Most overrated pre-war card?

[nolemmings]

Jay, while I don't know why you want to start something with me, as I was just setting the record straight, allow me to disagree in large part. First, while I believe the rookie chase craze was indeed dealer contrived, that doesn't alter the fact that the m101/4 is in fact Ruth's rookie card, which is what I said. Moreover, until 10-12 years ago, the E135s were wrongfully dated as 1916 cards, giving the collector the impression that Ruth had two different rookie cards. I submit that some collectors seeking the E135 may have thought differently had they known the true facts, whatever their aesthetic preference. I also disagree completely that the card was ever ugly or common, but acknowledge that the E135 is much more difficult to find. Finally, while I too have trouble with dealers claiming that all blank-back Ruths are m101-5 when they are more likely not, I have seen no evidence at all to show that "Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up." I would love to see that evidence.

Edited to add: I recognize that 10-12 years ago many thought m101-5 was dated 1915 as well. My point is there was confusion surrounding what may have been Ruth's rookie card, which confusion no longer exists. To that extent, I modify my earlier response which stated that m101-4 always had been considered his rookie-- I was referring to the relatively recent phenomenon that the Baltimore News card should be considered as such.

[oldjudge]

Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

[Steve D]

Any Denton (Cy) Young card that pictures Irv Young instead of Denton Young.


Steve

[rainier2004]

1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

[iowadoc77]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

1933 Goudey LaJoie...just as common as a '34 high number but 50xs the value and stops me from ever trying the set even as iconic and important as it is...

This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

[rats60]

Originally Posted by iowadoc77

This!!!! I have a huge dent in the Goudey set but considering ditching it because of Mr Lajoie

Just treat it as a 1934 Goudey. It wasn't printed until 1934 and was never issued in packs. 1933 Goudey set contains 239 cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

1. It is widely considered his rookie card, and always has been. Many if not most consider minor-league issues to be pre-rookie. If anything, the Baltimore News Ruth has benefited from those who must have a "first card" more than from those who chase rookies and who thus pick m101-4/5.
2. It was in fact nationally distributed, so that statement is just flat-ass wrong. Show me one corner of the country that did not receive the Sporting News. Probably the same could be said for Successful Farming.
3. M101-4 and m101-5 were in fact sold individually in packages, as evidenced by anyone who has bothered to read the back of a Holmes to Homes, Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking card. In addition, Mall Theatre cards were doled out one by one at the movies. At least some of the Department Stores required a purchase for the cards, although they were given out in groups of twenty.
4. You couldn't buy a pack of T206 cards either--you could acquire them one or two at a time. See above for the same argument on m101-4/5.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

As for 2 & 3, those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

[MattyC]

Thankfully it's called a rookie now and it will be forever known to future collectors as such. As information comes to light, many collectors embrace the new knowledge and recalibrate accordingly. Being open to change is good; it helps the hobby evolve. But the good thing about collecting is that no one is forced to collect a card they don't like.

End of the day, however, whatever the card was labeled 10-12 years ago is as irrelevant as any card's price 10-12 years ago. In 2014 and beyond, it is known to be his first card in a major league uniform, which is to the majority of collectors his rookie card. Years ago doctors used leeches; not many folks long to return to prior dark ages where ignorance reigned

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Todd--no attempt here to pick a fight. I respect your knowledge in the area. I guess that the point I am making is that first, the definition of a "rookie" card is not a universally accepted fact. I personally think that the Baltimore News Ruth is his rookie card. I think that is the same as a player's first card. Many don't agree with me, but that's fine. This is not an exact science. Second, why anyone would care any more about a rookie card than any other card is beyond me. I look for best image, most interesting card. Rookie card means nothing to me. The perversion of rookie cards is best expressed in the '52 Mantle, which for years was called his Topps rookie card.

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

+1

Of course they would - but where's the fun in chasing something you can't realistically get.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I agree re rookie cards. While I'm interested in a player's first card, I'm not if that first card is a dog (Gehrig) and later images of the player are fantastic (33,34 Goudey, DeLong). As for Ruth, I think anyone who wants his "rookie" card would be much more interested in the Baltimore News version than the M101-4/5 if not for the price difference -- because that is some difference.

How is the DeLong Gehrig a fantastic image, you can't even make out his face?

[Vintagecatcher]

The Honus Wagner T206 is certainly the most overrated baseball card ever.

Are the Honus Wagner T206 cards scarce...without a doubt... when only about 55-60 are known by the hobby. However, there are many pre-war cards that are have fewer examples remaining.

In my humble opinion, the Gretzky Wagner T206 has come to symbolize all that is wrong with the hobby. It was a card that was not shipped in a pack of cigarettes but according to hobby lore ...was cut from a sheet...then trimmed to the size of issued examples.

This altered example then became the poster child for greed when it became the first card graded by a now well known grading company. How poetic is it that the baseball card grading started with a lie...in fact, out right fraud. That's all one needs to know about the grading companies. Just follow the money.

Honus Wagner was a great all around ball player. The T206 set is a wonderful tobacco set. But when you mix in the quest for perfection, and greed enters the picture, you have the perfect recipe for disaster.

Patrick

[nolemmings]

Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.

As for 2 [that the Sporting News was sold nationally]& 3[that the cards were available individually and in groups of twenty], those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.

[Tao_Moko]

I wouldn't call the Wagner overrated as much as over valued. It has been good and bad for the hobby but I think mostly good. Think of how many undiscovered cards came from people digging through grandpa's attic after the publicity of the Wagner in the 80's and even to some degree earlier. HOFer, popular set, back story(true or not) and great iconic portrait.

My vote for pre-war - e90-1 Jackson

*T206 Plank may not be underrated but bang for buck is a much better deal than the Wagner.

[oldjudge]

Correct me if I am wrong, but what is now "generally accepted" as the definition of a rookie card is the first widely distributed, major league card of a player. How did this definition evolve? Remember that prior to the mid-1980's rookie card was not something talked about. The rookie card craze really started with the Mattingly rookie and the Griffey Jr rookie. This was a way for dealers to sell cards for more money. At this point it was really the first card of a player. Virtually all cards were widely distributed and virtually all cards were major league cards. It was only after this that the rookie card discussion started extending back to pre-war cards. However, for dealers and auctioneers to make much money selling these pre-war rookie cards there would have to be a good supply of a player's rookie. Widely distributed needed to be added to the definition for this very reason. If the Just So Young was considered his rookie card then how could most dealers make money on this; there weren't enough copies around. Worse still, people might not collect rookie cards if they knew they could never get some of the key players. This would hurt these dealers even more. So, widen the definition. Major league instead of just first card--same thing. Suddenly, something that never required a definition had one. If the hobby lets those with a monetary interest set the rules the end result will not be good. For me, the M101 Ruth is not his rookie--the Baltimore News is. Same for the Just So a Young, the N167 or Kalamazoo Bat Ewing and the N172 Kid Nichols.

[MattyC]

Overrated = any card I am in denial of coveting and also cannot afford!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

I wouldn't call the Wagner overrated as much as over valued. It has been good and bad for the hobby but I think mostly good. Think of how many undiscovered cards came from people digging through grandpa's attic after the publicity of the Wagner in the 80's and even to some degree earlier. HOFer, popular set, back story(true or not) and great iconic portrait.

My vote for pre-war - e90-1 Jackson

*T206 Plank may not be underrated but bang for buck is a much better deal than the Wagner.

The one major thing the Wagner has that no other card has, and its only increasing as time goes on, is its huge hobby lore.
Its hard to put a price on that "tradition"....

[sago]

So as not to quote Jay's post in it's entirety, the rookie card craze started, IMO, with the Rose RC, about 4-5 years before Mattingly. It's value skyrocketed from $5 to $35 between the first Beckett guide and first issue of CPU.

People started hoarding Ripken rookies, Gwynn, Boggs and Sandberg, along with others before 1984.

[BicycleSpokes]

I started collecting cards as a kid in 1986. Rookie craze was already well under way...

IMO "rookie" card designation should be irrelevant to pre war issues. Things were not so organized back then!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.



Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.



Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.



Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.

So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby. I'm sorry that I tried to educate you because you are such a stubborn person who doesn't care that he is wrong. Maybe one day you will go back and read hobby publications like SCD and Beckett from the 80s and actually learn about the history of this hobby, rather than true to impose your false beliefs on those who know better. Condescending? Look in the mirror.

Flo.yd Pa.rr

[Tao_Moko]

This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

This is what my minds eye sees when there are arguments on this forum. It's hard to take them seriously because this is about baseball cards.

+2, extra one for that photo.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

I have no dog in this fight, but, out of curiosity, what do you feel is this definition?

[celoknob]

As Yogi Berra might perhaps say, "T206s are overrated but they are better than most people think."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by rats60

So much ignorance in this post, I'm not going to waste my time. The definition of a rookie card was set by consensus of the hobby.

Careful - there is no consensus for most of them. Whoever owns one that is 'in the mix' will consider it to be the rookie. Doesn't matter if it's an individual player, major league or minor league, photograph, team photo, premium - it's whatever the 'rookie collector' happens to own, or is in his budget. Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

[packs]

Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

[nolemmings]

C'mon Scott, sure there is was/is consensus. Educate yourself--consult SCD and Beckett's from the 80's to learn about this hobby, lest you fuel the ignorance.

For those new to the forum, here's a thread from about 6 1/2 years ago when several of our members discussed the Ruth rookie--some of these ignorant tools (probably stubborn too)seemed to think it was the m101-4/5 Sporting News:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...e+Ruth+Rookie-

Almost forgot sellers - if you're selling a Ruth, for instance, it could be his '33 Goudey.

Good point. Beckett, that hobby bastion to which all true hobbyists swear exclusive allegiance, for some time listed 1933 Goudey as Ruth's rookie cards, after he'd been playing for what, 19 years? Here's a thread from a couple of years ago, and some may recall that Peter Chao brought this topic to the forum in '06 or '07:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=81278

It's a shame we mostly either forgot about the hobby consensus on Ruth's rookie card from the good old days or allowed ourselves to manipulated by the dealer-driven hype of the rookie craze. Seems our opinions on the subject--or at least mine-- are no longer of any value.

[Dan Carson]

Is the 1911 Bohen Zeenut the most overrated or just hard to find like so many other Zeenuts?

[nolemmings]

Isn't Ruth's first card issued as a Major Leaguer the Big Head series card?

No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

I feel Jackie Robinson is the most important player in the "hobby" and in baseball.

Mickey Mantle can go down as the player with the most potential who didn't really live up to it.

just wondering why you feel this way

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by conor912

The entire t206 set.

agree - I just don't see the beauty and they are a lot of them.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No. Although some have dated this set to as far back as 1916, it is most likely a set issued later (1916 would only tie it with m101-4/5 anyway). There are a couple of interesting threads here from a few years back that looked at this somewhat closely, if you'd like to search.

I didn't find those threads, but when I tried to figure it out for myself I noticed that Ping Bodie played only in the PCL in 1915 and 1916, so while it could technically be a 1916 issue, Bodie would have been a very odd choice for the set if it was issued prior to 1917. 1916 is more or less definitive as an earliest possible date since Baker is depicted as a Yankee. Larry Doyle played his final MLB game in 1920, so it seems unlikely to be later than a 1920 issue.

I've seen them labelled as 1916-20 (PSA and SGC), 1918-20 (Standard Catalog), and 1920-21 (Old Cardboard), but I think of them as 1917-20. If someone else finds one of the threads about this though I'd appreciate the link.

[nolemmings]

I think this was the main one:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=cadore

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I think this was the main one:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=cadore

Thank you, Todd.