What do you consider a "rookie card?"

[zljones]

This has been the subject of much debate and I am sure there have been threads on here before but I would like to revisit this topic, since I had an obession with HOF rookie cards when I first started collecting again. I want to share my criteria for a card being considered a "rookie card" when I am collecting, and also why I only collected rookie cards from post war only.

My criteria is as follows (all these qualifications must be met):

1. must be a rookie card of a rookie player. The card must have been issued either during their first season or issued during their second season. Third season is ok as long as their first season was not a full season examples are Nolan Ryan, Yogi Berra, Bob Feller. If he came to the pros and played a partial or even full season then got sent back to the minors, then I can consider that a rookie card. An example is George Brett or Hank Greenberg.

2. Must be a card from a main producer such as Topps, Goudey, Etc...If I was to collect all the off brands I would go insane and broke. Plus alot of the off brands are ugly cards (in my opinion).

3. If the player even had just two full seasons before the card came out, I do not consider it a rookie card. Examples are Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, or Ralph Kiner. If the player came and sat out a few season such as Dizzy Dean then I can't consider that a rookie card either.

I chose to only do the rookie card thing for post war only for a few reasons:

1. Post war rookies make up some of the coolest cards from post war, especially when you are talking 1950s.

2. Prewar is too hard to pin down rookie cards and they are often way too rare and expensive. I really do not feel like spending tons of money on a card I am not too crazy about, such as a E91 marquard is just ugly. I do not want to chase that card down and pay for a card I really don't like looking at.

3. I have fallen soooo deeply in love with prewar that I cannot limit myself to "rookie cards." Or else I wouldn't enjoy N162, N28, T205, or all the beautiful gum era cards.

This is a silly thread, I know, I just wanted to ramble about it and see what others think a "rookie card" is

[drc]

That sound reasonable to me, except include odd ball issues. Rookie time frame + it's a card. Topps versus Kellogs has nothing to do with rookie era.

The practical collecting problem in football, is many players didn't get a card until several years into their career. Including folks like Joe Montana. Clearly, many collectors count these first cards as rookie cards. But, if you don't buy that definition, that's reasonable. One can refer to them as '1st cards.'

A question I have for you is, what if there was an odd ball card issued the year before the Topps rookie-- and the earlier oddball fits your Major League rookie definition? I never understood how a 1955 Topps card is called a player's rookie card when there is an otherwise legitimate card of the player from 1954.

Yes, there is always gray area and collector choice involved.

[zljones]

A question I have for you is, what if there was an odd ball card issued the year before the Topps rookie-- and the earlier oddball fits your Major League rookie definition? I never understood how a 1955 Topps card is called a player's rookie card when there is an otherwise legitimate card of the player from 1954.

Yes, there is always gray area and collector choice involved.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes good question. Realistcally the 1954 card would be the true rookie card but if it is uglier to me then I do not buy it. I also have an obession with main sets of cards, usually because I think they are cooler looking to me and they have a sentimental type value to me and they are the national past time of cards. I also stay away from off brand cards for cost control reasons. If a player like Joe Montana does not have a rookie card for years after they began then I simply do not buy it unless I like the card alot. For example I really want a Michael Jordan 86-87 Fleer even though his first season was 84-85. It all depends on the card.

[drc]

I don't collect rookie cards, so my answer was not from someone about to purchase rookies with my hard earned dollars. Theory and practice are often two different things.

Though I have collected Topps rookie cards in the past, so am not without some practical experience. And this is coupled with my liking of odd ball cards.

[Blitzu]

I'm pretty simple on what I believe is a rookie card. Basically the first card that was produced in a given year for the player once they reached the professional leagues. I don't think card from the minors, colleges, or others count. For an example I don't believe the 1952 Topps Mantle is his rookie card. It may be his first Topps card, but his true and only rookie is his 1951 bowman. I don't think manufacturer matters. Whoever produces the card first in any given year when that player reaches the pros is their RC. So if two or three companies made cards in the same year then there could be multiple RC's.

That's just me, and how I look at RC cards.

[drc]

I think I agree with that.