Phil-you poses the question to begin this thread as to why more people were not collecting HOF rookie cards. Let me ask a different question, one which ties to my prior post:

Why should anyone collect rookie cards instead of collecting one's favorite card of each HOFer (assuming one wants a card of each HOFer--I don't)

Most of the reasons why people don't collect rookie cards have been stated, but the bottom line seems to be that it is impossible to do. One might get 90% or more of the known rookie cards with patience and a big checkbook, but finishing the set can't be done. And it would cost millions of dollars even if there was some way to do it. Plus, the lack of a consistent definition of a rookie card frustrates too many collectors. We've had numerous threads about rookie cards and there are always so many different opinions about what's what.

I like Jay's idea of collecting one card of choice of each Hall of Famer, difficult enough in its own right. In many cases a player's rookie card is unappealing so why spend big money on it?

Dan P.'s example of Cy Young is a good one. The Just So is unique, and the E107 is a five figure card. Why not simply get a nice portrait, such as a T206 or an E90-1, and call that your Cy Young example? I would rather buy a card that appeals to me aesthetically than one that is ugly but is a player's first. It kind of forces you to buy a card whether you find it attractive or not.

Never said you were [as far as you know :D ]. The cost of the 'rookie' cards in some of the Exhibit sets is one reason why I haven't pursued the prewar sets with the same vigor as the postwar issues.

I consider the PCs to be rookies also but I know a lot of collectors who would disagree. To each his own...

The main reason why I gravitated towards Rookie Cards of HOF'ers rather than any random cards of HOF'ers is that had been my primary interest since I was 12 years old. Even though I was only collecting modern Topps, Fleer and Donruss cards at the time, I was after Fernando Valenzuela rookie cards, Tim Raines rookie cards, etc.

As I got older and noticed the volatility of that market from season to season, I decided to go a safer route and do retired HOF'ers instead. Thus, where I am today.

To me, focusing on rookie cards poses a finite number of items for the collection as opposed to any card that you like of an individual, which obviously would be infinite. The rookie card set also gives you an opportunity to measure your collection against all others going after the same cards just like T206 or any other set. How can you compare a '32 Sanella Margarine Babe Ruth to a Sporting News Babe Ruth, which two different collectors have as their Babe Ruth representation for their HOF collection?

This would then suggest that no-one should go after the T-206 set. It's almost impossible to complete...so what do people do, they make sub-sets and create their own definitions of a "complete" set. We HOF Rookie cards do the same thing.

I actually started my journey by looking for any card of players that had 3,000 career hits and/or 500 career HR's. Most of these guys were in the HOF, and once I got a R. Henderson rookie card, it was all over for me. I just loved getting "rookie" cards. To me, I don't care if I never complete this "set" in 100 years, it's the journey that is the most enjoyable part of the collection. I love that I am learning about new cards all the time (take the 1905 Pokomoke Team PC w/ Frank Baker, for example)...

Also, I believe Leon stated that he started out looking for HOF rookie cards and then migrated to type card collecting. Getting a "complete" set of HOF rookie cards would give you quite a bit of variety in the type-card world. I love the variety of the cards in my collection because of it. I think it would be so boring to only go after 1925 Exhibits, for example. The appeal of HOF rookie collecting is the depth and breadth of my collection and the discovery of new items that fit the definition and "change the checklist". I can see why Dan P. got frustrated, but who cares? I love my stuff and don't care whether someone else considers my 1923 Type I Press Photo, which was used to create the 1925 Exhibit card, of Lou Gehrig a "rookie". It is to me!!

And if a new card that pre-dates my example is discovered, oh well! Great! Now I get to learn about a new card / type-card / set and get to decide if I want to pursue it.

And lastly, Leon - - sorry to disappoint, but your Minneapolis Team w/ T. Williams is not the earliest...Phil has a 1937 SD Team Premium and I have a 1937 SD Team PC, shown below! Enjoy!!

My read was that it's too expensive for most of us. Same reason we collect T206's.

For the wealthier collectors, though, I think you assessed the problems correctly.

Phil--why do you have to measure (read compete) your collection against others? Collect what you enjoy for you, not for how it compares to others. This is the whole registry set disease. Collecting your favorite card of a player rather than the "rookie" card means you will get the card you enjoy most, not the card that someone else is telling you to buy. Think outside the box instead of getting locked in.

The question was why isn't it more popular. I think the answers were very clear and correct. Nobody said don't do it. I think it will always just be a marginal niche bc of just what has been discussed. Nothing is wrong with that.

No disappointment here as I didn't buy it thinking it was Ted's earliest card. I could pretty much care less about them and only buy them when it's a type I still need. Neat 1937 card, thanks for sharing. (I need it as a type too) Happy collecting....

I don't collect this set yet (the HOF rookie run), however, it is on my list of the many things that I do want to collect. For me at least, I think, part of the appeal is that this is the first card of the player as a major leaguer, and this is the first step that he is taking to greatness in the major leagues. It's like this is how the person was before he became really famous. You can see the youth and the love for the game before that player truly became a "professional." Also, for most players, collecting the rookie card gives the set consistency. How do you determine the key card for that player when you compare it with your hobby friends? When you tell them that you got the rookie for Cal Ripken, they are much more likely to know what you are talking about, and you can share it w/ them. (Was it the Donruss, Topps, or Fleer version?) Your childhood hobby friends will typically say that's pretty cool, I always wanted one of those. They'll have a decent idea what the card image looks like. If you tell them you got the 1986 one because you liked the image, most of them won't even know what the image looked like even if they did collect cards as kids. This is not to show off. This is because you want to be able to speak a "common language" with the average collector rather than discussing really specific card images that no one cares about but you. Do you want the conversation to continue or just end w/ you? I hope this makes sense.

The prewar aspect is a little different as has already been discussed previously in this thread and others. There's ambiguity of what is the true rookie card, the cost, and the scarcity involved. This is probably a really bad analogy, but to me, it would be like collecting the Cracker Jacks. You can do the 1914, you can do the 1915, or you can do a mixture of both. Therefore, for prewar, for myself, I would probably try to approach it this way. I will take a look at the rookie card for that player. If the card is not obtainable or I like the image of another card (e.g., a key card) much better, I'll get that key card instead of the rookie. However, if I don't really have a big preference, I'll try for the rookie by default. For example, Chick Hafey is not a really important HOFer to me. I think I'll just try to get the rookie. However, for Ty Cobb, there are some key cards (like the CJ's) that I really like, so I think that I would like to get one of those instead of one of his true rookie cards. Same thing with Cy Young, as his rookie is practically unobtainable. I'll fill that slot with a key card with an image that I really like.

Gary:

I like your example of Chick Hafey for this reason:

Like you said, Hafey is not a "major" Hall of Famer but if you are doing the rookie set, you need him just as much as Cobb or anybody else. It turns out that Hafey's rookie card hails from the Middy Bread Die-Cuts set, so scarce that I have never even seen one for sale or auction. If one did come up, I believe it would go for $1,000+ if in decent condition. For those who are budget conscious, would you be willing to spend that kind of money on a marginal Hall of Famer?

The true hard-core rookie card collector is going to say "yes", most everyone else will say "no".

yes!!!

I measure myself against other collectors by height.

It took me a long time to get to the point of collecting only what I like. If a rookie card appeals to me I would buy it but if not I am not interested.

I've had plenty of input with regards to my site: www.firstyearcards.com , but would like to take it a step further. I have a fairly indepth list of all HOF first year cards and prior cards/memorabilia, but would like more input and scans. I have been selective about what I post on NET54 as it has been my personal hobby/collection.

How should I pursue more info on primarily pre-rookie memorabila of each player? Should I start a thread or try to make my site more public/accesilbe?

I realize I can't find every card, image, deawing, pin, pennant, poster etc. on my own, but I have a good start and think my site could be a good central site for this info.

I like the idea of adding a section that lists all the sets that contain HOF first year cards and will add that soon, thanks, Bill.

Bill:

Why not try both, post on Net 54 and your website.

My Collection...
 

This is a very difficult topic to discuss in regards to what specifies a 'rookie card'. I know my definition, or collecting niche you can call it, is that I consider the first card of a player in a mainstream set. That mainstream set needs to be readily available pretty much nation wide, not just a specific region or state. Obviously, a lot of players do not have this, so if I have no 'rc' for that said player, I just try to get the ealiest signed card available for that player. An example of this is Honus Wagner. There are early 1900's cards of him, non are signed to my knowledge. The earliest 'true card' signed I've seen of him is a '40 Play Ball.

In my collecting of HOF signed 'rookies', I do not consider magazine photos, or clippings to count.

But I guess the number one, most important thing is to collect what you want. Everyone has there own opinions and views on what an 'rc' is, but in regards to your own collection, it's only your opinion that matters. I know I have a TON of pre-war cards that aren't 'rc's' like my Gehrig DeLong, Rousch, and tons of others. But they will do, because I consider them to fit my set, and I'm so happy I have them. I still get chills when I see my Gehrig signed DeLong, because I never thought I would EVER even own a Gehrig autograph, or an autographed card. But that's what makes me happy, and when it's broken down to whether it's a rookie or not, in the end, you just gotta be happy with it.

Phil, you have won me over. I have decided to collect rookie semi-pro postcards of HOF'ers. But that's as far as I go.

Uh oh... Another bidding competitor!! :)

Well then, Scott, do I have some things for you ............

I find this topic to be completely fascinating. As a child of the 1980s, I have always been taken with the concept of a rookie card. As I turned away from collecting cards from the 4 major sports in the United States (baseball, football, basketball, and hockey), and toward collecting, first, boxing, and now soccer cards exclusively, I have tasked myself with identifying and collecting the "rookie" cards of significant players. Soccer doesn't really have an international hall of fame, so deciding the players to collect is a unique part of my pursuit. I am aware of beckett's definition of what constitutes a rookie card. In my own pursuit I decided to try and find the earliest released card for each player. I definie "rookie card" as a player’s earliest appearance on an item made for either collectible or informational purposes. This broad definition of the term allows me to collect a wide array of items. I very much appreciate the ideas that you guys have of setting up a page/database that identifies several options for which rookie card to collect. I think it helps a collector who would prefer a traditional card as a rookie to collect, and also the collector who would prefer to collect the earliest collectible, regardless of the "medium" on which it is presented. I hope to emulate/imitate some of your work with regard to creating a soccer database.

I have never felt the need to collect rookie cards, but I could see building a collection of images of each great pre-wwi player.

'HOF' designation doesn't mean much to me, as the HOF is missing a lot of key players. 'Card' doesn't mean much to me, as a beautiful cabinet photo beats the hell out of an ugly 'rookie' card - besides, everyone has a different definition of 'card', and everyone has a different definition of what a 'rookie' card is.

Example - My cabinet of the 1906 Pirates has the greatest Fred Clarke image I know of. Why would I need a card that wasn't part of a set I collect?