Jackie Robinson RCs taking off

[investinrookies]

Has anyone else noticed the high prices the last few 48 leaf rookies got at auction? Maybe everything going on in the world today is playing a part in this increase and people are starting to pay notice to how significant he really was as a person and a player. Looks like his cards are starting to take off, will they keep going from here? His 49 bowman issue is also considered a true rookie is it next to move up big?

Crazy prices these all got, especially ending on the same night.

6/15-1948 leaf PSA 7-$38,988
6/15-1948 leaf SGC 6.5-$18,656
6/15-1948 leaf UGLY PSA 4-$10,800

[toppcat]

As usual I sold my 49 Bowman and 52 Topps Jackie's way too early. Story of my life in this hobby and while I do it for fun, I am the bottom of the market when I sell. You have been warned.

[G1911]

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

[mrmopar]

Widely distributed (and more substantially sized sets) like Leaf and Bowman vs smaller, perhaps even regional issues. I guess it depends on your own belief of what a rookie card should be. Earliest item, regardless of origin? Does a premium promotional or retail sold photo or PC get the same credit as a trading card?

Here is one to be pondered. There is a current hockey guy, don't follow the sport and don't recall the name. He is apparently in the stands and captured in the background of a then current players card. 94 or 95 Pinnacle is the set.

Clearly, this is coincidence that this kid in the game action photo goes on to be a star in his own right, but people are now paying substantially more for the common card because this future star is pictured. Definitely a rookie for that guy, but is likely the earliest national issue picturing him.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

Widely distributed (and more substantially sized sets) like Leaf and Bowman vs smaller, perhaps even regional issues. I guess it depends on your own belief of what a rookie card should be. Earliest item, regardless of origin? Does a premium promotional or retail sold photo or PC get the same credit as a trading card?

Here is one to be pondered. There is a current hockey guy, don't follow the sport and don't recall the name. He is apparently in the stands and captured in the background of a then current players card. 94 or 95 Pinnacle is the set.

Clearly, this is coincidence that this kid in the game action photo goes on to be a star in his own right, but people are now paying substantially more for the common card because this future star is pictured. Definitely a rookie for that guy, but is likely the earliest national issue picturing him.

I would take a pretty literal definition of a 'card' and say photos do not count, a postcard does. It doesn't affect Jackie though, I don't think anyone can argue that Bond Breads and Swells are not cards.

If Bond Bread (which must have been distributed over a fairly large area for the set featuring many players, as there are tons of these cards today) is too minor or not a major manufacturer, then I don't think Leaf is. The 1949 Leaf set was illegal, using players images with no licensing rights which got the set pulled. I'd think that wouldn't count either then, making his 17th issued card, the 1949 Bowman, a "Rookie", which seems pretty absurd to me. It's not like the Bonds or Swells are some truly obscure issue even put out only in some town. At least the 1952 Topps Mantle "Rookie" is his third issued card.

[irv]

The same can be said of the Beehive hockey cards. Many stars are in that large set which all pre-date their actual hockey cards.
This was a set where proof of Beehive products got you pics/photos of star players yet these photos/pics rarely get mentioned or are collected.

Gordie Howe, Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, the list goes on and on with these players who had their photos taken, sometimes years before their actual hockey cards came out.

[G1911]

I don't think photos have anything to do with Jackie's rookie. The Bond Bread and Swell sets are not photos or debatably cards, they are printed on cardboard similarly to Bowman/Topps. If a 1948 Swell is not a card, then nothing is. I don't think the "what is a card?" question really comes into play for Jackie at all.

[sflayank]

Jackie's rookies
Are pleetwood slacks
Well made pants
And champ hats
And coincidentally are also the rarest "rookies" of him

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

Arbitrary regional vs national distribution standards set in the 80's by various publications is why. Jackie transcends anyway.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Arbitrary regional vs national distribution standards set in the 80's by various publications is why. Jackie transcends anyway.

I don’t believe either the Swell or the Bond Bread round corners were regional, just the Robinson-specific Bond cards.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've never understood how the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf are considered rookies at all. His rookie is the 1947 Bond Bread (the set dedicated to him, plus his card in the regular Bond set).

He also has a 1948 Swell. There are no less than 15 cards that pre-date the Bowman and Leaf.

It is believed that half the Bond Bread cards were issued after 1948. We know some of the photos were taken during the 1949 season. So there is some debate as to issue date. PSA has only graded more than 20 of 2 of the 12. The promo is believed to be a giveaway card, PSA has graded 109 of these. PSA doesn’t grade the regular Bond set. The Swell card is more a highlight card than a standard baseball card. Is the 1960 Topps World Series game 5 card Maury Wills RC? PSA has graded 156 of the Swell cards. PSA has graded 1344 of the 1949 Leaf cards. We can see by the numbers available that the Leaf cards were more of a national issue and the others regional. It is also from a traditional set with 98 different players, not a set only featuring 1 player or a set of highlight cards. That is why the hobby considers Leaf a RC instead of the others.

[ALR-bishop]

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

1952 Topps for me-which is currently the only one I own. I think that card is so under appreciated, better image and more rare than any of the others. Nearly impossible to find nice centered examples.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

Your question also makes me wonder...if you could have either a 51B mantle or a Robinson Leaf/Bowman Rookie which one would you rather have?

[Natswin2019]

Originally Posted by investinrookies

Your question also makes me wonder...if you could have either a 51B mantle or a Robinson Leaf/Bowman Rookie which one would you rather have?

I'd have to go with the mantle because it's mantle! It's a pretty easy choice for me because my favorite Jackie is the 54 Topps

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by investinrookies

1952 Topps for me-which is currently the only one I own. I think that card is so under appreciated, better image and more rare than any of the others. Nearly impossible to find nice centered examples.

You have to be kidding me.

It has to highest pop of any of them mentioned and is far easier to find. Well centered, not so much, better image, yes, but certainly not rare in the least.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

You have to be kidding me.

It has to highest pop of any of them mentioned and is far easier to find. Well centered, not so much, better image, yes, but certainly not rare in the least.

The 52T has a lower pop than any other base issue robinson from 1948-1956. Another reason why I say its under-appreciated, not sure everyone realizes that.

[Republicaninmass]

Didnt believe it, but it sure is.

Still find it hard to believe being a double print.

Rare is a relative term I guess


49 bowman 1196
48 leaf 1,133
52 topps 949

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is believed that half the Bond Bread cards were issued after 1948. We know some of the photos were taken during the 1949 season. So there is some debate as to issue date. PSA has only graded more than 20 of 2 of the 12. The promo is believed to be a giveaway card, PSA has graded 109 of these. PSA doesn’t grade the regular Bond set. The Swell card is more a highlight card than a standard baseball card. Is the 1960 Topps World Series game 5 card Maury Wills RC? PSA has graded 156 of the Swell cards. PSA has graded 1344 of the 1949 Leaf cards. We can see by the numbers available that the Leaf cards were more of a national issue and the others regional. It is also from a traditional set with 98 different players, not a set only featuring 1 player or a set of highlight cards. That is why the hobby considers Leaf a RC instead of the others.

Jackie is a Round cornered Bond, a 1947 issue. The square corner lower quality cards were 1949 or later. The 1947 round corner is not a rare card, there are 6 on eBay right now. See the large composite thread on these. There are 10 of his Swell listed on eBay right now. These are not difficult cards to find, and PSA not grading one of them of course means the pop report is not a good tool here. Are Leaf 2nd series cards not rookies, because they were distributed in only a couple regions very briefly and are rare? The standards here flip flop depending on the player to call whatever is desired a rookie card.


The Swell set has many past players, and Jackie’s card does commemorate his rookie season. It is a portrait photo of him and only him and quite specifically names him. This is nothing like a World Series highlight card naming another player specifically on which Wills is not the focus.


Again, I’m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

[ALR-bishop]

Invest---agree with you on 52 Robinson and 51 Bowman Mantle. The 54 Topps is good too....and then there is the 1973 Topps 1953 Reprint, which is a fairly scarce card from a very mysterious set

[mrmopar]

It seems that because people really didn't necessarily card about "rookie" cards until much later, trying to pinpoint a "rookie" among the various issues that predated the players debut well after the fact has become a favorite debate.

Originally, we just had the "major" card makers, a few oddballs and some regional sets. Then in the 80s we saw XRCs because those cards were only sold in sets. Not sure why a card only sold in a set would be any LESS of a rookie card than one from a pack, especially if they were available to anyone, not just people in a certain part of the world.

Then, once you think you have it all figured out, introduce the basketball card dilemma. A few sets issued along the way in the 40s, 50s and 60s before Topps established a regular card market. All those guys who played in the mid to late 60s with nothing until Topps shows up, or reappears actually, after a long hiatus. Then it happened again when Topps shut it down again after the 81 set! All those guys after 81 until Fleer started producing the primary sets of the time in 86...unless you count Star, but those were sold as bagged sets so they don't count or are XRCs (says many people).

I would tend to think the true rookie item is the item issued the earliest, dedicated to that player. By that I mean, some modern star as a kid in the background of another players card is not a rookie. A guy pictured on a world series card is not a rookie card. A guy pictured on a 4 player exhibit card could very well be considered a rookie card. A guy on a food issue, when no other major issues were available, could be considered a rookie. Just my personal opinion.

[mrmopar]

By the way, this thread caught my eye because my Leaf Robinson has always been my go to when someone asks what my best card is. Now, I can probably assume that it is, at least for the time being, by far my most expensive card too.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, I’m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.

Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?

Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Invest---agree with you on 52 Robinson and 51 Bowman Mantle. The 54 Topps is good too....and then there is the 1973 Topps 1953 Reprint, which is a fairly scarce card from a very mysterious set

It is really interesting to see different people's opinions on cards as they can vary so much. My favorite Jackies are the 1950 Bowman and 1955 Topps. My least favorite are 1954, can't stand the use of black and white photos on color cards, and 1953, I think they are poor quality paintings. I have always felt cards are like art and we all have our different preferences.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed. Whether the topic involves a card or set, preferences and opinions vary greatly. I guess no one can be wrong in their personal views on such matters

The rookie card debate ( which is the real one) is often a passionate and sometimes, to me, overly contentious debate. There is no hobby arbiter on such issues other than general hobby consensus if it exists. Differing views are part of what makes such topics interesting to me.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I always enjoy rookie card debates but since I do not collect rookie cards it is just a hobby hypothetical for me. I collect sets. My oldest sets, with the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I am working on still, are Bowman and Topps sets, so those are the earliest JR cards I have. I like those. I have never carried much for the image on the Leaf card.

If you did not have any of his cards and could pick one to get, what would it be ?

Yeah, that Leaf Jackie image is not good. The 52 Topps though, is fabulous.

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Yeah, that Leaf Jackie image is not good. The 52 Topps though, is fabulous.

completely agree, and if I have to pic an early card it would be the 49B over any of the others discussed here. Regarding the 52 Topps, its just a very nice under-appreciated card, its my favorite as said early. Also, great conversations and points here very interesting to hear other point of views.

[DeanH3]

There has been some excellent research on the bond bread set by CharlieBrown (Shaun Fyffe). He found evidence that the set was not just regional, but also distributed in other major league cities. If so, that should merit this card being considered his rookie over the Leaf/Bowman. No?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

There has been some excellent research on the bond bread set by CharlieBrown (Shaun Fyffe). He found evidence that the set was not just regional, but also distributed in other major league cities. If so, that should merit this card being considered his rookie over the Leaf/Bowman. No?

No.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

There has been some excellent research on the bond bread set by CharlieBrown (Shaun Fyffe). He found evidence that the set was not just regional, but also distributed in other major league cities. If so, that should merit this card being considered his rookie over the Leaf/Bowman. No?

I think we're at the point the market dictates if a non-nationally distributed card is considered a rookie. For post-WW2 items it's generally Topps and Bowman in the vintage realm but before that is can depend, especially pre-WW1.

[DeanH3]

Here's some of the info from the research. If the market determines his Leaf card is his rookie card then that's fine. But it should at least be aknwoledged that the Bond Bread card was not a regional issue only. And, has the market finally decided that the Leaf card is not a 1948 issue date?

Taken from Shaun Fyffe's research. Obviously I didn't paste everything. Just pertinent info with regards to the portrait card.

The first card was the Portrait-Facsimile card with the bio back. This card was first seen in Harlem in June / July of 1947, and was distributed by grocery store owners, and also in promotional packages with two slices of bread and coupons.

It should be noted that, as early as June of 1947, African-American newspapers in all major baseball U.S. cities began running advertisements promoting Jackie's endorsement deal with Bond Bread, and also the availability of the promotional card. This is quite interesting, as it was initially believed that Branch Rickey would not allow Jackie to sign an endorsement deal until the season was over, as he didn't want it to be a distraction.

Come September of 1947, the card's distribution expanded to every major city from Montreal to St. Louis. This Bond Bread set should no longer be considered a regional set for that very reason. As such, the Bond Bread facsimile-signature card should be considered Jackie's true rookie card / first nationally distributed rookie card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

Here's some of the info from the research. If the market determines his Leaf card is his rookie card then that's fine. But it should at least be aknwoledged that the Bond Bread card was not a regional issue only. And, has the market finally decided that the Leaf card is not a 1948 issue date?

Taken from Shaun Fyffe's research. Obviously I didn't paste everything. Just pertinent info with regards to the portrait card.

The first card was the Portrait-Facsimile card with the bio back. This card was first seen in Harlem in June / July of 1947, and was distributed by grocery store owners, and also in promotional packages with two slices of bread and coupons.

It should be noted that, as early as June of 1947, African-American newspapers in all major baseball U.S. cities began running advertisements promoting Jackie's endorsement deal with Bond Bread, and also the availability of the promotional card. This is quite interesting, as it was initially believed that Branch Rickey would not allow Jackie to sign an endorsement deal until the season was over, as he didn't want it to be a distraction.

Come September of 1947, the card's distribution expanded to every major city from Montreal to St. Louis. This Bond Bread set should no longer be considered a regional set for that very reason. As such, the Bond Bread facsimile-signature card should be considered Jackie's true rookie card / first nationally distributed rookie card.

Are you talking about the promotional card that was given away? What qualifies as a major city? Is it only MLB cities or were they available in the 5th and 7th largest cities in the US? Were they available throughout each city or only in African American neighborhoods? Why are there so few available if they were a national issue?

Originally Posted by DeanH3

There has been some excellent research on the bond bread set by CharlieBrown (Shaun Fyffe). He found evidence that the set was not just regional, but also distributed in other major league cities. If so, that should merit this card being considered his rookie over the Leaf/Bowman. No?

Yes, absolutely. There's plenty of evidence that the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait w/ Facsimile was distributed by grocers in several American cities prior to the rest of the 13 card white border set and the card basically exploded overnight once Shaun provided the evidence in the thread you referenced. This is his RC in my opinion and I also own a 48/49 Leaf which was produced at least one year later.

[ALR-bishop]

Very nice looking card, Dan

Thanks Al!

[ALR-bishop]

His toughest cards for me to get were his 55 and 56 Topps Hocus Focus cards.


Here is his mysterious 1973 Topps "1953 Reprint" card ( mysterious in the sense 3 of the 8 cards in the set are incorrectly identified and the puropse and origin of the set ambiguous)



And not long back SCD did an article on this scarce but recurring variant ( it is not a miscut)

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by rats60

Are you talking about the promotional card that was given away? What qualifies as a major city? Is it only MLB cities or were they available in the 5th and 7th largest cities in the US? Were they available throughout each city or only in African American neighborhoods? Why are there so few available if they were a national issue?

That's a lot of hairs to split. Again, if the market decides the '49 Leaf is his rookie then so be it. But we can at least acknowledge the Bond Bread wasn't a regional issue only.

I think another fair question is would the Leaf be so much more popular than the Bowman if the Leaf was correctly recognized as a '49 issue from the beginning? Don't get me wrong, the Leaf is a GREAT card. But would the Bowman still be looked at as second fiddle?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

That's a lot of hairs to split. Again, if the market decides the '49 Leaf is his rookie then so be it. But we can at least acknowledge the Bond Bread wasn't a regional issue only.

I think another fair question is would the Leaf be so much more popular than the Bowman if the Leaf was correctly recognized as a '49 issue from the beginning? Don't get me wrong, the Leaf is a GREAT card. But would the Bowman still be looked at as second fiddle?

If it wasn’t available across the US, it is considered a regional. The whole idea of rookie card is something that collectors universally can collect at issue. That was why early traded cards were given a xrc label instead of RC. The 1988 OPC Delino Deshields is not a RC. His 1990 Topps is because the OPC was only issued in Canada and US collectors didn’t have access to the card unless it was imported by a local dealer. I know a lot of people try to collect the earliest “card” of a player, but being a players first card doesn’t make it a rookie card, just his first card. The 1994 Pinnacle Sylvain Turgeon has a 6 year old Patrick Kane sitting on his dad’s lap in the crowd. That makes it a novelty not a RC.

The best I can figure out is that Bond Bread was a company in the northeast US. I live in Illinois and have never seen it for sale. Being sold in African American neighborhoods in Chicago and St Louis to take advantage of Jackie’s endorsement doesn’t give Illinois collectors access to the cards and doesn’t make it not a regional. The promo card is a promo card not a RC. The 44 player mlb set is a regional with questions about which cards were actually from 1947 and were printed later. The 12 card Jackie Robinson set clearly has cards released from 1949 or later, so how do we know which ones are from 1947? Any collector that obtained a Jackie Robinson card in 1947 knows they have one of his earliest cards. Anyone else is just hoping they do.

Both the Leaf and Bowman are RCs. The hobby has chosen the Leaf as the best card just like the 1984 Donruss Mattingly is favored over the Topps and Fleer. I think being the larger size card as well as being released earlier in the year than Bowman would still give it the edge. No doubt PSA mislabeling the card with the wrong year has helped its value as some collectors don’t know there is another RC.

The promo card was released in many other North American cities besides St. Louis and Brooklyn. Shaun’s exhaustive research in the thread previously referenced includes all the evidence of that. The fact that it wasn’t available in every single US city doesn’t make it a regional issue. At worst it was a multi-regional issue. The idea that the lay collector believes that the Leaf is his RC, largely because that’s what they’ve been spoon fed that as fact, is ignoring the reality that the distribution of the Bond Bread was far more widespread than previously believed. As I mentioned before, you could pick up the 1947 Bond Bread Jackie portrait w/ facsimile in PSA 6 for under $1k forever until the research Shaun provided was shared and basically overnight it became a $7-8k card because of it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?

Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.

I agree some players don't have rookies. If no card was made in early career, there is no rookie card. I have no clue what "so how is a post career card a rookie?" could possibly have to do with what is being discussed. 1947 Bond Breads and 1948 Swells are not post-career cards? Nowhere am I arguing, in any way, shape, or form that post-career cards are rookies. I do not see how it is possible that one could construe that from anything I have said. I'm not sure why photos, post-career cards, cards of other players who are in the foreground of a card focused on someone else etc. keep getting brought up into this, as none of these have a single thing to do with Jackie's rookie.

The Bond Breads, as several others have explained already, were not obscure regionals and had a broad geographic area of distribution. They were the MOST available cards of 1947, are readily found for sale, and are easily available. Yes, there are not as many as there are 1949 Bowman's, but that seems a strange standard to set. What is the print run required to qualify?

If this is our standard, then only certain parts of certain sets can be rookies, at best. The 1949 Leaf second series sure can't, as that was only issued in a few small regions. Topps high numbers sure weren't nationally issued and many areas never saw them at all. I guess the players next first series Topps card becomes the rookie then? Heck, were even the first series truly issued everywhere? I guess the 75 Topps Mini Brett isn't a rookie either, as it wasn't sold everywhere.

This feels like splitting hairs, and relies on vague definitions that exclude many series of even Topps and Bowman sets, based on distribution and print runs that can be estimated or told from the anecdotal but not positively known as the documentation does not exist or has not been discovered for any of the vintage sets.

"Collect how you like, but let others do the same." Who am I stopping from collecting anything? Couldn't this same sentence be said of anyone who disagrees with me on the exact same logic, if to disagree with your definition is to stop people from collecting what they want? This is clearly absurd.

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree some players don't have rookies. If no card was made in early career, there is no rookie card. I have no clue what "so how is a post career card a rookie?" could possibly have to do with what is being discussed. 1947 Bond Breads and 1948 Swells are not post-career cards? Nowhere am I arguing, in any way, shape, or form that post-career cards are rookies. I do not see how it is possible that one could construe that from anything I have said. I'm not sure why photos, post-career cards, cards of other players who are in the foreground of a card focused on someone else etc. keep getting brought up into this, as none of these have a single thing to do with Jackie's rookie.

The Bond Breads, as several others have explained already, were not obscure regionals and had a broad geographic area of distribution. They were the MOST available cards of 1947, are readily found for sale, and are easily available. Yes, there are not as many as there are 1949 Bowman's, but that seems a strange standard to set. What is the print run required to qualify?

If this is our standard, then only certain parts of certain sets can be rookies, at best. The 1949 Leaf second series sure can't, as that was only issued in a few small regions. Topps high numbers sure weren't nationally issued and many areas never saw them at all. I guess the players next first series Topps card becomes the rookie then? Heck, were even the first series truly issued everywhere? I guess the 75 Topps Mini Brett isn't a rookie either, as it wasn't sold everywhere.

This feels like splitting hairs, and relies on vague definitions that exclude many series of even Topps and Bowman sets, based on distribution and print runs that can be estimated or told from the anecdotal but not positively known as the documentation does not exist or has not been discovered for any of the vintage sets.

"Collect how you like, but let others do the same." Who am I stopping from collecting anything? Couldn't this same sentence be said of anyone who disagrees with me on the exact same logic, if to disagree with your definition is to stop people from collecting what they want? This is clearly absurd.

The bottom line is owners of the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson get bent when evidence comes along strongly suggesting that what they own is not really his RC (same with 1952 Topps Mantle owners). Fortunately for them 95% of collectors believe that the '48 Leaf is his RC so it will always retain its value even though the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait w/ facsimile is undeniably his first true baseball card and is not simply a "regional issue" as it was originally thought. Good news is there's room enough for both in this robust market, even though there's probably 10 times as many Leafs in circulation. If in doubt, own them both. They're each great cards