Bagwell ? Hoffman. 1992 Bowman? Yes Chipper Jones 1991 Topps? 1991 Bowman Vlad Guerrero ? 1995 Bowman's Best Jim Thome 1991 Upper Deck? 1991 Bowman Ivan Rodriguez 1991 Upper Deck? 1991 Ultra Update Curt Schilling 1989 Donruss? Yes Edgar Martinez ? 1988 Fleer
I left Bagwell blank because his '91 Ultra Update card is in that set because it was his most valuable RC at the time it was created. It's since been surpassed by at least 3, including Leaf Gold, Stadium Club and Bowman. I believe Leaf Gold is his RC to get at this point (Topps Traded Tiffany is ineligible), so that'll need to be addressed.
"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."
What about Clayton Kershaw. My guess woutld be the 2006 Bowman Heritage or the 2008 Topps Updated Chorme since its the most valuable of RC not pre signed.. Any opinions on this?
The 2008 Topps update Kershw was just added to the Futiure HOF set, along with Trout and Beltran. Why they would make players eligible for that registry who are not yet eligible for HOF consideration when they retire (not 10 years in MLB) is beyond me.
The 2008 Topps update Kershw was just added to the Futiure HOF set, along with Trout and Beltran. Why they would make players eligible for that registry who are not yet eligible for HOF consideration when they retire (not 10 years in MLB) is beyond me.
I think it's pretty ridiculous, too. A player should be playing at least 10 years to be eligible for the set. I also question whether or not the right card was chosen for Trout and Kershaw as they both have a million.
"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."
Just curious Andy what cards would you have chosen??
I have no idea to be honest. I haven't looked into it. But the wrong cards get chosen for sets all the time. Some dude likes the artwork on a card that is far from a player's most valuable and it winds up in a set. Ughhh.
"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."
"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."
Anybody know why a 2008 Clayton Kershaw card was added to the Future HOF RCs set when he has cards from 2006 and 2007? I know his 2005 is ineligible because it's an Olympic card (which I disagree with - see Mark McGwire), but why were the other years not considered?
"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."
The problem with requesting an addition to a Future HOF RCs set is that it's done in one step. There should first be a poll to vote on the player, THEN a poll to vote on the card. I doubt the Trout card that was added is his best RC either.
"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."
I have already reached out to a few of you but I was hoping maybe someone might have a little more information.
I found the definition of what Beckett identifies as a "rookie" and an "xrc" online and I had a few questions. In regards to the 1938 Goudey set and the 1941 Double Play set both seem to have the qualities of what Beckett defines as a "standard set" but the rookies in these sets are labeled as "xrc's". I was hoping someone could please provide some information as to why they are identified that way?
Rookie Card: A player's first base card(s) in a regular issued, fully-licensed card set.
The "Beckett Definition" of the rookie card (or "RC") states that a "rookie card" must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card. A player may only have one RC per set. If he has more than one base set card in the same set, then the "rookie card" tag is given to the "regular" card (assuming that the other card is from a special subset). If a player has more than one base set card in the same set, but the two cards are produced in different quantities (i.e. one is short-printed and the other is not), then the more common card is given the "rookie card" label.
XRC (eXtended Rookie Card): Term used by Beckett to describe a rookie card from an extended or traded set. Because of the widespread distribution of extended sets, the XRC designation was discontinued after 1988.
Beckett however, grandfathered all existing XRCs, thus creating a rather confusing situation where a player can have his "rookie card" in a set AFTER his XRC was in a previous year's extended set.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Posted these two National pick-ups on the main board, but thought they belong here too (and it will get this thread back on the first page where it belongs):
Anybody know why they added the 48 Bowman Feller, Rizzuto, and Slaughter to the post-war set? And if they are going to add those, why not the Mize? I seem to remember this happened once before, and then they were deleted within a week or two. Any bets whether that happens again? Seems like they should have left well enough alone on this one.
And so there's a card, here's my latest add, which left me with 4 to go before the recent additions.
Got the poll email today from the Registry... here is my reply...
Johnny Mize – 1948 Bowman #4 - NO (Has numerous cards dating back to 1936)
Bob Feller – 1948 Bowman #5 - NO (Has many, many, many cards, some XRC, dating back to 1936)
Phil Rizzuto – 1948 Bowman #8 - NO (XRC is 1941, 7 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Enos Slaughter – 1948 Bowman #17 - NO (XRC is 1941, 7 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Lou Boudreau – 1949 Bowman #11 - NO (XRC is 1941, 8 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Joe Gordon – 1949 Bowman #210 - NO (XRC is 1941, and has Goudey cards dating back to 1939)
This is a post-war set and most of these players are not really post-war players. Some have cards dating back a decade or more from their newly designated "Official RC" labels. Common sense is often more value than book smarts... these seem to be 6 perfect examples of that!
@paleocards said:
Very nice Wilhelm for the grade, graygator, congrats!
FWIW, I voted no on all of the proposed additions to Post-War HOF Rookies set.
Thanks!
At the very least I'm glad they put it to a vote, and that some folks are paying attention. I voted no on all of them for the reasons stated but we'll see what the masses think.
I nearly blew a gasket when I got that email. All of the players mentioned have mainstream issues from earlier than 1948, as epatmythes correctly noted above. I would be strictly opposed to adding any of them to the set. I don't care that Beckett is inexplicably trying to change the rules. This would be a drastic and quite incorrect change, which seems to come up every 2 years or so. I wish PSA would just make a note to reject any requests to add these players to the set. I voted no, no, no, no, no and no.
"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."
I voted no. It's a Post-War rookies HOF set. That doesn't mean players in the HOF that played after WWII but had rookie cards before WWII. If so, then Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, etc. are soon to make an appearance.
I wasn't invited to this poll - which was ridiculous considering the signed rookie sets match the regular unsigned HOF Rookie sets. I sent Gayle an email telling her how ridiculous I thought it was. I actually used the same Williams/Dimaggio example.
Wow. That '49 Jackie is spectacular! Looks like it should be in an 8 holder. Very nice pickup.
"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."
How is PSA going to accommodate Trammell in the HOF rookie sets? I think that an exception to PSA's prohibition of using the same card for more than one slot in any set would have to occur to allow for the Molitor/Trammell RC to occupy BOTH slots in the "Post War Rookies" registry and in the other RC sets.
"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."
Looking at the basketball HOFer RC registry, the Bird/Magic card occupies one slot (not two different slots for the two players with the same card), so there's precedent that the Molitor slot (1978 Topps #707) will become the Molitor/Trammell slot with that one and only card.
@paleocards said:
Looking at the basketball HOFer RC registry, the Bird/Magic card occupies one slot (not two different slots for the two players with the same card), so there's precedent that the Molitor slot (1978 Topps #707) will become the Molitor/Trammell slot with that one and only card.
I'm pretty sure this is what's going to happen. I really like the Burger King card, but it's not a true rookie (per Beckett).
"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."
Yes. The only cards available at the Burger King by my house in NJ in the late 70's were Yankees.
"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."
Comments
http://bbwaa.com/
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/pdub1819/othersets/6204
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
It was Piazzas' fourth year on the HOF ballot.
Only Griffey Jr. this year was elected on his first ballot.
Piazza is still showing up on the 1st Ballot Registry, anyone have connections to get that fixed?
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/pdub1819/othersets/6204
It was Piazzas' fourth year on the HOF ballot.
Only Griffey Jr. this year was elected on his first ballot.
Piazza is still showing up on the 1st Ballot Registry, anyone have connections to get that fixed?
Paul, email Cosetta And she will get it fixed.
I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
Bagwell ?
Hoffman. 1992 Bowman?
Chipper Jones 1991 Topps?
Vlad Guerrero ?
Jim Thome 1991 Upper Deck?
Ivan Rodriguez 1991 Upper Deck?
Curt Schilling 1989 Donruss?
Edgar Martinez ?
Im trying to get a heads up.
Future HOFers
But to answer your question:
Bagwell ?
Hoffman. 1992 Bowman? Yes
Chipper Jones 1991 Topps? 1991 Bowman
Vlad Guerrero ? 1995 Bowman's Best
Jim Thome 1991 Upper Deck? 1991 Bowman
Ivan Rodriguez 1991 Upper Deck? 1991 Ultra Update
Curt Schilling 1989 Donruss? Yes
Edgar Martinez ? 1988 Fleer
I left Bagwell blank because his '91 Ultra Update card is in that set because it was his most valuable RC at the time it was created. It's since been surpassed by at least 3, including Leaf Gold, Stadium Club and Bowman. I believe Leaf Gold is his RC to get at this point (Topps Traded Tiffany is ineligible), so that'll need to be addressed.
I think it's pretty ridiculous, too. A player should be playing at least 10 years to be eligible for the set. I also question whether or not the right card was chosen for Trout and Kershaw as they both have a million.
Glad to see Carlos having a great year but he is still borderline HOF in my opinion.
Trout and Kershaw are still headed toward the hall but really??????
I voted no to all. Just curious Andy what cards would you have chosen??
Why not just add Sanchez now then....he has 22 games into his career.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I have no idea to be honest. I haven't looked into it. But the wrong cards get chosen for sets all the time. Some dude likes the artwork on a card that is far from a player's most valuable and it winds up in a set. Ughhh.
Lucky for me I just bought the update Kershaw. My only card of him.
If there was a proposal for a 10 year waiting period I would vote for it.....
not sure is PSA would go for it.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Posted my latest pick-up on the "community" board, but should be here too. Let's get this thread going again!
super mice Duke
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Anybody know why a 2008 Clayton Kershaw card was added to the Future HOF RCs set when he has cards from 2006 and 2007? I know his 2005 is ineligible because it's an Olympic card (which I disagree with - see Mark McGwire), but why were the other years not considered?
Apparently the guy submitting the player to PSA chooses the card as well.
I voted no to all the requests of new players w/o 10 years in.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
The problem with requesting an addition to a Future HOF RCs set is that it's done in one step. There should first be a poll to vote on the player, THEN a poll to vote on the card. I doubt the Trout card that was added is his best RC either.
Hi Guys,
I have already reached out to a few of you but I was hoping maybe someone might have a little more information.
I found the definition of what Beckett identifies as a "rookie" and an "xrc" online and I had a few questions. In regards to the 1938 Goudey set and the 1941 Double Play set both seem to have the qualities of what Beckett defines as a "standard set" but the rookies in these sets are labeled as "xrc's". I was hoping someone could please provide some information as to why they are identified that way?
Thanks,
I found the definiations at: http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/Rookie_Card
Rookie Card: A player's first base card(s) in a regular issued, fully-licensed card set.
The "Beckett Definition" of the rookie card (or "RC") states that a "rookie card" must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players. It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card. A player may only have one RC per set. If he has more than one base set card in the same set, then the "rookie card" tag is given to the "regular" card (assuming that the other card is from a special subset). If a player has more than one base set card in the same set, but the two cards are produced in different quantities (i.e. one is short-printed and the other is not), then the more common card is given the "rookie card" label.
XRC (eXtended Rookie Card): Term used by Beckett to describe a rookie card from an extended or traded set. Because of the widespread distribution of extended sets, the XRC designation was discontinued after 1988.
Beckett however, grandfathered all existing XRCs, thus creating a rather confusing situation where a player can have his "rookie card" in a set AFTER his XRC was in a previous year's extended set.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Posted these two National pick-ups on the main board, but thought they belong here too (and it will get this thread back on the first page where it belongs):
Spectacular cards
If u don't mind what did they cost?
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Thanks. They weren't cheap: $1700 for the Kaline (from TripleS) and $575 for the Spahn (from Card Country, Jeff Foy).
worth every penny
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Anybody know why they added the 48 Bowman Feller, Rizzuto, and Slaughter to the post-war set? And if they are going to add those, why not the Mize? I seem to remember this happened once before, and then they were deleted within a week or two. Any bets whether that happens again? Seems like they should have left well enough alone on this one.
And so there's a card, here's my latest add, which left me with 4 to go before the recent additions.
Got the poll email today from the Registry... here is my reply...
Johnny Mize – 1948 Bowman #4 - NO (Has numerous cards dating back to 1936)
Bob Feller – 1948 Bowman #5 - NO (Has many, many, many cards, some XRC, dating back to 1936)
Phil Rizzuto – 1948 Bowman #8 - NO (XRC is 1941, 7 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Enos Slaughter – 1948 Bowman #17 - NO (XRC is 1941, 7 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Lou Boudreau – 1949 Bowman #11 - NO (XRC is 1941, 8 years is to large a gap regardless what Beckett says)
Joe Gordon – 1949 Bowman #210 - NO (XRC is 1941, and has Goudey cards dating back to 1939)
This is a post-war set and most of these players are not really post-war players. Some have cards dating back a decade or more from their newly designated "Official RC" labels. Common sense is often more value than book smarts... these seem to be 6 perfect examples of that!
Very nice Wilhelm for the grade, graygator, congrats!
FWIW, I voted no on all of the proposed additions to Post-War HOF Rookies set.
Thanks!
At the very least I'm glad they put it to a vote, and that some folks are paying attention. I voted no on all of them for the reasons stated but we'll see what the masses think.
I nearly blew a gasket when I got that email. All of the players mentioned have mainstream issues from earlier than 1948, as epatmythes correctly noted above. I would be strictly opposed to adding any of them to the set. I don't care that Beckett is inexplicably trying to change the rules. This would be a drastic and quite incorrect change, which seems to come up every 2 years or so. I wish PSA would just make a note to reject any requests to add these players to the set. I voted no, no, no, no, no and no.
I voted no as well on all of them. Beckett can go jump in a lake.
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Andy
You were only allowed one no
The restricted set has RC's of players with earlier issues.
I voted matbe
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I voted no. It's a Post-War rookies HOF set. That doesn't mean players in the HOF that played after WWII but had rookie cards before WWII. If so, then Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, etc. are soon to make an appearance.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
I also voted no.
I posted this on the main board, but it certainly belongs in this thread too. Very happy with this card:
I wasn't invited to this poll - which was ridiculous considering the signed rookie sets match the regular unsigned HOF Rookie sets. I sent Gayle an email telling her how ridiculous I thought it was. I actually used the same Williams/Dimaggio example.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
My mouth just watered....super nice Jackie
Even the back is centered and clean.
Now all you need to do is buy his first contract coming up !!
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
That Jackie is sweet! Who else has got something to show? Let's get this thread moving again. Here's another one of my more recent-ish pickups.
Wow. That '49 Jackie is spectacular! Looks like it should be in an 8 holder. Very nice pickup.
I got Gayle's email also. I voted no on Feller, as he's in the 1938 Goudey set.
I screwed up on the rest, and voted yes for them, as I forgot about the 1941 Double Play set.
I agree with all the above posts, that none of the players in the email should have their 1948/49 Bowman cards considered as rookie cards.
Steve
How is PSA going to accommodate Trammell in the HOF rookie sets? I think that an exception to PSA's prohibition of using the same card for more than one slot in any set would have to occur to allow for the Molitor/Trammell RC to occupy BOTH slots in the "Post War Rookies" registry and in the other RC sets.
I would hope that would be the case.
I’m sort of hoping they go with the 1978 Burger King Trammell for the HOF set.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
Looking at the basketball HOFer RC registry, the Bird/Magic card occupies one slot (not two different slots for the two players with the same card), so there's precedent that the Molitor slot (1978 Topps #707) will become the Molitor/Trammell slot with that one and only card.
I'm pretty sure this is what's going to happen. I really like the Burger King card, but it's not a true rookie (per Beckett).
Andy
Was that a regional issue??
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Yes. The only cards available at the Burger King by my house in NJ in the late 70's were Yankees.
I think the post-war Rookie registry just jumped the shark. Doesn't every one of these people has a pre-war card?
1941 Double Play?
1938 Play Ball?
I think even Gordon was on a Goudey premium of some sort?