Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Phil - you do. I was just responding to Hank's post concerning the Weiser PC and his asking about the E91 American Caramel issue.

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

Hi Joe - There is always going to be debate on what constitutes a baseball card.

Of course, it all comes down to personal preference and, in the end, we will all collect what does it for us.

[Goudey]

Not sure if its been said but Lefty Grove has a card far before 1928 Star Player. 1921 Baltimore Orioles Tip Top.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

The Tip Top Grove was a minor league card, thus making it a pre-rookie and not a rookie card.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

I was talking about the mounted Weiser photo, Jimmy, not the "Weiser Wonder" PC, which in any case was probably issued in 1910. If you did mean to compare the Weiser mounted photo to the T5 Johnson, the former's a photo and the latter a card, IMO.

[jason.1969]

Will raise a question re: Hank Aaron. I read there was a 1952 Indy Clowns postcard set that included Aaron. OldCardboard.com has a pic, though I suppose I don't know for sure it's authentic.

Given that we generally accept postcards as RCs and given that we accept non-MLB for other Negro League players (e.g., Josh Gibson), should we not consider the 1952 Indy Clowns P/C as the Aaron rookie?

Am assuming the answer is "pre-rookie" because Aaron later played in the bigs. However, I'm less comfortable applying that approach to the Negro Leagues than I am the minor leagues.

I will further note that the 1915 CJ Ed Rous(c)h RC depicts him with the Federal League Indianapolis club, which I do realize is still treated as the big leagues but is nonetheless a bit harder to clearly differentiate from the Negro Leagues.

Am not looking to assert more knowledge than the OP here. Certainly I am nowhere near. Rather, just pointing out what seems to be a curious case.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I was talking about the mounted Weiser photo, Jimmy, not the "Weiser Wonder" PC, which in any case was probably issued in 1910. If you did mean to compare the Weiser mounted photo to the T5 Johnson, the former's a photo and the latter a card, IMO.

Gotcha Hank!

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Will raise a question re: Hank Aaron. I read there was a 1952 Indy Clowns postcard set that included Aaron. OldCardboard.com has a pic, though I suppose I don't know for sure it's authentic.

Given that we generally accept postcards as RCs and given that we accept non-MLB for other Negro League players (e.g., Josh Gibson), should we not consider the 1952 Indy Clowns P/C as the Aaron rookie?

Am assuming the answer is "pre-rookie" because Aaron later played in the bigs. However, I'm less comfortable applying that approach to the Negro Leagues than I am the minor leagues.

I will further note that the 1915 CJ Ed Rous(c)h RC depicts him with the Federal League Indianapolis club, which I do realize is still treated as the big leagues but is nonetheless a bit harder to clearly differentiate from the Negro Leagues.

Am not looking to assert more knowledge than the OP here. Certainly I am nowhere near. Rather, just pointing out what seems to be a curious case.

Good point...I guess the question becomes if the negro leagues are considered the big leagues. At this point I think they would.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jason:

You can definitely make a good case for the Aaron postcard as a rookie card. My stance on it is yes to the Negro League part of the equation (although it pre-dates Aaron's time in Jacksonville, which would be considered pre-rookie time), yes to the postcard part of the equation but, in the end, no because it is a unique real photo postcard (only one known as far as I could tell). Since there are a few other Indy players issued in the same format, could be considered part of a "set" and thus could qualify for rookie card status.

This one could really go either way, I chose to stick with the 1954 Aaron issues as rookie cards....

[jason.1969]

That's a good way to look at it. Hadn't realized there was only one. And with that verdict, I can once again take pride in knowing I own an Aaron RC (54T). :-)

[dougscats]

A couple of questions, Phil:

-In a case like McCovey, where there are two cards in the 1960 Topps set, are both cards considered his rookie card?

-In the 1975 set, where there is a mini-size as well as regular-size set, are both sets considered rookie cards?

-What are the rookie cards for the most recent inductees [Griffey, Piazza, any others]?

I collect hall-of-famers, and, inspired by your list, I've started to actively collect their rookie cards of late.

Thanks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whilst you are waiting for Phil, clearly only the regular issue McCovey and not the AS is his RC, and both Bretts are his rookie from the separate sets.

Griffey has a 1987 Bellingham Mariners card.

Piazza has a 1989 Salem Dodgers card.

[mechanicalman]

This thread, while incredibly informative, led to the very humbling realization that, contrary to my previous understanding, I have, in fact, no rookie cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

While the Griffey & Piazza cards mentioned are first cards for each, they are both minor league cards and do not qualify as true rookie cards but are instead pre-rookie cards. Griffey has several 1989 rookie cards, with top billing always going to his Upper Deck #1 issue. Piazza's top rookie card is typically his 1992 Bowman, some like his 1992 Fleer Update.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

While the Griffey & Piazza cards mentioned are first cards for each, they are both minor league cards and do not qualify as true rookie cards but are instead pre-rookie cards. Griffey has several 1989 rookie cards, with top billing always going to his Upper Deck #1 issue. Piazza's top rookie card is typically his 1992 Bowman, some like his 1992 Fleer Update.

Upper Deck may be iconic for 89 Griffey cards, but Bowman Tiffany is more valuable.

[CMIZ5290]

I have a 87 Bellingham Griffey Blank back Gem Mint. Any interest? Thanks...

[dougscats]

Thanks for your reply, Peter, and your qualification, Phil.

May I take it then that:

Maddux RC is 1987?
Pedro Martinez, 1991 or 1992?
Frank Thomas, 1990?

Phil, if it's not too much trouble,
Could you update your opening list to include the past 2-3 years inductees?

I'm counting seven that aren't listed: Maddux, Martinez, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey.
Am I missing any?

And good luck, Sam, on your first h-o-f RC--Hope you've got one of the new ones--

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dougscats

Thanks for your reply, Peter, and your qualification, Phil.

May I take it then that:

Maddux RC is 1987?
Pedro Martinez, 1991?
Frank Thomas, 1990?

Phil, if it's not too much trouble,
Could you update your opening list to include the past 2-3 years inductees?

I'm counting seven that aren't listed: Maddux, Martinez, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey.
Am I missing any?

And good luck, Sam, on your first h-o-f RC--Hope you've got one of the new ones--

If you are looking for major league rookie cards and not first cards, then you have all three right. I think there is only one option for Pedro, Upper Deck Final Edition, but there are several options for Thomas and Maddux.

[Rookiemonster]

First major league card of any hall of famer would be the answer . Topps is usually the first release set every year . But that would answer most of your questions . Minor league card are not rookies . Just look for the release dates on the year of the rookie your looking for .

[dougscats]

If Pedro didn't pitch in the major leagues until 1992, then that is his rookie card, no?

My original post stated 1991; sorry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dougscats

If Pedro didn't pitch in the major leagues until 1992, then that is his rookie card, no?

My original post stated 1991; sorry.

No, rookie card is first appearance in licensed major league set such as Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, etc. Many guys have RCs long before their major league debut. The rules about appearing in a set may have changed but back then you could picture a kid long before he played. Pedro's RC is 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Sure, Doug, I'll update my master list over this weekend. Here are the additional HOF'ers to be added:

Maddux, Pedro, Thomas, Smoltz, Glavine, Piazza, Griffey, Biggio, Big Unit, LaRussa (MGR), Cox (MGR) & Torre (MGR)

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, rookie card is first appearance in licensed major league set such as Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, etc. Many guys have RCs long before their major league debut. The rules about appearing in a set may have changed but back then you could picture a kid long before he played. Pedro's RC is 1991 Upper Deck Final Edition.

Is that the rule? I thought the rookie card rule was that the card listed the player on a Major League team? (as opposed to a minor team team or international team)

Edit: I guess these definitions are basically the same except Peter's stricter definition would exclude non-licensed sets like Panini from having "official" rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Is that the rule? I thought the rookie card rule was that the card listed the player on a Major League team? (as opposed to a minor team team or international team)

Edit: I guess these definitions are basically the same except Peter's stricter definition would exclude non-licensed sets like Panini from having "official" rookie cards.

I didn't even know Panini made baseball cards so I wasn't really speaking to that issue.

I can't even follow the really new stuff, I see for example 2008 cards saying Strasburg rookie from major manufacturers but then others from 2010 say rookie also.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

Phil I assume that where a player has an issue in a regular season set you intended to exclude an update set from a different manufacturer even thought it would be from the same year? E.g. Maddux Fleer Update, Griffey Topps Traded?

[dougscats]

Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dougscats

Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.

Right at the bottom of his first post.
LATEST HOF INDUCTEES

Craig Biggio (1988 Score Traded/Fleer Update)
Bobby Cox (1969 Topps)
Tom Glavine (1988 Donruss/Fleer/Tops/Score)
Ken Griffey Jr. (1989 Upper Deck/Bowman/Fleer/Donruss)
Randy Johnson (1989 Upper Deck/Topps/Fleer/Donruss/Score)
Tony LaRussa (1964 Topps)

Greg Maddux (1987 Donruss/Leaf)
Pedro Martinez (1991 Upper Deck Final Edition)
Mike Piazza (1992 Bowman)
John Smoltz (1988 Fleer Update)
Frank Thomas (1990 Leaf/Bowman/Topps/Score)
Joe Torre (1962 Topps)

[dougscats]

Thanks for pointing that out, Peter.
I was looking for them in alphabetical order and missed the new additions at the bottom.

And thanks again, Phil.
I see there were several other new inductees that I left out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess it's not clear to me why a 1989 Topps Traded Griffey wouldn't also be a rookie card, for example, since he was not in the Topps regular series. It's still a 1989 card and while it was released later than the regular issue sets from that year, if priority within the year matters we would have to research which of the regular sets was issued first and only pick the first one. Just my opinion.

[bcbgcbrcb]

After 1981, when Fleer and Donruss entered the game along with Topps, more and more sets were produced throughout the year by the card manufacturers. Anything issued during the same calendar year would also be considered a rookie card if a base card (not an all-star card, league leader card, etc.) from a set such as Topps Traded, Fleer Update, Donruss "The Rookies", Upper Deck Final Edition, etc. In recent years, there are so many and all are so plentiful that I don't bother making an exhaustive list. If you are doing a BB HOF RC collection, you may only be looking for one example for each anyway.

So, yes, the 1989 Topps Traded Griffey is definitely a rookie card example, also known as an XRC because it comes from a traded/extended set issued later in the year via hobby sources only.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

I don't feel you made an error, but would like to ask why the 36 world wide gum over the Joe dimaggio zeenut? I have heard others claim the 38 goudey is his true rc. I would like to pick up a dimaggio rc but want to make sure I get the one accepted by most as the rc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Phil in that case I think you may be missing several Griffeys and Madduxes from your list. Griffey had at least a Topps and Score Traded and Maddux had a Fleer Update and Topps Traded. Also Piazza had a 92 Fleer Update.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[h2oya311]

I like this one for Ruppert - a 1901 Cabinet photo. No idea what PSA would consider to be his rookie, but it would likely be a HOF Plaque card or something of that nature.

[bcbgcbrcb]

For traditional cards, I would also go with the 1962 Topps. I understand the issue and PSA's position, the same goes for Tom Yawkey's rookie card appearing in the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set.

Derek's piece is far superior and is one of Ruppert's earliest, if not the earliest, but doesn't qualify as a rookie card.

It's been a long time since I researched this but I recall Ruppert's beer company putting out a premium picturing a couple/few Yankees along with Ruppert. I think it was sometime during the late 1930's, maybe early 1940's. Again, not a card, but a nice option as a career contemporary piece and not as impossible to find as Derek's.

[triwak]

That's fantastic, Derek!!