Mainstream vs. Scarce Rookie Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>How do you feel about Rookie Cards that were mainstream issues such as Goudey, Play Ball, T206, etc. as compared to the scarcer regional or low-production issues such as Worch Cigar, Boston Store, E103, etc. Which Rookie Cards would you prefer to own?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>honestly, I would prefer to own mainstream rookie cards over the regional or odd-issue counterparts, (in any year, pre or post-war)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>chris bland</b><p>I prefer the scarcer cards - makes it even more exciting when you land one of them. <br /><br />Speaking of scarce rookie cards Phil - let me know when you want to sell that 1946 Red Schoendienst card! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>Phil ,<br /><br />Personally I don't like mainstream cards, Why? Because every Tom, Dick and Harry has one! What's the point collecting rare prewar cards if there so easy to obtain? ~ you might as well collect upperdeck cards!<br /> <br />Regarding Rookie cards: Obviously I'd want the scarcer regional or low-production issues, "that's Collecting in my eyes!".<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Chris:<br /><br />I don't think an earlier issue than the 1946 Sears will ever turn up picturing Schoendienst so I will not be selling that one unless I sell my whole collection one day...........

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Brad, Chris:<br /><br />I tend to agree with you guys that the scarcer issues are more interesting but do you think that future values will be ehanced by replacing cards like a 1951 Bowman Whitey Ford with a 1951 Berk Ross Ford? I realize that this example is post-war but you get the general idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>For me it's an easy choice. I enjoy scarcer items so the less populated the better...When I was a rookie collector I would always count the regionals too....Or you can be like Beckett and say the '33 Goudey is Ruth's rookie <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> ...As for collecting rookies "to each their own" is the perfect saying on this one....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Even more perfect would be "to each his own" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>chris bland</b><p>I dont think rookie collectors looking for the more obscure version of a rookie card will have much of an influence on the value of the more mainstream cards - there are always going to be enough collectors of sets like the 33 goudey and 51 bowman to keep those "rookies" in high demand. Just my .02...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Prewar, I'll take the regional/scarcer card every time. Postwar, sometimes the regionals are better. Shown: 1928 Zeenuts Ernie Lombardi, 1961 Morrell Meats Maury Wills<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1188960498.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1188960518.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Although, I don't collect rookies as a goal, I do usually prefer a player's earlier card, if its affordable. But as far as this topic goes, I ALWAYS will go after the oddball types, given the choice. Just find them more interesting. Plus, they create an eclectic mix alongside the more mainstream issues. Makes for a very cool display, which is important to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan McHugh IV</b><p>Hi Phil,<br />Personally I love the scarcer Rookies compared to the more common ones as I have found out over the past year or so as I have some money problems and basically that is caused from an addiction to HOF Rookie Cards and Auto's. I have sold about 80% of my collection which included Rookies of Mays,Ryan,Schmidt,Mathews and auto's of Paul Waner,Speaker,Frisch + others but no matter how broke I am I still can't turn down a 1916 Urban Faber R.C for $300 nor can I even ponder of getting rid of my Cobb R.C's,Lazzeri,Lyons,Ruffing,Vance,Maranville,Rousc h,Alexander+ other R.C's. There is always a price for something but with these harder-to-get Rookies that price is so high for a reason.....I don't want to lose them!The joy of the chase and when you finally do find a scarce R.C is priceless which is why I sold all of my more common R.C's,<br />Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />An addiction to HOF Rookies and autographs, I know your pain. However, you've come to the wrong place to shake your addiction. If anything we are only going to feed it. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I like the mainstream rookies that I have, but that is only because I can't find the scarcer ones people have been mentioning. But when I do I'll buy those up, also. LOL. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>No contest...while I own a few classics that I love esthetically...I'll take the rarity most any day! But not this day...the cobb is gone...good riddance!<br /><br />pete ullman<br /><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/gehrigcobb.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>If I was to collect rookies, I would employ these two criteria:<br />1 - get his earliest US major league card.<br />2 - if more than one is available, select the cheapest.<br /><br />The following type of card issuers have a lower acceptability in my preference scheme: Foreign manufacturers.<br />The following type of card issuers have an even lower acceptability in my preference scheme: TCMA, Conlon, Target Dodgers, Larry Fritsch, etc.<br />The following type of card issuers have an even lower acceptability in my preference scheme: Reprints.<br />In the event that no major league card is available for the player, a minor league card would next be chosen from major US sets; followed in preference by any minor league set. Failing this, any card representing the player is preferable (for example: the Graham Scholarship Fund's Moonlight Graham card - not for HOF sets, but for player sets).<br /><br />But I don't collect these.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>gil...so right you are!<br /><br />pete ullman