Pre-80s Rookie Card Craze?

[mintacular]

As a relatively young collector (I'm 32) I am under the impression that the obsession for a player's rookie card really took off during the mid to late 1980s and that previous generations were much less obsessed with owning the first card of a given player...Is this impression correct? From my understanding there was a modest premium for "rookie cards" for pre-80s collectors but that it was not a HUGE factor as it was for 80s guys and current collectors. Thanks for your thoughts about your experience/knowledge on this subject.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Patrick:

I would say the the '80's did bring the first wave of increased prices in Rookie Cards and things have just snowballed from there.

[ALR-bishop]

I started collecting in 1957 and early on developed into a Topps set collector. So rookies for me have always been one card in the set

[David W]

As I recall the rookie craze really took off around 1980, give or take a year or so when Beckett and Eckes put out their annual guide, followed shortly thereafter by the monthly magazine.

Pete Rose was the hot card for several years, many in fact were counterfeited at the time.

I was in my teens at the time, and we started scouring our collections for rookies. I remember finding a 71 Topps George Foster in the Giants section of my shoebox and thinking I would pay for college off that card. Also, the 81 Fleer Fernand Valenzuela was a rookie card with an uncorrected error that was widely hyped at the time.

When I was collecting as a kid, we generally collected our favorite team first, rather than the star players. I would have gladly traded Ernie Banks, Billy Williams or other Cub stars for Cardinal common players if I did not have them.

"You've got Jerry DaVanon and Vic Davalillo? I'll give you this Ron Santo card for them".

[steve B]

I only started collecting seriously in 77, so I sort of bridge the eras. I collected as a kid starting in 69, and realy got into it in 74.

Before about 1977 as adealer then explained it someone would typically only collect for maybe 3-5 years. Then the shoebox got set aside. When it came time to move out the kid stuff was either handed down or tossed. Except sometimes someone would save a card or two - Usually their favorite playes- which often meant the big stars.
So by the late 70's the rookie cards of many stars were actually in demand, but less supply than established stars.
Who would you save as your one card from 54 topps in say 1955 - Ted Williams or some kid playing for Milwaukee who hit 13 homers?

The hobby had some big growth from 77 to about 1982-3 full time stores became a lot more comon, and a lot of people either bacame collectores or continued after they'd normally have quit. Prices went up too.
Part of the whole rookie card thing was Joe Charboneau. An expensive card in it's day, only to become a common a couple years later after he didn't live up to the hype. That didn't stop the hoarding and promotion of other flash in the pan guys. The smart guys bought vending cases and sold the rookies at a buck each.

Then minor league cards started to catch on, as well as some local issues. And "rookie card" got redfined as being from a major set. Mostly because there weren't enough of the minor leage and local cards for the bigger dealer to profit from.


Steve B

[Wite3]

I too started collecting in the late '70s and spent a ton of time talking to some of the older collectors at the shows. I actually recall a show where the dealer had marked up a bunch of cards because they were the last card of the player ('76 Aaron) and showed all the stats of the player. I always remember this because I could not understand why someone would want a card with no stats on it!

Joshua

[D. Bergin]

The first cards I remember catching on as Premium Rookie cards soon after their release (not established players of Hall of Famers or thought to be HOF'ers), were Fernando Valenzuela and Tim Raines in 1981.

I really don't remember there being much of a premium for Joe Charboneau, as his career was pretty close to over before his first card even came out.

Soon after Rickey Henderson's 1980 card began to take off and in 1982 we had Steve Sax, Kent Hrbek, Cal Ripken, Johnny Ray and a few others begin to drive the Rookie card market.

[steve B]

Yeah, the Charboneau thing was brief, but impressive at the time.

The area I was in had a card shop, unusual for 81. And the Cards of all 3 companies arrived well before spring training. The premium wasn't huge, but getting anywhere from .50 -1.00 for a card that was brand new was usually only for big stars like Reggie Jackson or locally Yaz. I did pretty well helping break down vending cases to make sets and stacks of stars and rookies.
(Sorted cards for trade value, so much a set, another bit of trade for 100 of a certain player. ) Of course the guys who had paid a buck each for a hundred count - or more! of Joes card were out quite a bit when he got hurt. One guy bought a vending box full at .50 each.

And they came right back demanding Valenzuela cards soon after.

I put my trade pay into Low grade 48 bowmans and probably a t206 or two.
Sold the Bowman set to fund a ski trip about 5 years later, so I guess I did a bit better than they did.

Steve B

[cincyredlegs]

I remember 81 as the year the rookie card really got hyped. Joe C., Raines and Fernando. I don't remember who we looked for in 82 but I remember 83 was the year of Ron Kittle. Still have a ton of his 83 fleer cards. We were looking for Boggs, Mattingly, Sandberg, Strawberry and Gwynn rookies in 84.

I can remember dealers have 100 count rookie cards wrapped in plastic and selling for $100. I look back on that now and think of how dinged the corners must have been. I can also remember in the early 80's looking through my collection for Eddie Murray, Fisk, Brett, Yount, Schmidt, Rice, Carter and Fred Lynn rookies.

Luckily as a 10 year old in 81, I was vintage collector at heart and put most of my money towards tobacco, goudey, and 50-60's. Still bought the new stuff because who doesn't like busting packs.

Mark

[celoknob]

As a kid, I collected heavily from 1974-1980. During this time, "rookie" cards were broken up into the small panels of multiple players where you could hardly see the player. I disliked those cards. (I guess Topps did this many other years also).

Even in the late 70s when players like Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Griffey Sr., Gary Carter, (who were depcited on those rookie panel cards) were emerging as stars, I thought of those tiny panel cards as much less desirable than a "regular" card.

I think most felt the same way. If you look at the Beckett price guide, even as late as 1980, there is really no premium for rookies, even the "non-panel" cards like 1975 Brett and Yount.

I still kind of feel the same today, but no hobbyist can avoid the wave that occured in the early 80s over rookies, even though I lost interest in collecting at that time.

Now I am interested in cards again, and I appreciate the panel cards more now but it is still ridiculous how overpriced all rookie cards are. Rookie cards are interesting and I can see why they are somewhat more desirable, but I will never understand this extent this happened.

[con40]

1975 was my first year as a collector and the first time I recall there being any "buzz" in the schoolyard about rookie cards was in 1979 with the cards of Bob Horner and Willie Wilson... 1980 was not a big "buzz" year aside from some mild interest in Rickey Henderson... but 1981 cemented the RC craze when everyone was chasing Valenzuela, Charbonneau, Raines, Sax and Gibson.

It hasn't been the same since.

[novakjr]

Well, I really didn't start collecting 'til '86, and really don't remember a huge rookie craze at the time. Perhaps, it was just because I was young and just liked cards in general...Slowly, over the next couple of years, it seemed to sneak up on me. And while I fully acknowledge that there was a bit of a rookie card premium beforehand, I believe 1989 was the year that really sent the craze into the full blown disaster that it is now. The popularity of the '89 Upper Deck Griffey seemed to be the catalyst. The craze really took off with the '89 Pro-Set and Score football sets containing draft picks. Classic really took things by the horns with their Draft Pick and 4-5 sport sets, which only made things worse. Later, Bowman seemed to make their name off of it. Bowman to me, is nothing more than an industry accepted version of Classic.

Prices tended to be higher as a player reached a milestone, or near the end of his career. Generally, after players retired, their cards slowly came down to their final resting place, and generally stay put after election to the Hall. Unexpected Hall calls will take a quick surge upon election, but then settle somewhere in the middle within 6 months.

I've got a '95, a 2000, and a 2009 Beckett and I'll read off some ridiculous rookie prices compared to today's values..1973 Schmidt-$375/200/150. 1974 Winfield-$150/40/50. 1975 George Brett-$225/80/80. Yount-$140/50/50. 1977 Dawson-$60/20/20. 1982 Topps Traded Ripken-$350/200/150. 1985 McGwire-$10/175/30. All of these cards BTW I purchased post retirement, with the exception of the '82 Traded Ripken which I paid $200 right around his 3000th hit. It's still my favorite card but I obviously regret not waiting.

Part of the drops are due to the market, but mostly you'll notice post-retirement dictating actual value. You'll notice a pattern of a players rookie card reaching their appropriate value within 3-4 years of retirement...Basically, what I'm getting at is that anyone waiting to buy '93 SP Jeter, '94 SP Arod, or '01 Pujols cards for their collections, should wait 'til after they retire to avoid wasting money.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by con40

1975 was my first year as a collector and the first time I recall there being any "buzz" in the schoolyard about rookie cards was in 1979 with the cards of Bob Horner and Willie Wilson... 1980 was not a big "buzz" year aside from some mild interest in Rickey Henderson... but 1981 cemented the RC craze when everyone was chasing Valenzuela, Charbonneau, Raines, Sax and Gibson.

It hasn't been the same since.

You're right about the Bob Horner. I forgot about that one. It was a sought after card and it might have pre-dated the surge in Valenzuela/Raines/Charboneau, etc..

I don't remember a particular demand for Willie Wilson but he had a couple fantastic years around the same time as Horner and you are probably right.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Lest we forget the XRC craze with Strawberry, Gooden, Clemens, etc. in Topps/Fleer Traded Sets.............

[novakjr]

Now that I think about it. Wasn't the '86 Donruss Canseco pretty ridiculous right off the bat? Or did that not hit 'til a few years later?

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Now that I think about it. Wasn't the '86 Donruss Canseco pretty ridiculous right off the bat? Or did that not hit 'til a few years later?

Yeah, it came out of the gates on fire. I want to say $50 or something like that.

[mintacular]

Okay, so in the late 70s or so a 55 clemente and a 65 clemente were about the same $ or just a small premium for 55 since it was rarer but all other things equal the rookie cards of HOFers sold for close to their other cards?

[theseeker]

I vividly recall the ads by New York Card Company, started by a teenager, with the help of his avid fan father, selling 100 lot rookie cards of future superstar shortstops Sheffield and Jeffries. I though even if they reach their ceilings, how much investment potential can their be with 100 lot orders and the fact that 90+% of these cards will remain in investor grade condition. The investors from that era can hardly give the stuff away.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mintacular

Okay, so in the late 70s or so a 55 clemente and a 65 clemente were about the same $ or just a small premium for 55 since it was rarer but all other things equal the rookie cards of HOFers sold for close to their other cards?

There was a premium by 78 or so, but it wasn't all that big in many cases. I'll see if I can dig out an old price guide. The popularity of the player and if the card was a high number or short print changed things too.

One examle that comes to mind is the 48 Musial. Rookie card, short print, lots going for it, and it was the most expensive card in the set. I bought the one I had in maybe 1979. It had paper loss on the upper left corner, but wasn't all that bad looking. It was $2. I think catalog was about 20 or 30.

Steve B

[David W]

Originally Posted by theseeker

I vividly recall the ads by New York Card Company, started by a teenager, with the help of his avid fan father, selling 100 lot rookie cards of future superstar shortstops Sheffield and Jeffries. I though even if they reach their ceilings, how much investment potential can their be with 100 lot orders and the fact that 90+% of these cards will remain in investor grade condition. The investors from that era can hardly give the stuff away.

I remember about 1991 or so going on this fledgling thing called the internet to sportscard link (I think that was what it was called) and buying 100 Tino Martinez 1990 UD cards for $250.

Yikes. I actually still have them in a plastic case somewhere.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Lest we forget the XRC craze with Strawberry, Gooden, Clemens, etc. in Topps/Fleer Traded Sets.............

If memory serves me right, the "XRC" brew-ha-ha came about because there was debate as to how "legitimate" those cards were because they weren't available in packs, only in sets and only at card shops, and there was a desire at the time to somehow distinguish them from "real" cards.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

If memory serves me right, the "XRC" brew-ha-ha came about because there was debate as to how "legitimate" those cards were because they weren't available in packs, only in sets and only at card shops, and there was a desire at the time to somehow distinguish them from "real" cards.

I believe the reasoning behind the traded cards being listed as XRC's was to avoid coming off hypocritical within the baseball card market. The rule seemed to be, "if it's not nationally available in packs, then it's not a true rookie". When Rookie card craze hit, this is the rule that was used against minor league and team issues, so that the standard sets could still claim to have rookies, and that same rule had to apply to the Traded sets as well. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the guides aren't in cahoots with the card companies, because of this fact. The XRC was the perfect tool, for a card company to be able to ensure that the traded sets sold, but also that the following year's sets would also sell. Basically it gave them the ability to market the same rookie twice.

Unfortunately for the major companies, Classic started putting out the 4-sport sets in packs, then they had to adjust the rules to the first MLB licensed card that was available in packs.. Then Bowman stole all of Classic's thunder and began to do the same, resulting in the market being flooded with cards of people that would never reach the majors, and undercutting the major standard issues by a few years when it came to rookies. If you notice, the majority of the mid-late 90's sets didn't have any rookies, with the exception of Bowman, thus making them unmarketable. So what had to be done? Oh yeah, now all of the sudden cards couldn't be labeled as rookies until a player was officially on an active major league roster. You could still make 'em as inserts or as part of a minor league or draft set, but they couldn't be considered rookies. I'm sorry, now we've got the "RC" and the "RC!" on our hands. The Rookie card designation for a player who had previously had a rookie card. ***I still can't wrap my head around that one.*** Basically the rules keep changing, to keep the standard sets relevant.

Major League Baseball should not be allowed to dictate what is and isn't a rookie. Evan Longoria in '08? Forget about it, I'd rather have his '06 Bowman Heritage Prospects card. And the biggest farce has to be Josh Hamilton. So I'm supposed to accept that his rookie cards are in '07 just because MLB says so, when the guy had major issue cards as far back as '99. Name me one person who with a straight face can say, I've got a 2007 Josh Hamilton rookie card. MLB doesn't seem to understand that designating something as a RC doesn't mean it will be reflected that way in the market. Although, I'm pretty sure they thought it would..

MLB needs to stay the F*** out of the card designations.

BTW, I still stick with my own, "the first nationally available card of a player is his rookie". If I get an older local issue, then cool, but not necessary in my book.

[albrshbr]

Originally Posted by con40

1975 was my first year as a collector and the first time I recall there being any "buzz" in the schoolyard about rookie cards was in 1979 with the cards of Bob Horner and Willie Wilson... 1980 was not a big "buzz" year aside from some mild interest in Rickey Henderson... but 1981 cemented the RC craze when everyone was chasing Valenzuela, Charbonneau, Raines, Sax and Gibson.

It hasn't been the same since.

I remember the first "craze" in 79 with Horner and Wilson. In 1980 I was able to pick up 30 Henderson's for 5 cents each. To me 1981 was all about Raines and Valenzuela.

If I recall correctly alot of this started at the National when 2 guys bought 3 Mantle rookies (actually 52 Topps) for $3,000 each. It was an unheard of amount of money at the time and they were quite picky about the condition. Prior to this, other factors created the hot cards and prices. Examples I can think of are the 1970 Topps Johnny Bench (rumored short print) 1967 Yaz (Triple Crown year) and 1973 Carlton Fisk (not sure why).

I remember buying 1973 Mike Schmidt's for $5 and trading a 1981 Topps set that I paid $16 for and getting a 1965 Carlton rookie (book value $16), both in 1981. In 1982 I took both to a card show and got $100 in trade for a Schmidt and $150 for the Carlton.

In 1983 the regular 82 Topps Ripken was selling for over $2 and the 79 Topps Gretzky was already going for $12. There were other hot rookies (83 Boggs and Kittle) (85 Clemens and Juan Samuel) but things really got crazy in 1986 when the Donruss Canseco was selling for $5. A card in a current pack going for $5!!!!! By 1987 everyone was buying rookies in 100 count lots and things haven't been the same since.

[hangman62]

I recall around that time, things started to get a bit silly..collectors/dealers started going backwards and "discovering" and pumping up rookie cards of guys that were just regular players..all of a sudden you had to have the 64T Rico Carty,the 60 Kaat, 62 Fregosi, 73 Boone,69 Nettles, the 71T T.Simmons, the 68T Hal McRae, 77 Mazilli, 71 Concepcion and Bowa,..cards that were pretty much commons..now were being percived as valuable/ must have rookies..and many jumped on the bandwagon....years later ( early 80s..it got even more rediculous ! )

[scmavl]

I wish it would go back to the year that player had, to determine the value. For example, Maris' 61 card should be worth a fortune but not his rookie card.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by albrshbr

Examples I can think of are the 1970 Topps Johnny Bench (rumored short print)

Funny how rumors back then inflated a card. The 72 Carew and Carew IA were over inflated and to a degree the 67 Brooks Robinson was over hyped in the early 80's.

[David W]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

Funny how rumors back then inflated a card. The 72 Carew and Carew IA were over inflated and to a degree the 67 Brooks Robinson was over hyped in the early 80's.

In the pre internet days (I know, I know, the under 30 folks don't understand this....) if you couldn't find a card locally, and didn't know who Larry Fritsch was, or have a way to get SCD, those cards were "scarce" as your only source was the local guy selling his own collection , or the lame card shows at the mall or motel conference room. There was no way to buy them from a guy in another state via ebay.

I remember going to a mall show in the 80's looking for the Carew and Carew in action, and only 1 guy of the 30 or so vendors had one. I bought both of them for about $30, both VG-EX at best.

[hangman62]

Yes, that 72T Carew, that one had a lot of hype,( and the 72T Garvey also was real hot ) but It was a "fairly tough" hi#,
As was always the case back then,if Carew had a real good month at the plate/ hitting streak going,etc.., the card would jump up a couple of bucks in the next issue of CPU or CCP. And we all were " OK" with that and just went along with the flow !

I recall buying that card from a flea market dealer..$40., and not even noticing it was way offcenter..I dont think I even felt that mattered back then ! ..just crazy baseball card times then

[David W]

Originally Posted by hangman62

Yes, that 72T Carew, that one had a lot of hype,( and the 72T Garvey also was real hot ) but It was a "fairly tough" hi#,
As was always the case back then,if Carew had a real good month at the plate/ hitting streak going,etc.., the card would jump up a couple of bucks in the next issue of CPU or CCP. And we all were " OK" with that and just went along with the flow !

I recall buying that card from a flea market dealer..$40., and not even noticing it was way offcenter..I dont think I even felt that mattered back then ! ..just crazy baseball card times then

Here is what $30 got you in 1988......

I just checked ebay, I could upgrade significantly for half that

[hangman62]

There it is, with that other player in the backround playing golf with a bat ! LOL

[afklin]

i remembered i spent $100 on 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco RC, which was an outrageous price for a modern card. Also remember paying $100 for a 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson's RC, and $30 for Tony Gwynn 1983 Topps RC. Still have those cards after 20 years, and today they have all depreciated below my purchase price.

[Leon]

This thread was in the correct category on the post war side. That side has been getting a lot of activity lately but this is such a nice read I took moderator privileges to move it here so more folks can see it. I hope that was ok?

For the record, I started back collecting in '96 (from the late 60's and early 70's as a kid) and first started collecting rookie HOF'ers......then I moved back even further from the 50's-70's to pre-wwII and have enjoyed the journey quite a bit. Happy collecting and enjoy!! (also, I bet a lot of folks on the main board can relate to this stuff)

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by afklin

i remembered i spent $100 on 1986 Donruss Jose Canseco RC, which was an outrageous price for a modern card. Also remember paying $100 for a 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson's RC, and $30 for Tony Gwynn 1983 Topps RC. Still have those cards after 20 years, and today they have all depreciated below my purchase price.

Yeah, I think the 86' Donruss Canseco and the 84' Donruss Don Mattingly are first two mainstream cards I recall selling briskly in the $100 range just within 2-3 years or less, of their initial release.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Leon

This thread was in the correct category on the post war side. That side has been getting a lot of activity lately but this is such a nice read I took moderator privileges to move it here so more folks can see it. I hope that was ok?

For the record, I started back collecting in '96 (from the late 60's and early 70's as a kid) and first started collecting rookie HOF'ers......then I moved back even further from the 50's-70's to pre-wwII and have enjoyed the journey quite a bit. Happy collecting and enjoy!! (also, I bet a lot of folks on the main board can relate to this stuff)

Despite the difference in years, my collecting habits took the exact same course of evolution. I'm pretty sure we're not alone. HOF rookies seem to be the key to bringing modern collectors over to the vintage side of the hobby.

[familytoad]

Guys...i couldn't agree more with the evolutionary factor of both the hof-rookie craze and the subsequent inflated, over-produced era.
It seems like most of us got "burned" if we were collecting in that era, but we've overcome.

If it weren't for that era, I wonder how many of us would even still be collecting?

Personally, about 1987 some friends from my softball team started talking about baseball cards one day...it reminded me that I still had dozens of boxes back at my mom's house...it wasn't long before i was reliving the early 70's by rummaging through those cartons.
Over the next few years i bought thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of baseball,football and hockey cards.
Again most folks seem to crap on the monthly Beckett magazine that dominated that time, but they did include pricing back to 1948 Bowman, and those listings eventually made me seek out older cards by any means possible.
SCD was also in its heyday, so the ads contained many resources to get older cards.

So while the mid 80's overproduction, Beckett and SCD no longer get much respect among the collecting community...i would think of them as stepping stones, or foundations of what has evolved into more advanced collecting.

Naturally, i wish i hadn't spent the time and money on the cards that I mostly gave away or want to throw away, but without those roots, I doubt I would have eventually discovered the passion I have for the pre-war sets, HOFers and the history of each.

Now i just mark it off as the cost of learning

[bobbvc]

Personally I've always considered rookie cards to be the "Beanie Babies" of Baseball Card (and memorabilia) collecting.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

Personally I've always considered rookie cards to be the "Beanie Babies" of Baseball Card (and memorabilia) collecting.

Rookie cards aren't just a pointless, flash in the pan fad though. As there is somewhat of a merit to the idea behind them being the most important issue of a player...If anything, Inserts, serial numbered SP's and intentional Topps errors(basically anything gimmicky) are the "Beanie Babies" of collecting. Year in, year out, people continuously buy into the new inserts, only to forget about them a few years down the road. Anyone remember the '92 fleer Roger Clemens insert set? Or Upper Deck's original heroes of Baseball sets from the early 90's?

[brianp-beme]

I think a really good question is when the "Rookie" or first card became a significant factor in Pre-WW2 vintage collecting. I have been collecting vintage for 30 years now, and was not aware of much buzz about vintage HOF rookies during my first couple of decades...it wasn't mentioned often when people were selling cards or in auctions. To me it always seemed like a modern day card phenomena, and I was just fine about it. It wasn't until about a dozen years or so that the rookie card craze finally started to gradually make its way over to the vintage side. To me, being a moderate budget collector, it just meant that certain cards were now going to be unobtainable.

Anyone else notice that shift, or have a different viewpoint on the vintage rookie market and when it became an important factor?

Brian

[bcbgcbrcb]

In my opinion, the vintage HOF Rookie Card craze began in the last 10 years when a small handful of affluent collectors decided to go that route and widely publicized their collections. Over the past few years, a couple of these individuals have stepped out of that realm and the collector interest seems to have waned overall.

I still believe that this is an extremely interesting and fun venue of viantage card collecting and have shared a lot of my research with fellow collectors in the hopes of sparking more interest in this area of collecting.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I think a really good question is when the "Rookie" or first card became a significant factor in Pre-WW2 vintage collecting. I have been collecting vintage for 30 years now, and was not aware of much buzz about vintage HOF rookies during my first couple of decades...it wasn't mentioned often when people were selling cards or in auctions. To me it always seemed like a modern day card phenomena, and I was just fine about it. It wasn't until about a dozen years or so that the rookie card craze finally started to gradually make its way over to the vintage side. To me, being a moderate budget collector, it just meant that certain cards were now going to be unobtainable.

Anyone else notice that shift, or have a different viewpoint on the vintage rookie market and when it became an important factor?

Brian

I think alot of the thing with pre-war HOF rookies is a combination of factors. When considering pre-war cards, the modern rookie card rules generally aren't used, and a player's first card has a tendecy to be from some obscure local issue. When it comes to pre-war, I don't find myself too concerned with the rookie factor. I'm just happy to find cards of those players that were issued during their careers(obviously, the earlier the better though). I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this way in regards to pre-war hall of famers.

[Big Ben]

I started collecting around 1972. One rookie card craze that I remember was that of the 1977 Topps Dale Murphy card around the 1982-1983 time frame when Murphy won back to back MVP awards. I still remember trading one of my Murphy rookie cards for a 1955 Topps Ted Williams.

[Bridwell]

I remember that the dealers started hyping some Topps cards that were the Rookie card of the great players. It started around 1978, but didn't take off until the 1980's. By the end of the 80's, it was effecting pre-war card prices. The whole thing was silly to me. Dealers would say the Cy Young T-206 was his 'rookie card' even though he was 40 years old and already had won almost 500 games by then!