HOF signed rookies question

[theshleps]

Since signed HOF rookies are the craze- I was wondering the following

I am curious why for instance if someone made it in as a manager- say Sparky why don't we consider his first manager card as a rookie instead of the 1959 topps?
Same with Torre, LaRussa, Stengel, etc etc.
Also for someone more current say Frank Thomas would you consider his first card like his first minor league card or team usa card a rookie or what about if say a topps card comes out of him as a "rookie preview" or top prospect but he hasn't even made it to the majors yet? I know there isn't 100% agreement but what do the majority say?

[thenavarro]

Since signed HOF rookies are the craze- I was wondering the following

I am curious why for instance if someone made it in as a manager- say Sparky why don't we consider his first manager card as a rookie instead of the 1959 topps?
Same with Torre, LaRussa, Stengel, etc etc.
Also for someone more current say Frank Thomas would you consider his first card like his first minor league card or team usa card a rookie or what about if say a topps card comes out of him as a "rookie preview" or top prospect but he hasn't even made it to the majors yet? I know there isn't 100% agreement but what do the majority say?

When I was collecting those so heavy, I always wanted the first major league card of the individual, or the first mainstream set, ie Topps, Bowman, etc. Didn't particularly care for the minor league stuff although I did collect some just for the heck of it. For Frank Thomas (if you are talking about the Big Hurt), go with the 1990 Topps No Name on Front version. They look really good signed and I know when I started selling my signed rookies, that was an easy and nice sell. It was one of the cards that PSA featured in their SMR magazine when they did the article on me.

Mike

[esiason14]

I actually prefer the minor league and oddball rookie year cards over the regular issue RC. I'd much prefer the Auburn, Pan Am, and Cape Cod cards, etc over the 90T Big hurt. I think it just comes down to preference.

[7nohitter]

I agree with Kyle as I am the exact opposite! I detest the 'gimmick' and minor league issues....for me, it's first mainstream!

[Gary Dunaier]

If memory serves me right, in the 1980s it was decided that a "rookie" card was a player's first card that was included in a set that was nationally available to the public at "regular" retail outlets. So minor league cards (generally only sold at the ballpark), regional food issues, and early traded/update cards (only available in card shops, and only as full sets) were not seen as "true" rookie cards, and in the case of the cards in traded/updated sets were listed in Beckett and/or Krause as XRC (extended rookie cards).

I am curious why for instance if someone made it in as a manager- say Sparky why don't we consider his first manager card as a rookie instead of the 1959 topps?

Well, he wasn't a rookie when he became a manager. The only time when a manager's card - as a manager - would be considered a rookie card would be if he never had a card issued of him as a player (if indeed he played at the Major League level at all). But, I guess, because they're not kids, managers aren't generally considered "rookies" in the usual sense, even if the phrase "rookie manager" is applied.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

There is a certain charm to minor league cards but I always thought of them as XRC.