When was the term "Rookie Card" introduced into the Hobby ?

[insidethewrapper]

When was the term "Rookie Card" first introduced into the Hobby ? What is the earliest source ? Been looking at some 1979 Trader Speaks and found mentioned in these publications .

[jason.1969]

Not what you asked but on a related note...

The first time the word Rookie appeared on the front of a baseball card was (I think) 1959 with the Topps "Sporting News Rookie Stars of 1959" subset and the Fleer Ted Williams card 14, "Outstanding Rookie of 1939."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[pingman59]

I was new to the organized hobby in early 1977 and hadn't heard the term until the summer of 1978 at the Chicagoland Sports Collectors Association 3-day convention. The 1954 Topps Hank Aaron card was referred to as a rookie card
and was 20 bucks for a nice one (EX-MT or better). Sigh...

[Leon]

It would be nice for a few old timers to chime in. I collected in the later 60s, as a kid, and just don't remember if we collected the rookies in particular or not. That was a long time ago. :)

[rats60]

It would be nice for a few old timers to chime in. I collected in the later 60s, as a kid, and just don't remember if we collected the rookies in particular or not. That was a long time ago. :)

I do believe that the 1954 Topps Aaron was the first card referred to as a rookie card. Possibly as early as 1974 when he became the all time HR leader. My brother had gotten an Aaron RC from a "grab bag" at a swap meet and I remember it being a big deal after Hank hit 715.

I remember the multiplayer rookie cards were unpopular in the 60s and early 70s. I bought 2 Seaver Rcs for ten cents each in 1973, they were treated as commons. We had a bunch of Ryan and Bench Rcs because no one wanted them. When we "flipped" cards, those were among the first to go. Mantle, Mays, Koufax, Clemente, etc. cards were valued and kept.

[drcy]

Many "old timers" collectors say a common sentiment was to prize the latest not the earliest card for a player.

Worth noting that the early definition of rookie was very narrow in its scope and what cards could be included.

[jerrys]

Mark Lewis - Publisher of "Card Prices Update" (1978-80)? had a Rookie List page denoting rookie cards and their value in his monthly CPU. He was doing well until he used some of Jim Beckett's baseball data without permission. CPU folded shortly after.

[riggs336]

Many "old timers" collectors say a common sentiment was to prize the latest not the earliest card for a player.

Worth noting that the early definition of rookie was very narrow in its scope and what cards could be included.

I remember that for a very short time premiums were placed on a player's "first" and "last" cards.

[Gary Dunaier]

Many "old timers" collectors say a common sentiment was to prize the latest not the earliest card for a player.

If memory serves me right, I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons for this was because the newer cards had the most complete stats of the player.

I bought 2 Seaver Rcs for ten cents each in 1973, they were treated as commons.

Wow! :eek:

[Fred]

Assuming the OP is asking about the "rookie card craze" rather than cards noted with "rookie" on it, then here's what I remember:

I'm going to guess the REALLY crazy prices started somewhere in the early 90s.

I remember a dealer busting open cases of 84 Topps (the year the cards were released) trying to pull the Mattingly's so he could sell them for a couple/few bucks apiece. I thought the guy was nuts and anybody buying them was even crazier. I think things really got going with the Griffey Jr. 89 UD rookie cards. After that things went out of control.

I can still remember dealers selling 84T wax football cases and couldn't get more than $100 bucks a case (right after the football season ended), then people started trying to get the Marino's and Dickerson's. Somewhere in the early 90's those same wax 84T football boxes (not cases) were going for over $100 each because of the Marino rookie cards.

Old Beckett guides might provide a good clue regarding the time frame when things got stupid.

I never bought into the modern era rookie card craze because the thought of paying a ton of cash for a card where there were probably millions minted just didn't make any sense.

It looks like the "rookie card craze" did have a pretty big influence on market prices for "rookie" cards of vintage era players.

All of the above is from a memory that seems to be getting cloudier as time moves on.

Just for the heck of it I just checked on PSA10 89 UD Griffey rookies on fleabay. PWCC sold 5 different slabs for between $505 and $560 on 27NOV19 (alone) on fleabay. If I read the PSA pop report correctly, there are over 24,000 PSA10 89 UD Griffey cards graded. Pretty crazy stuff.

[glynparson]

Rookie card term has been around since i started buying cards in 1978. And rookie cards were the most sought after at that time. Rose and Mantle were two of the earliest vintage rookies to get HOT. It seemed The rose was going up 50-100% each month at one point in the early 1980s. Condition mattered but not to the extreme it does now. there was basically mt, ex, vg , and poor with some slight variations to the terminology depending on who you talked with. people were already coloring 1971s so those freaking out about alterations it has been around since i bought my first card. So i am not a real old timer but i am not a novice either and these are my recollections of my early days in the hobby.

[uyu906]

I began collecting in 1976. Probably went to my first card show in S.C. Pennsylvania in 1978. At the first couple of shows I went to I was busy buying cards to complete my current year Topps set and Orioles team sets. By about the 3rd show I got interested in vintage and began collecting cards of Baltimore players and Brooklyn players (my father's favorite team.) The first time I heard the term rookie card was when I asked a dealer how much a 1955 Sandy Koufax was and he told me a price that I thought was really high. Probably something like $20-$30. I asked why that one was so high when the 1956 Koufax he had was only about $5 in the same condition as the 1955. He told me it was because it was his rookie card. I asked him if that made the 1955 rarer than the 1956, he said no. To my 10 year old mind I couldn't figure out why there would be such a premium on a first year card of someone, if it was not any rarer than the next years card. In fact, I have never fully embraced the rookie card paradigm for my collecting. I know the rest of the hobby has. If memory serves, I think the idea of this premium began with coin dealers, who were some of the early dealers of cards as well. Not sure if that is something also true in numismatics or not, as I am not a coin collector.

[Frank A]

As I recall rookie cards started to pick up in the mid to late 70'S. However it was in the Early 80's when everything went crazy. I recall everyone trying to buy 75 topps unopened packs trying to find rookie cards of Brett and Yount.

[jchcollins]

I started collecting in 1986, and I’m sure the term was in use prior to then, but the card at that time that was “the” RC to chase was the ‘63 Rose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RCMcKenzie]

The Rose rookie was a big deal in the late 70's and 80's, also the 52 Mantle. I could not afford those, but my brother and I fished this Brett rookie out of a bargain bin in Anaheim at the 85 national for $3. We thought it was a huge score at the time.

I remember the Murray rookie was a big deal in 78 as I was pulling them and setting them aside to trade.

[ALBB]

Yea, that rookie card phenomenon ...I recall a few things... -

when people started making a big deal about rookie cards...it got a bit absurd,as collectors started racing backwards and finding out rookie cards of " just alright " players - 68 Larry Hisle, 71 Concepcion, 62 Fregosi....cards that were pretty much commons, all of a sudden were listed higher in the " almighty price guide "

and the other thing - Dealers taking advantage of this crazy and making you know " Hey thats a second year Kaline, a third year Schmidt, a fourth year Banks....somewhat ridiculous I thought

[ALBB]

another amusing thing with Rookie cards...when there was a break in the major card companys issues sets due to the war/paper shortage/ money,etc.. you saw cards of players with 3-4-5 years of experience having their " first" card listed as a rookie...

... always seemed odd

[Bigshot69]

I began collecting in 1976. Probably went to my first card show in S.C. Pennsylvania in 1978. At the first couple of shows I went to I was busy buying cards to complete my current year Topps set and Orioles team sets. By about the 3rd show I got interested in vintage and began collecting cards of Baltimore players and Brooklyn players (my father's favorite team.) The first time I heard the term rookie card was when I asked a dealer how much a 1955 Sandy Koufax was and he told me a price that I thought was really high. Probably something like $20-$30. I asked why that one was so high when the 1956 Koufax he had was only about $5 in the same condition as the 1955. He told me it was because it was his rookie card. I asked him if that made the 1955 rarer than the 1956, he said no. To my 10 year old mind I couldn't figure out why there would be such a premium on a first year card of someone, if it was not any rarer than the next years card. In fact, I have never fully embraced the rookie card paradigm for my collecting. I know the rest of the hobby has. If memory serves, I think the idea of this premium began with coin dealers, who were some of the early dealers of cards as well. Not sure if that is something also true in numismatics or not, as I am not a coin collector.

This is an excellent observation and probably deserves further research. The hunt for the 1909s Lincoln Wheat Penny and 1932d Washington quarter likely pre-date any documented rookie card speculation.

[nolemmings]

My recollection is similar to others here. There was some spiking of Brett rookies right around 1981 after he had chased .400. That year I had moved to AZ from Minnesota, where I really hadn’t noticed any interest in rookie cards, but when the ‘82s came out and I attended my first shop and show here, Yount rookies were in demand and there was passing reference to ‘75 Bretts having been hot “for awhile now”. By 1983 it was definitely in full swing– everyone needed to grab as many Boggs and Gwynn rookies as they could find, and Ripkens were hot. Funny thing, the ‘82 Topps Traded Rookie card of Ripken was extremely more popular than the regular issue multi-player version, as we were for the first time introduced to and enamored by the “limited issue” fallacy. By the next year the RC craze had fully taken hold, as I recall Mattingly rookies–especially Donruss–being ridiculous, and Strawberry updates were in great demand. People also couldn’t wait for the update sets with Gooden and Clemens (less so)-Puckett had yet to make a splash.

So it was a done deal by 1984, with Beckett monthly coming out that year and reinforcing everyone’s need to jump on these rookie cards while they could–although I do not remember when it first used the “RC” designation in its listings. I also recall when I went to a Tri-star show in 1984 with the specific goal of landing a ‘54 Kaline (Frickin beautiful card IMO), the price had tripled from the previous year and I was “schooled” that it was his rookie card (gee thanks, Boss). The Rose rookie was hot during this time as well, but it was a one-off, and I recall no other rookies being hot for their own sake prior to around 1981. I do not recall the Aaron rookie becoming hot when he got the HR record, but that would make sense (not much most of us could do about it back then, as there were limited outlets for finding old cards). The 1952 Mantle has always been desirable, but is not his rookie and was not chased as such by those in the know–which was most of us. And Rats is right, multi-player cards with rookies were mostly ignored–especially those that had players from different teams ala the ‘67 Carew, which meant they could not be sorted with their teammates. That may have explained the early allure of the Brett and Yount stand alone rookies too, as they were far more attractive then say, Rice and Lynn from that same set.

[Gary Dunaier]

Funny thing, the ‘82 Topps Traded Rookie card of Ripken was extremely more popular than the regular issue multi-player version, as we were for the first time introduced to and enamored by the “limited issue” fallacy.

There was also debate about whether cards of players whose first card was in the Traded sets (for example, '83 Strawberry), as well as first individual cards of players who had already appeared on "future stars" cards ('81 Valenzuela, '82 Ripken) were "legitimate" because they were not available in packs, only in full sets (which were only sold to the hobby market - another potential strike).

[moeson]

I recall that the 1981 Topps Joe Charboneau playing a role in the initial rookie craze.

[uyu906]

Thanks Adam -

I am glad you found something useful in my recollections.

Rich

This is an excellent observation and probably deserves further research. The hunt for the 1909s Lincoln Wheat Penny and 1932d Washington quarter likely pre-date any documented rookie card speculation.

[ALBB]

I recall the rookie craze got so popular that ( I think it was) Beckett started publishing a big book that listed every players name...and what year his rookie card was .