Gehrig's true rookie card... Need some help...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Manos

I just picked up a 1924/25 Universal Toy Yankees card W504 of the team. The unique thing is that Gehrig is in the team picture. The card measures 5 x 3 1/2 This would be his first card?? I thought the exhibt from 1925 was but I would have to say it is a earlier card. Am I missing something??

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

but it isn't a rookie card if it is a team card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Manos

Many collector's today are on the W601 Team and W601 postcards(ie... Cobb) as possible rookie cards. I don't know but it is unique that he is on the card and it being earlier than the exhibt of 1925. Not that I made some bid find, I just find it neat that he is in there and I never knew it, nor did many others I bet??

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

I always thought the W590 and the 1925 Exhibits as Gehrig's rookies (1st cards).

If you can call a 1925 W504 team card a rookie, then Nolan Ryan's Rookie is the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, and not too many will go for that (Ryan is pictured on the 1967 Team card).

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As example, the 1967 Topps Mets Team card pictures Nolan Ryan, but it's the 1968 card that is considered his rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: JIm Manos

Knowledge is power. The W504 were actually distributed in 1924 and 25 I know Lemeke has 1925 but others have 24/25?? Not that it matter's. Thx's for the insite.

[Archive]

Posted By: jim

I find it fascinating that so much hand wringing is spent on the designation of a rookie card. As vintage card experts, shouldn't the board aspire to loftier discussions? I also didn't realize this board had the authority to make such decisions. SAD, SAD, SAD.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

funny isn't it...the whole "rookie" phenomenon. definitely kinda new to the hobby and nothing i was ever too concerned with. but, it is a current reality and is here to stay. As the hobby turns!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: jim

I would think that the term RC would be unnecesary for vintage cards. I am happy to have a second or third... year card of Cobb or Ruth, etc. Seems people want to put the RC tag on a card to solely increase it's resale value. From what I have seen in the vintage card category, that is not needed. Good cards sell no matter what year.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

i agree with you jim...but...having rc in front of any card...especially vintage, like the babe or cobb, i'd think would greatly enhance it's value and appeal to some!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

rookie cards are for losers

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

I second that, Hal

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Hal, Richard, you just KILL me.

Seriously, the whole rookie thing is really kinda dumb w/r/t vintage because of the existence of so many regional minor league cards. I mean, how do you realistically speak of a rookie card as so very desirable when minor league cards preceeded the "rookie" cards of Babe Ruth, Casey Stengel, all 3 DiMaggios, Heilmann, Gomez, both Waners, Lombardi, O'Doul, Weaver, Cochrane, Lazzeri, Bancroft, Coveleski, McMullen, Risberg, Gandil, Vance, Kamm, Averill, Crosetti. Some of these guys even had multiple cards in these sets. There are so many other first cards of major leaguers from minor league sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I'm not sure why a 51' Bowman "Say, Hey" is so fabulous, but somehow a pre-world war rookie isn't?
So it's hard to judge which card holds the title with our knowledge of such a myriad of issues still fuzzy all these years later....so what? It's part of the journey as far as I can tell, and as we as collectors continue to grow our knowledge and make written histories for others to pore over, the story of baseball cards is only enriched by the concept of rookie card.
The concept remains the same then as today, and would have been just as exciting at the time for the players involved and the fans who collected the cards. Making it into the public consciousness enough so that you are recongnized as being recongnizable is an awesome achievement in my opinion - date regardless!
Lots of cool cards, lots of cool issues, but only a couple of possibilities for RC's, makes total sense for the collector!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A collector can collect anyway he wants. If one collector wants to specialize rookie cards as defined by Beckett magazine, and another wants to collect fuzzy dice, they're both right. The rookie card designation was in part invented as a device to focus one's collecting. Some people collect cards of their favorite player, others build a set, others collect rookie cards as defined by a price guide. If collectors consider Beckett's official rookie card list to be the word of God, they're overreaching. But if they use the RC designation as a way to collect, that's reasonable.

I suspect that even those who don't like the RC designation would take interest if Rob Lifson says he will be posting a picture and history of the first known card of Ty Cobb, or the first card to picture Cobb as a Detroit Tiger.

A definition of rookie card is a definition, not a definition of quality. If I were to say Willie Mays's 1950 minor league card isn't his rookie card because he's a Minor Leaguer, one would be incorrect to think I was saying the card is lesser than his 1951 Bowman. Just as if I were to tell the definition the color red it would be incorrect to interpret that I was saying red was a better color than green.

The 1914 Baltimore News card is not Babe Ruth's rookie card. No matter how early, a Joe DiMaggio minor league card is not his rookie card ... If you read those two sentences as a slight against the cards and a comment on their financial worth, realize that is a reflection of you rather than the two sentences or the author (me).

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Isn't the answer simple? "Collect what you like." I personally like collecting the first single-player card of Hall of Famers, whether the card is from his days as a major leaguer or a minor leaguer. In fact, I'm particularly interested in the card if it is a minor league card. I'm not terribly interested in team cards, even if they pre-date the first single-player card. And I don't really care who does or doesn't recognize my particluar cards as "rookie" cards. But that's just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

That was close, Paul.

It is actually:

"CWYWC"


Collect What YOU Wanna Collect!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In collecting and life, it's not so much what you do but how seriously you take yourself.

If a rookie card collector knows the rookie card is a somewhat silly invention but it's an area where he and his friend have fun collecting, that's great. If a collector has sleepless nights and contemplates suing Beckett for not giving his card a RC designation, he's taking it too seriously.

It's fine to do something stupid if you're well aware it's stupid. It's when you take it as serious that you really look like the fool

[Archive]

Posted By: Prewarsports

The recent Rookie card phenomenon is really easy to understand. People in my generation (born from about 1973-1983 or so, who fueled the card hobby from about 1986-1993 are now graduating from Med Schools, Law Schools, advancing in careers, and gaining large amounts of disposible income for the first time. When this happens people decide to buy what intersts them and they usually harken back to their childhood to collect what they liked then. None of these people are dumb enough to invest heavily in 1989 Donruss cards, so they gavitate toward high dollar items (graded cards) or pre-war cards, all the while taking the knowledge and love for the hobby they had 20 years ago as kids.

The big thing then was rookie cards, and that is why it is becomming a big thing now. Younger people with money collecting what they loved in the 1980's and adapting it toward prewar cards. It is the same reason why Golden Age Comics were so hot for a while, then Beatles stuff and Barbie Dolls, then Star Wars toys and Pez dispensers etc, etc. The most difficult question is what could possibly be worth money from todays world to collectors 20 years from now?

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

"The most difficult question is what could possibly be worth money from todays world to collectors 20 years from now?"

Pokemon cards and pogs.