Posted By:
PaulI've been watching this rookie card debate for awhile, and I now fall squarely into the "who cares" category. If you like collecting the very first card of a player, major or minor leagues, then do so, regardless of whether other people think these are true "rookie cards." If you like to collect the first major league card of a player, and don't care about minor league cards, that's great too. And if you want to collect cards that are exactly from a player's first major league season (this would exclude the 1960 Yaz, for example), then you can do that too. Best of all, these are all well defined categories that are almost always beyond debate. (I'm sure someone out there will find an exception).
Yes, there are dealers out there who will raise the price of a card if they can find any excuse to call it a "rookie card." So, the designation "rookie card" can carry some value. But it probably doesn't matter much with vintage cards. I doubt many readers of this board would be persuaded to choose a Zeenut DiMaggio over a WorldWide DiMaggio (or vice versa) just because a dealer arbitrarily chose to label one a rookie card, but not the other. The primary forces driving the price of vintage cards are supply and demand, not arbitrary labels. If most collectors think a player's first minor league card is more desireable than his first major league card, the prices generally will reflect that. And if other collectors don't have the same preference as you, you should be happy. They'll be driving up the price of cards you don't care about.
Just my opinion.