Poll on Postwar HOF Rookies set registry
jrdolan
Posts: 2,549 ✭✭
I wrote to BJ Searles about qualifying 1949 Bowman #220 as one of Satchell Paige's rookie cards. Currently only 1949 Leaf #8 is recognized as such in this registry set.
PSA labels 1949 Leaf as "1948" despite the fact that many of its cards were issued in 1949, including #8 Paige. Other hobby references list this set as "1949 Leaf" and board member Griffins has confirmed that the Leaf Paige has "copyright 1949" on the reverse. Other hobby references also list 1949 Bowman as a Paige rookie card along with the Leaf. PSA and its price guide seem to be a minority of one on this question.
I have proposed that both the Leaf and Bowman Paige cards be accepted in the HOF Rookies registry. They would have different weights, but only one would be needed to meet Paige rookie requirement. The Leaf's weight is 10 since it is almost impossible to collect due to its extreme scarcity. I would guess the Bowman version, which is also quite difficult but less so, would be 6 or 7 but that is up to good folks at the registry.
There is no question that PSA differs from the rest of the hobby on this question. But BJ said the HOF Rookies registry was initially set up that way and she would not change it at this point without a consensus of those registered in the set. If there is sufficient support for the change, I assume she would poll the set registry members herself by e-mail.
Please indicate in the poll above whether you support including 1949 Bowman #220 Satch Paige in the Postwar HOF Rookies registry. Thanks.
Link to a discussion of this issue.
PSA labels 1949 Leaf as "1948" despite the fact that many of its cards were issued in 1949, including #8 Paige. Other hobby references list this set as "1949 Leaf" and board member Griffins has confirmed that the Leaf Paige has "copyright 1949" on the reverse. Other hobby references also list 1949 Bowman as a Paige rookie card along with the Leaf. PSA and its price guide seem to be a minority of one on this question.
I have proposed that both the Leaf and Bowman Paige cards be accepted in the HOF Rookies registry. They would have different weights, but only one would be needed to meet Paige rookie requirement. The Leaf's weight is 10 since it is almost impossible to collect due to its extreme scarcity. I would guess the Bowman version, which is also quite difficult but less so, would be 6 or 7 but that is up to good folks at the registry.
There is no question that PSA differs from the rest of the hobby on this question. But BJ said the HOF Rookies registry was initially set up that way and she would not change it at this point without a consensus of those registered in the set. If there is sufficient support for the change, I assume she would poll the set registry members herself by e-mail.
Please indicate in the poll above whether you support including 1949 Bowman #220 Satch Paige in the Postwar HOF Rookies registry. Thanks.
Link to a discussion of this issue.
0
Comments
A) Are there any Leaf uncut sheets out there that might shed some light on this mystery?
C) I don't really see a problem with including Bowman as a rookie card, too.
D) I thought I've heard or seen examples of the Paige rookie that have Copyright 1948 on the reverse (perhaps heard that from MW...?). If an example of this can be confirmed - does that change your opinion?
~ms
You should have included a link to your thread on the other Forum so people could weigh in before making a decision
I don't know of uncut 1949 Leaf sheets, but I am not the one to ask.
As for which cards were issued which year, I asked that in the other thread. Aside from the fact that they were apparently issued late in '48 and into '49, there was no answer about individual cards except Paige, which has 1949 on its reverse.
I don't know if any Leaf Paiges were among the late 1948 releases. I suppose my view would not change because what are you going to do, disqualify the Leaf Paige with the 1949 copyright as a rookie card?
My essential point is that nearly everyone except PSA classifies this set as 1949 Leaf, and they also classify 1949 Bowman as containing Paige's rookie card as well.
If PSA is going to insist that 1949 Bowman Satchell Paige cannot be included in the HOF Rookie set, I would like a logical, defensible reason other than "That's the way it was set up." Personally, I don't think they will insist on that, but they need set registrants to weigh in. If there is enough support they will make the correction.
Joe
These debates often flow into other sets, too. The overall HOF rookie list is very debatable, too, especially with many of the 20th and 19th century players. In two or three isolated cases, there is an example of a 19th century card that pre-dates all other examples by a few years - but there is only one or two examples known of that first card. So which one is the "rookie"? There's just not an answer.
Unfortunately - debates like this are interesting, and helpful. However, there is never going to be a right answer all of the time.
I could just as easily make an argument on other Leaf examples. The Registry lists the 1948 Leaf as rookie card for a few players - however, there surely were 1947 Tip Top Bread cards, and PSA grades that issue. George Kell, Ralph Kiner, Yogi Berra, and Warren Spahn come to mind, and I know that PSA has encapsulated at least three of those HOFers from the 1947 set. Why the disparity there? Heck - a Registry member owns the 1/1 1947 Tip Top Bread Berra PSA 8. Should he try and have the registry changed, using better logic than what you have (as he can prove without a doubt that Berra was issued a year earlier - whereas with Paige - it is debated if/when which came first, etc.)
At the end of the day, there is just not a 100% answer - and you can always find exceptions. I understand your plight, and your argument, but if you have failed to persuade everyone else putting together a similar set - then it is largely a lost cause.
~ms
-Most valuable rookie card in PSA 8. (This takes out the guesswork of people trying to include cards based on eye appeal or because it fits their own personal needs rather than the needs of all collectors.)
-No Oddball cards, only regular issue cards. (This ensures that we don't get the parallel issues or insert cards in the future even though they may be the most valuable. It also disqulifies cards like the USFL cards, the regional issue cards like Cardinals Mayrose Franks and Packers Lake to Lake, and also the cards like Wonder Bread and Kelloggs.
Once you get a set standard, then the correct card to use is decided by the standards, not the individual.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Just one more point about choosing the "most most valuable" between two possible rookie cards... 1948-49 Leaf Paige is almost impossible to collect. No doubt at all it is more valuable than its Bowman counterpart, but it is also beyond hope for 95% of collectors, much more so even than 51B Mantle. It's not just dollars, it is extreme scarcity. And as I said, PSA is nearly alone in calling Leaf a '48 issue, and in not recognizing '49 Bowman as a Paige rookie.
I don't want to be the one deciding which of Pujols' fifteen or twenty 2001 rookies is most "desirable" and will be the only rookie recognized in the registry if he gets in the HOF.
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>Thought I'd bring this thread back to life,Well Jr I voted yes in support of the 49' bowman Paige but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen which really is disappointing since I'am currently working on this set.It will be very difficult to able to acquire such a card as the 48' leaf to add to my set.
Yeah, this set can only be completed by the Brancas and Fogels of the world ... unless you find a '49 Leaf Paige bookmarking a page in Aunt Hattie's Old Testament. Instead of a merely very difficult card in 1949 Bowman, PSA chose an almost impossible one in 1949 Leaf to be Paige's representative rookie. Certainly the extremely fortunate (and extremely rich) owner of a '49 Leaf should be allowed to use that as Satch's rookie card in the registry, but I also thought us merely mortal owners of '49 Bowman should have that privilege as well.
I'm calling it '49 Leaf because that's what almost every other hobby source calls it, or at least 1948-49 Leaf. Those sources also refer to '49 Bowman as a Satch rookie card. But not PSA. Because they arbitrarily chose to label the Leaf set as '48, that meant the Leaf Paige must have come first -- even though it may have been issued LATER in the 1949 season than Bowman.
Someone said PSA merely chooses the card with the highest value in PSA 8. Not so. In the 500 HR Club set, PSA chose '87 Fleer to be Bonds' rookie card. Several '86 updates, most notably '86 Fleer Update, are more expensive than '87 Fleer. They can't argue that updates don't count, because they chose '84 Fleer Update as Kirby's rookie and there is no doubt they will do the same for Clemens.
I don't even own the '49 Bowman Satch any more, but it still gets me steamed.
So my question to PSA would be why don't they realize this issue,I mean the majority of people who are collecting this set can't afford or find this card so why not then subsitute for the Bowman issue? This certainly takes a little of the fun out of completing this set.
By the way, WV Shoebox bought my '49 Bowman Paige PSA 8 at auction. I have no doubt it's in a GAI 8.5 holder now.
Rookie Card Site
Jr I'am not sure how much you sold your Paige for but if they paid close to smr for it then I'd tend to agree with you about it being in a Gai holder.On the other hand if they got a good deal on it I'm not sure if they would bother submitting it to GAI even though they are probably favored nicely at GAI since 95% of their cards are holdered by them.
oaktown -- That guy and his kid have some collection of vintage cards! All the ones I clicked on were PSA 8, including his '49B Satch. He's got some juice to spend, that's for sure.
1948 Leaf
<< <i>jrdolan - here's a link to your very question from the network54 boards...
1948 Leaf >>
oaktown, thanks for that link and I'm glad others are scratching their heads over this. The Leaf Paige clearly says "1949" on the reverse and refers to the completed '48 season, just like '49 Bowman. This is the very point I tried to make to PSA. It didn't matter. Because some cards in the set were issued in '48, they decided to call the entire set 1948 and would not change their mind about Satch unless a clear majority called for it.
I suspect even if PSA admitted they shouldn't have classified 1949 Leaf Paige as 1948 Leaf Paige, they would still make that the only recognized rookie card for Satch. Because it is much more valuable and "desirable" than 1949 Bowman. I think both Leaf and Bowman should qualify, like Warren Spahn in '48, but what the hell, it's just baseball cards.
<< <i>I think both Leaf and Bowman should qualify, like Warren Spahn in '48, but what the hell, it's just baseball cards. >>
Of course, however I seems to me PSA is doing us an injustice to collectors in not including the 49 Bowman Paige as a possible substitute for the Registry. Most of us won't have a shot of finishing off the set the way it is. PSA is in the minority in calling that Leaf set 48 rather than 48-49. It really looks like an oversight on their part.
If you need any help (someone for me to email, call), I'd be happy to help the cause!
There are a couple other little hurdles that have to be cleared, as far as completing the HOF Rookies set. Like '51 Bowman Mantle & Mays, '54 Aaron & Banks, '55 Clemente & Koufax. But it's '49 Leaf Paige and '52 Topps Mathews that are the killers.
I'll drop an email to BJ to see her reaction.
Thanks
Hal Lewis is actually a real helpful collector and has an amazing collection, I dont think he is a show off but rather that he just really loves his cards, i guess it could come off a little over the top for some people,
just because he gets really excited about his collection doesnt mean he is less classy than fogel or marshall.
I actually think he is one of the few from the network54 boards that actually takes the time to explain an issue unlike those other "hobby dinasours" who spend their time complaining about how grading has ruined the hobby and pointing out fake wagners on ebay.
Lewis is engaging and has helped increase the interest and emphasis on pre war rookie cards these last years by just posting disscusions and bringing a lot more attention to these cards.
Groucho Marx
<< <i>Hal Lewis is actually a real helpful collector and has an amazing collection, I dont think he is a show off but rather that he just really loves his cards, i guess it could come off a little over the top for some people, >>
I agree. He posts on the net54 boards frequently and is really knowledgeable and helpful. In his posts, he does not come off as showy or arrogant. He has VERY deep pockets and when he wants a card...you have to be in the realm of branca/fogel/etc to compete with him. Despite this, he doesnt come off as aloof and engages all collectors of different income levels and interests.
But I would say that if '41 were determined to be his "official" rookie, that would remove him from the Postwar HOF Rookies set. 1941 is not postwar!
<< <i>But I would say that if '41 were determined to be his "official" rookie, that would remove him from the Postwar HOF Rookies set. 1941 is not postwar! >>
Right, right, I meant to add that! I got an email response back from BJ asking if I've brought up the Paige Leaf RC in the Registry Forum. I guess the question is, who needs to sign off on changing the criteria for the set (Leaf to Bowman for Paige/Robinson and removing Scooter entirely)? Everyone that has a registered set?