Question about Babe Ruth Rookie
 

I was told by an ebay seller that listed a 1933 Ruth Goudey as a rookie card that Beckett lists this as a rookie card. Why is this?

I believe they used to list the first card made (by manufacturer) as a rookie card. That's how the price guides were at least.

Becketts guidelines for what makes a "rookie card" don't have much to do with what's actually a players first card. They don't count minor league cards or cards from sets that aren't major and national. By those guidelines I suppose the Goudey is about right.

My cynical defenition based on theirs is this-
whatever card exists for a particualr player that's early enough to be called a rookie card but also common enough that dealers can hype it as being worth more and actually find some to sell.

Steve B

S&S---stubborn and stupid.

Best, Larry

Steve, I always thought it was first card by manufacture... 51 bowman mantle, 52 topps. Isn't there also some 80s players that have RCs from multiple years, different card companies listed? Sorry I don't have any of my old Becketts any more, so I can't check.

There were many from the 1980's like Mark McGwire with the 1985 topps and 1987 donruss and fleer. Same thing with Jose Canseco with the 1986 donruss and fleer but the 1987 topps was considered also a rookie even though topps had the 1986 update Canseco. I personally don't consider the 1933 goudey Ruth a rookie but still a great card to own.

What does this comment refer to?

By 1933 Ruth was much closer to retiring than being a rookie. It makes zero sense to me. There are tons of issues from 1914-1932 and many of them seemed to have wide distribution to me, at least for that era of cards.

I think for most, and for me the m101-4/5 cards are considered his rookie.

His first card, which I also consider his best is his 1914 issue from Baltimore News. I don't consider it a rookie, because it's a minor league card. However it's his best card and you can call it a pre-rookie issue.

That's how I look at. There's plenty of caramel issues, exhibits, strip cards, foreign cards, promo cards (for movies etc...), food issues etc etc... in the time period between the pre-rookie and rookie cards.

I personally can't stand it when I see the Goudey listed as a rookie and find it very misleading and stupid but that's just my opinion. At the same time I think the Goudey issues are great cards in their own right and don't need that designation at all to justify that!

In the end, to each their own and if you like it as a rookie than go for it!

Beckett, by applying the "modern" rookie rules to vintage has mistaken rookie designation all over the place. '48 Bowman is listed as Feller's rookie, and I believe Mize as well, and I guess by the "modern rules", that would be correct. But we all know that the modern rules don't really apply to anything pre-1949..

They may have changed, but the 51 Bowman would be the rookie card and the 52 topps the first Topps card. Some people call it a rookie because it's the most expensive, but it's not.

The mid 80's stuff led to lots of confusion. like the McGwire. Do you count the 85 topps? It qualified under their rules, but it was from a subset and wasn't a major league card. The 87s fit the defenition better, but weren't his first card from a major national set.

The whole point of rookie cards has been silly since the early 80's, maybe a bit before. They were initially worth more because kids usually only collected for 3 years or so, and when the cards got tossed maybe a few got saved. Usually established stars. So the rookies were a bit harder to find. By 81 for sure lots of people were buying the promising rookies by the hundred or more and saving them.
But Beckett continued to push the whole "rookie" thing. As did many dealers, especially the typical underfunded clueless guys who drove the whole late 80's scene. Buy at wholesale, sell for a couple weeks at a good price, then at a cheap price then at around 6 months sell at a loss to raise cash for the next new product. Repeat till you have no money left then close.

Steve B

As far as the 80's were concerned. I believe you're referring to the XRC designations. Those were only given to cards that weren't available in packs. And the RC designation was given to cards during the first year that a player had cards available in packs. That's why you don't really see the XRC much after '89. Because in '90, Topps started putting their traded sets in packs as well as factory set form. IMO, 1987 is NOT Mcgwire's rookie card year. I don't feel that the Olympic factor should discount the '85 Topps, because it was still part of a major MLB release, and was available in packs. But given the olympic factor, I can understand and possibly accept the rationale behind it..

And again. '52 Topps, IS NOT a Mantle rookie. Never has, never will be...And not to be stubborn, or come off like an ass. But anyone who thinks otherwise, is flat out wrong.. First Topps card. Nothing more, nothing less..

I'm not saying I agree, I was trying to help answer the op's question. Obviously it's ridiculous to call the 1933 card of an aging Ruth his rookie card.

Thanks for all of your responses. I find it hard to accept a rookie card for someone who is a year way from retirement.

The first red flag should have simply been the phrase "ebay seller". According to your average eBay seller, any Japanese card of a Japanese player is a rookie, any relatively early card of a player is a rookie and "1/1" can be applied to any card in existence.