Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Jim Taylor's true Rookie card?

oldschoolpackersoldschoolpackers Posts: 56
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I'm looking for insight and opinions from the board on this topic. I noticed that the PSA registry has Jim Taylor's rookie card indicated as the 59 topps version which is actually not him. Topps neglected to correct this error in 60. 1961 was actually his first appearance on any card. Why then does the registry not account for this? I'm not complaining, I'm just curious. personally, I have always considered the 61 Topps as his true rookie and have avoided the 59 & 60 issues altogether since they're not him. A set collector obviously needs the card, but what about team set collectors? Also are their other players that this has happened with baseball or football (wrong picture on rookie card)? Thanks.

Comments

  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭
    I brought this up some time ago also. True Packer fans like you and me believe the 1961 Topps card is his rookie. But for regular collectors an error is an error and the 1959 Topps card is his TRUE rookie even if he is not pictured on the card. That is a tough one for me to swallow but if the error was a typo and not his picture we would have no problem.

    BTW, when you see the Packer HOF rookie set come out the 1961 Topps card is used for Jim Taylor
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,631 ✭✭✭✭
    It's a tough call, but I think the '59 issue is Taylor's true rookie card. The reverse is all about the real Taylor. The only thing wrong is the picture (which, I know, is probably the biggest thing). On one hand it sucks that this happened. But on the other hand I think it's kind of a cool, definitely unique, situation.

    It's amazing that Topps made the same mistake 2 years in a row too.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DavemriDavemri Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭
    I agree. I wouldn't be upset if the HOF rookie set included the 61 card. In fact, I think it would be a welcome change by many. Anyone want to vote??

    dave

    FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
    image
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,631 ✭✭✭✭
    Also, is the '61 Topps Jim Taylor more valuable than the Fleer? I would have thought it would be the other way around.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • oldschoolpackersoldschoolpackers Posts: 56
    Good point. I believe the Fleer card is more valuable and probably easier to find in higher grade, although I could be wrong on the grade issue. Does anyone know what the reasoning was behind the 61 Topps being considered his true rookie over Fleer? Is it because Topps issued their set first or because they were the main card company and Fleer was relatively young? Just speculation on my part as I do not know offhand. I do know that the 61 in Packer circles seems to be credited as the true rookie.
  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I agree. I wouldn't be upset if the HOF rookie set included the 61 card. In fact, I think it would be a welcome change by many. Anyone want to vote??

    dave >>



    Ain't gonna pass but I will be the first to vote even though I don't have a 1961 Topps or Fleer graded card
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,631 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I agree. I wouldn't be upset if the HOF rookie set included the 61 card. In fact, I think it would be a welcome change by many. Anyone want to vote?? >>



    Dave, I very seriously doubt PSA would yank the '59 Taylor from the HOF rookies set at this point. Too many collectors have sunk a decent amount of coin into it. I wouldn't have a problem with adding an either/or option for Taylor only, though, given the unique circumstances surrounding his rookie card. If the '61 Fleer is indeed more valuable than Topps (and it is for Maynard as an example), I think that should be the card voted on.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • DavemriDavemri Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭
    I agree. I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind the change. I'm sure alot of people would though.. It may be a card I pick up down the road just to have in my collection..

    dave

    FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
    image
  • AUPTAUPT Posts: 806 ✭✭✭
    How about this one?
    image
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.