Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

[pokerplyr80]

Thanks for the quick response Phil that makes sense. I am a fan of both cards and hope to have one of each eventually. I collect HOF RCs though and a dimaggio rc would fit in nicely.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

I definitely get the idea of pre-rookie vs. MLB rookie cards, but then wonder why a card like Kid Nichols' N172 is considered a rookie as it pre-dates his big league career. What makes this different than any Zeenut pre-rookie card?

Will say, I'm more than happy to own either, or both, or many versions of these early cards, rookie or not... Zeenut Dimaggio, 1936 R312 Dimaggio, 1938 Goudey Dimaggio, etc.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Peter:

I knowingly included just regular issues and left out update sets whenever that was the situation. All would still be rookie cards as I mentioned previously.

For the most part all of the post-1948 HOF RC's are pretty well identified in Beckett's price guides. There are a few cases where my choice may differ from theirs, but for the most part, a collector can look up any post-1948 baseball card and if deemed a rookie card, it will have the RC designation in the catalogue. As more and more of the modern era guys start getting into the Hall that have 10 - 20+ rookie cards each, it doesn't make sense to me listing 20+ different choices so I pick a few of the best ones and leave it at that. Again, just about every choice is plentiful and easy to obtain.

The real value in this master list and the reason that I created it was for the pre-1948 rookie cards as almost none are identified in the guides, at least not correctly. When I spoke with Bob Lemke at one time about the possibility of adding some, he wasn't comfortable with doing it so things never moved forward.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

67 Topps Venezuela was mostly or overall a major league set I think, so why not Bobby Cox?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

Thanks for the explanation Phil, makes sense enough. I'm not trying to complete anything, nor do I worry about the definitions within my collection, but I do have fun picking up some of the earliest examples of HOFers I can. Thanks to the board, and in large part this list for opening my eyes to some cards I'd have otherwise never gone after--- R315 Hubbell, Chong Rickey Henderson, Dietsche Cobb, Bond Bread Robinsons, etc.

[JMANOS]

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by JMANOS

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...

Actually, there are at least four variations, but who's counting? Bulkeley also has some pretty cool campaign pins that pre-date the 1908 PCs.

[philhjr1]

Does anyone know of what card would be considered Jacob Ruppert's rookie card for PSA's registry purpose? The 1962 Topps card, does not count/qualify for Jacob Ruppert. I have been going back and forth with PSA for 2 weeks now, and they flat out refuse to allow it. They also offered up no other suggestions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks for the correction on the Cox RC, Peter. I am making the change right now to the master list.

[pawpawdiv9]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.

Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.

I agree, I don't like the big heads and design of the 38 goudey. That zeenut is a pretty cool card but a little out of my range at this point.