheny listed as their RC, there's a second acceptable RC card listed. Is this because there is only one Allegheny for each HOF'er known to exist?

I agree about listing both cards. But that's where a list like the one you were working on comes into play. As it not only list the "true" rookie cards, but also "latest acceptable" rookie cards, with everything in between..

[novakjr]

Phil, is there any chance you could list the 1939 Goudey premium as Joe Gordon's rookie? I just think it would be a little more effective for the list, rather than a multi-year release, especially since they both at least started in the same year.

Also, I know there's ways to date the later exhibit runs, but is there any way to pin down the exact years on the salutations?

[Matt]

R303A should be listed for Teddy ballgame.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Although the postcard-back exhibits were produced over several years, the Foxx and Grove examples in question could not have been produced until after 1927 based on the uniforms, since these are large-size cards it is possibe to make that determination without needing Net 54 experts to agree with me.

I am not necessarily doubting that the W560 series was produced later than 1927 but am not sure what the exact date is.

That's a very interesting bit of research, and quite worthy of consideration here. I think that what we'll probably see in terms of $$$ values and various contenders for "rookie" status sometime down the road are significant premiums placed on a number of very early cards of HOF'ers, as some of the very earliest cards of certain HOF'ers are so rare that they may well turn out to be "unobtainium" for all but a very, very small handful of collectors. Kind of like what's happened with the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth versus the M101 major league rookie. Throw a 1917 Collins-McCarthy Ruth in that mix too! If this was one of my appellate briefs, I'd also probably say something like, "in accord, E90-1 Joe Jackson vs T210 Jackson." Regardless of which actually came first, I like the 1926-1929 Grove over the W560 based purely on eye appeal--same with the Foxx. Just my personal preference.

May your collecting be good and the wind be at your back!

Larry

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by DanP

Not that it matters to me, but sorry, that doesn't make sense. It's your list and you can make whatever rules you want but you researched and determined that 1926-29 Exhibits could not have been issued until 1929 based on uniforms (I haven't heard anything regarding any of the N54 experts agreeing).

Rhett (and two others) did research and determined that the W560's could not have been produced until at least 1929. Not trying to cause trouble, but when Rhett speaks I listen.

Not blaming you, but this is a perfect example of why many collectors don't want to get involved in pre-war HOF RC collecting.

I guess I'd have to make my own list to get this right (lol). Both cards should be listed as acceptable RC's based on what I'm hearing. Understand this doesn't affect my personal collection since I have both cards for both players. I'd just like to get the list as consistent and accurate as possible.

No hunger strike threat this time!

Thanks for listening.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. Things like this are just one more reason we need a list of "latest acceptable rookie cards" to go with these lists.. We've gotta somehow set an industry standard as to what is an acceptable rookie, within reason. That way people aren't running around claiming that 1948 Bowman is Rizzuto's rookie, and '34 Goudey is Ruth and Gehrig's, along with other various ridiculous claims based on loose standards and Beckett..