Team Issues and Rookie Cards

[topcat61]

I've been curious lately about larger team issue premiums (like 1940's Brooklyn Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox) -could some of these be considered the rookie cards of players like Pee Wee Reese or Duke Snider?

What constitutes a rookie card and how do collectors feel about team issued cards and premiums?

My own feeling is that the 8x10's, or odd sized stuff is difficult to display, but on the flipside, they're mostly cheap and provide a great way to obtain an otherwise difficult or expensive player.

Thanks.

[Leon]

There have been numerous discussions, on the forum, over the years and the only consensus is there is no consensus.
Here is an older thread concerning rookies...

http://forum.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603


.

[shagrotn77]

Hi Ryan. If you get 10 replies to this thread, you'll probably get 10 different opinions. To me, that's part of the beauty of collecting - it's all about what does it for you. Personally, I think photos are photos and don't qualify as cards. I am, however, okay with postcards and exhibits qualifying as rookie cards. Again, just my dos centavos.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ryan:

I also loved to pick up many of the 1940’s team issued photo pack singles when I was working on my HOF Rookies collection several years ago. These can certainly qualify as rookies or possibly even earliest collectibles for the appropriate player but would not be considered rookie cards because the items in question are clearly not cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Post-war, but anyhow I would call Carlton and Seaver rookie year issues, not sure what I would call Murray, pre-rookie I guess although to me that connotes a minor league card.

[triwak]

Great cards, Peter!!

[uyu906]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Post-war, but anyhow I would call Carlton and Seaver rookie year issues, not sure what I would call Murray, pre-rookie I guess although to me that connotes a minor league card.

Murray played all of the 1977 season with the Baltimore Orioles. That club issued photo is from Murray's rookie year. Topps, of course, did not print his rookie "card" until 1978.

[Leon]

+1
I like the term earliest collectible more than I do "card" for some of the items.
While I consider postcards as cards, I agree with Phil, photo packs aren't cards. They are photos (pictures), like it says.

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ryan:

I also loved to pick up many of the 1940’s team issued photo pack singles when I was working on my HOF Rookies collection several years ago. These can certainly qualify as rookies or possibly even earliest collectibles for the appropriate player but would not be considered rookie cards because the items in question are clearly not cards.

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by Leon

+1
I like the term earliest collectible more than I do "card" for some of the items.
While I consider postcards as cards, I agree with Phil, photo packs aren't cards. They are photos (pictures), like it says.

I'm glad to see people say this. I've found it frustrating that over time Beckett and others have gradually expanded their listings to the point where virtually anything depicting a player can show up in their online catalogue or Trading Card Database--even pages from photo albums and yearbooks.

Like everyone else on here, I certainly have no issue with those things being collectibles, but if anything and everything is classified as a card, the term itself has no meaning.

On a more specific note, one of the problems I have with classifying team-issued photos as cards--besides the fact that they are really just photos--is the lack of any inherent restrictions on them being reprinted. Most true cards have identifiers (bios, stats, copyrights, etc.) tying them to a specific year, and the licenses probably are good for only the given year anyway. But team-issued photos generally have no year identifiers--and that's on purpose. The teams can and often do distribute those things over multiple years. In fact, they presumably would have no restriction against reprinting team-issued photos even decades after the fact.