Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1717381)

The one thing it isn't, and can never be, is Mantle's rookie card. The 1951 Bowman was issued and released a full year before it, so I see no debate whatsoever.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1717390)

I agree that the '51 Bowman is his rookie card, but the simple fact that it was issued before his '52 Topps is not what makes it his rookie card. It's when the card is issued in relation to his major league debut. As I pointed out, if the card was issued in the low number series (before his major league debut) it would not have been his rookie card. See Howard's post above. His definition of a rookie card is absolutely correct (official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster). He just had the events out of order.

Derek Jeter's first regular issue card is 1993 Bowman and Topps. Is that his rookie card? He didn't debut until '95. How can you have a rookie card if you're not a rookie?

Originally Posted by Buythatcard (Post 1717370)

I saw this excerpt on cardboardconnection.com:

"Baseball Rookie Cards versus 1st Year Prospect

Before the 2006 baseball season, the MLBPA announced some changes that were meant to make defining rookie cards easier. Both Topps and Upper Deck were on board but, honestly, things just got more confusing and a window for a new breed of pre-rookies opened.

With the rule change, official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster. In its most basic form, it was a great idea. Collectors chase rookie cards when they're first-year players. The rule has had great success in hockey. Although not an official rule, it's like this in basketball and football too as players generally make their team's rosters fresh after the draft and don't spend several years developing in a minor league system."

If we follow this, then the Mantle 51 Bowman is a 1st Year Prospect
card, while the 52 Topps is his Rookie card.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1717392)

Just convention. At least in the 90s, cards such as the Jeter are generally accepted as RCs if they are included in a major issue. E.g. 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera. As for Mantle, the discussion above is probably hypothetical because I doubt in those days Topps or Bowman ever issued a card of someone who had not been on a roster yet. If I am wrong let me know.

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 1717317)

Neither Steve nor Jay is 100% correct, but Jay is closer. I don't have time for a full post on this subject (which I've been meaning to write one of these days), but here are the essentials.

As several people have noted, the modern concept of a "rookie card" did not exist in the early hobby. As I documented in a previous post (here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233772), it was not until the mid-1960s that dealers even began consistently charging a premium for cards of star players, let alone "rookie cards". When the term "rookie card" was used in the hobby in the 1960s and 1970s, it referred to those multi-player "Rookie Stars" cards that Topps put out every year during that time. During this period, "sophisticated" collectors took pride in not caring who was pictured on a card, only about how rare it was and whether they needed it for their set.

(By the way, Steve is correct to say that before 1980 most baseball cards were bought by kids -- and that remained true for quite a while after 1980 -- but we're talking about the organized hobby that had existed since the 1930s. Whatever kids were doing, the adults who collected baseball cards in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s did not care in the slightest about owning the first card of a given player, as opposed to any other card of that player. Also, Steve is incorrect to say that the monthly Beckett guide began in 1980 -- the first issue was not until September 1984, by which time the rookie card craze was in full swing.)

The first time people in the hobby began caring about a player's first card came when Hank Aaron approached and then broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in 1973-74, and for a few years after that. Aaron's 1954 Topps card began commanding a significant premium on the open market, and a lot of old-time collectors were not very happy about it. When Jim Beckett distributed his first card price survey in late 1976, he asked about the price of only one non-rarity star player card -- the 1954 Topps Aaron. When Beckett presented the results of the survey in the March 31, 1977 Sports Collectors Digest, he called it "Aaron's rookie-year card #128" (see footnote 1 on page 50 below), and discussed the controversy over its pricing on the following page. (My full post about Beckett's first price surveys is at http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216495)

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...s/image_55.jpg

By this time (the mid-to-late 70s), prices of star player cards had begun to rise steadily, and cards from early in the careers of superstars were starting to command the biggest premiums. See my post of Lew Lipset's report on card auction prices in 1977-78, including a June 1978 column focusing on the 1952 Topps Mantle. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear anywhere in these columns:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243152

See also these articles from Baseball Hobby News in 1979 about the state of the hobby, including rising prices. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear in these articles either, but editor Frank Barning did discuss the top young players to invest in, which would become a key element of the rookie card craze in the following decade.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241548
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241741

In 1980-81, the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle skyrocketed beyond what anybody had though possible, and at the same time people started paying more attention to rookie cards of star players, initially just established superstars, but also younger stars. Starting in the early 1980s, the term "rookie card" became more and more prominent in the hobby press, and it expanded into popular knowledge later in the decade when the hobby approached the peak of the boom. I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1717411)

Nice write up!

I didn't mean that Beckett started in 1980, but that I'd heard the term "rookie card" before then.

One thing I found most interesting was that I'm pretty sure the first time I heard it used was at the first show I went to in early 1978. When I asked why the 54 Aaron was $60 the answer was that it was his rookie card. What's interesting is that that event and your timeline of the term match fairly well.

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1717411)

In the second image in the second Barning article link he mentions the "Jim Rice rookie card"

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1717411)

The first rookie card of a new player I can recall being hyped was Joe Charboneau in 1980.

Finding more on the history of the term might be a nice project, I have a few publications from the 80's, not complete runs, but enough to give a good look. Of course they're all in random boxes somewhere....

Originally Posted by vansaad (Post 1717446)

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

https://i.imgur.com/2Mto2FA.jpg

Originally Posted by Buythatcard (Post 1717455)

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

Originally Posted by vansaad (Post 1717446)

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

https://i.imgur.com/2Mto2FA.jpg

Originally Posted by Buythatcard (Post 1717495)

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

Originally Posted by 100backstroke (Post 1717496)

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid (Post 1717400)

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1717526)

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1717541)

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

Originally Posted by MVSNYC (Post 1717623)

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by MVSNYC (Post 1717623)

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.


Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by jhs5120 (Post 1717480)

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1717743)

How many feel these are RCs?

Originally Posted by drcy (Post 1717737)

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1717791)

Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1717788)

I think those would be classified as "rookie issues" but not "rookie cards". I think a rookie card is a baseball card that comes in a pack of cards, not a premium or something issued in a team set.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1717743)

How many feel these are RCs?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1717809)

There is some force to that argument but what do you do with, for example, the Fleer Update Clemens that I think was only issued in a set? Beckett used to XRC it and others like it but to me that seems stupid.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1717815)

I, myself, don't consider Update or Traded series to be the rookie cards either. For Clemens, I say his rookie card is the 85 Topps. I say Ripken's rookie card is the 1982 Topps, and not the Traded as well. If a card is only issued in a factory set, that to me is not in the spirit of the "rookie card" that you pull from a pack.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1717788)

I think a rookie card is a baseball card that comes in a pack of cards.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog (Post 1717826)

And just when do you suppose a baseball card was first pulled from a pack of cards?

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1717794)

Just FYI, it is more than likely that Topps made his '55 card before his major league debut. The card was part of the low number series and Koufax didn't make his MLB debut until June 24th, 1955. However, Koufax was on the Dodgers roster for two years before his debut.

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55 (Post 1717220)

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1717899)

After reading 94 posts here, all I can say is this "rookie" discussion is approaching the ridiculous. As, ridiculous as those votes in the poll that claim the 1952 Topps Mantle
card is the "rookie".

Anyhow, I collected these two Jackie Robinson cards as a young kid in 1947 - 1948. And, some on this forum would say that these 2 cards do not qualify as JRobby's real
ROOKIE cards (since they were not in a nationally distributed set).

...................... 1947 Bond Bread .............................................. 1948 R346 (Blue Tint)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...obby1948BT.jpg



Well then, shall we consider Yogi's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card his true "rookie" ? Hey guys....this set was nationally distributed.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...BreadBerra.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...pTopBreadB.jpg




Furthermore, I'll include these 5 additional cards into this "rookie" debate. As they obviously precede their 1948 (or 1949) BOWMAN cards, or their 1949 LEAF cards.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ookiestars.jpg


I hope you guys get what I'm driving at ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.