The old SCD catalogs blindly followed Beckett in many cases. Even they listed '49 Bowman as Reese's rookie card. For the rcord, I consider both his '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards as his rookies.

It seems to me there are three reasonable standards, off the top of my head:

1) A "rookie card" is exactly literal, it means a players first (rookie) card. His first season is his rookie year, his first card is his rookie card. Thus, a 1960 Topps is Yaz's rookie, the 1947 Bonds Jackie's rookie, 1947 Tip Top is Berra's, and 2009 is Trout's. 1 of these guys probably has an earlier card I don't know about and I am wrong, but it illustrates the picture.


2) a "rookie card" means a card from the players first year, the rookie reference is not to the card itself (as it has nothing to do with whether it is his first card), but is a card from his rookie season (not his debut season, which is different) in the major leagues, a "card of a rookie". Thus Trout's Rookie is a 2012 because while he debuted in 2011, it was not his rookie year. If Trout's 2009 cards are not rookies because a rookie card has nothing to do with what card came first, but is based on being the card from his rookie year, then his 2011 isn't a real rookie either. Yaz's rookie is a 1961, Jackie's still a 1947 Bond Bread.


3) A "Rookie card" is a card from a players debut season, the term is a misnomer but it is too late to change its widespread use in the hobby to "debut card". And thus, Trout's real "rookie card" is a 2011, even though his rookie year was 2012, because he first appeared in a major league game in 2011. Yogi Berra just doesn't have a rookie card, since he debuted in 1946. Yaz's is his 1961 again.


2 and 3 both mean that many players simply do not have a rookie card, because no card was made in their rookie or debut season. 1 means many players rookie cards are obscurities or pictures them in a non-major league uniform (1985 McGwire, tons of modern guys in minor-league team sets).


Arbitrary standards that have been concocted for profit or to make collecting easier so that nothing but Topps cards and a handful of other sets counts don't seem reasonable to me (it also makes pre-war rookies non-existent except for maybe Goudey, arguably T205 and T206); it's adding completely arbitrary rules designed to be enforced selectively and to create the outcome that is desired. This isn't a rational methodology. I think one should pick 1 or 2 or 3 (or a fourth non-arbitrary standard that is not rooted in selectively picking the rules to create a pre-determined outcome if there is one) and follow the standard the same way for every player and card.


I personally lean towards the literal 1, the first card, no matter the uniform he is in, if it is ugly or beautiful, if it is a regional or a super-printed in the tens or hundreds of thousands Topps card. I think 2 is fully reasoned as well, 3 a bit less so but still reasonable. The standards chosen must be applied equally and the same across the board, or it is not a standard definition at all and simply cherry picking favorites (though "first card of this player I want in my collection" is a perfectly fine thing to collect if one so chooses). The standards should be chosen on reasonable grounds, without regard for whether or not it achieves the outcome one desires or is ones fiscal interest.


Any system in which the rules are different for different things it is applied too, or the selective rules are arbitrarily picked to determine what it was desired would be determined, is an inherently unreasonable and illogical system and should thus be dismissed.

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

you mean this one?

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...5%20Palmer.jpg

And since we are trying to stick to pre-war, I'll add that most forget about this one of Big Country:

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...0Slaughter.jpg

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

Amazing that I’ve been in the “rookie” card game for this long and didn’t know that. I thought it stood for extreme, not extended. Bwahahaha!

That Palmer, and your Omaha Gibson, are true hen's teeth.

Here are some pretty basic parameters for determining Rookie Card eligibility for vintage baseball cards:

- No minor league or amateur baseball card issues (those qualify as pre-rookie cards)

- No team cards (maximum of 4 individuals on a card)

- No stamps, stickers, paper premiums, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

- Must be catalogued "CARD" (nothing bigger than cabinet card size)

- No team issued items, i.e. photo packs, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

These are the parameters that I used for publishing my 4-Sport Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Guide. I believe that following these rules takes much of the bias out of things while enabling one to make clearly defined choices for rookie card status.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...e%20Comp_1.jpg

The Paige on the left with 'An Exhibit Card' is a 1949 issue as well and has picked up steam in the last year or two as a RC.

1947 Cleveland Indians Picture Pack Larry Doby
 

This is Larry Doby's “First Card" - a 1947 picture pack photo from the Cleveland Indians set that year. This was the first year in a string of picture packs for Cleveland going well into the 1960s. The Larry Doby card pre-dates his regular issue Leaf and Bowman cards by 2 years. This set is still found regularly on ebay and other venues, and is still very affordable. That may be changing though as graded picture pack cards of other HOFers are starting to get some real attention. I count this Larry Doby card as my earliest card or collectible of his.

YSo you're saying '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards should count as rookies, correct? And does that mean W desginated strip cards count as well? After all, they are called strip "cards", so they would seem to fit within your parameters as well.

Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war
 

Here are Paige and Larry Doby from my 1948 Indians Team pack. I have several different Team picture packs from the late 1940's. Your picture appears different than mine.
Also, Larry Doby’s first game with Cleveland was July 10, 1947.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...xdobypaige.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war
 

Adam

Do we have an exact 1949 timeline when the Satchel Paige exhibit card was issued ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Reading this makes me wonder why the hobby doesn't have a term that designates a player's best or most desirable card, regardless of whether it is a rookie card (by whatever definition) or not. Like their "Key Card" or something, (only to designate the player's most sought after card rather than the most sought after card in a given set).

Like obviously Mantle's 52 Topps card is his key card even though it isn't his rookie. But there are lots of other examples of players whose best cards (here we can use market value as a proxy for "best", though that is also a debatable usage) aren't their rookies. Everyone knows which ones they are, yet we don't have a commonly shared word to describe that. Which seems strange to me.

I raise this because most of this debate on what constitutes a true "rookie card" seems to focus on relatively arbitrary points (whether a guy had played an MLB game yet at the time the card came out, how widespread the set was distributed, etc) which don't really seem to affect the value of the card to collectors much. Does anybody care that Carl Yastrzemski hadn't played in MLB yet when his 1960 Topps card came out? No, or at least not enough to affect the desirability of that card.

Looking back on how Beckett used to develop various terms to describe things that weren't quite rookie cards back in the 80s, it always struck me that their main reason for doing so was to somehow recognize key cards which were problematic to describe as rookie cards, which illustrates the problem. Like when they used to put "FTC" after "First Topps cards" it was obvious they were just doing that to accomodate the 52 Mantle (and then having invented the term applied it to every other FTC that came along even though nobody really cared). Same with "XRC" for cards in the update sets, only their purpose there was to maintain the "RC" designation for the regular cards in the following year's sets.

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

Concerning the first portion of your post, the only reason why the 52 Mantle is considered his "key card" is because of where it was printed and what happened with the high series cards from topps' set that year. Had Mantle not been a member of the high series or had Berger not commissioned a literal boat load of them to be dumped in the ocean, I'd argue that Mantle's 52 card would probably fall somewhere in the range that his 52 Bowman is in, right now.

Objectively speaking, I don't even think it's his best looking card. Sure the 52 topps style is beautiful, But his 53 topps looks better, I'd argue the same about his 56 as well as his 51 Bowman.

All true and I agree with that, though I wasn't necessarily questioning why the 52 Mantle is his key card but rather why we don't have a generally accepted hobby term to describe cards like that (regardless of the interesting histories which caused them to be so).

It strikes me that if we had such a term which became generally accepted in the same way "rookie card" (by whatever definition) is today this would probably affect the way a lot of cards are valued.

Probably the best example would be players whose rookie cards are on multi-player ones, compared to their early "solo" appearance cards.

Take Gary Carter for example (I'm an Expos fan). His 1975 Topps card is his most valuable (ignoring post-career limited auto cards or whatever). But he's just a little head shared with three other guys. Its not great looking.
His 1976 Topps card in contrast is really beautiful and colorful and shows a young Gary in all his glory. The two cards are from sets that are about equal in terms of how many exist, etc. Yet the 1976 Topps Carter is worth less solely because we can't attach a commonly recognized term to it like we can for the 1975 Topps Carter even tough almost everybody would agree the 1976 is a nicer card of him.

If we collectors had a term like a player's "Key Card" (or something) that we all knew and recognized the meaning of instantly which we could attach to the 1976 Topps Gary Carter, I think it likely that it would be way more sought after than his 75 card is. But we don't, so his 1975 Topps card wins because we all know what a rookie card is (doctrinal debates about the precise definition of the term aside). Which is kind of a weird distortion of the baseball card market if you think of it.

That is just one example, there are quite a few others with much more significant value that I think one could discuss. Guys whose rookie cards are in easy to find lower series, but who have cards later in their career in hard to find high series are maybe another example.

IMO
85 McGwire Olympic is a rookie -- it's in a Topps Major League set.
86 West Palm Beach Randy Johnson is not a rookie -- it's in a minor league team set.
92 Rivera in street clothes is a rookie -- it's in a Bowman Major League set.

Here's one that has me stumped though. Why isn't 2016 Topps Now Aaron Judge -- issued after his ML debut and in a Yankees uniform -- his RC? I believe lots of Topps Nows have RC designations, why not this one?

First card
 

I prefer the term “First Card.” To me this says what I need to know - that this is the first known card of a player. You could also add further qualifiers like First MLB Card to distinguish from minor league issues, or First Card with XYZ Team, or First Solo Card to differentiate from multiplayer cards, etc. Everything else that comes after that are not the first card. They may be key or mainstream or more desirable, but they are not the first. Even with my preference for a term like “First Card,” I am not opposed to clarifying or re-defining what is meant by “Rookie Card,” as right now it’s not an overly helpful hobby term.

Yes, Bob C., that is correct. Those are some of the easiest cards to classify as rookie cards, no doubters.

For those raising the issue of minor league players in major league sets, is there a standard cutoff about what number or % of players in the set (or what number or % of cards in the set) can depict minor leaguers before it's no longer considered a major league set?

Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war
 

Hey Guys

A little too much "verbiage" going on here :) Time for some more card displays. Lefty O'Doul is one of my favorites. Personally, I think he should be in the
Hall of Fame. His rookie year was 1919 with the NY Yankees. I'm not sure which card is his rookie card, he is featured in the 1918 ZEENUT series (but it is
a PCL card). Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...tyODoulx50.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...eyODoulx50.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...33x234xx13.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...esODoulx50.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I'm in the minority of enjoying the multi player rookie cards better, because to me it captures the essence of the time when the player was unknown and not good enough to warrant having his own card, and thus harkens back to the time when the HOFer was just first cutting his teeth.

I think threads like these, if put out in the mainstream, would simply educate collectors more and let them make determinations better, and then contrived classifications won't really matter as much.

A collector can still call the 1949 Leaf Jackie Robinson his rookie card based on the 'Beckett rule', but then also realize that there are actual baseball cards of Jackie Robinson made before the Leaf. It gives collectors more options. In this case, since the Leaf is the most expensive of all of them, it actually gives the collectors a more affordable option to have a baseball card that is earlier...and then you can wink when the Leaf card gets the press knowing you have an even earlier(more rare/better) card of Robinson.

Same for the '51 Bowman. Its nice as a collector knowing that you have Mickey Mantle's rookie card...and then you can nod with pride knowing you got a 'one up' on the other card when that gets all the press.

Peter:

You are right on the money for all three of those cards.

Again, take a look at the five simple parameters that I use, if a card fits all of those guidelines, then it qualifies as a potential rookie card, if no other qualified rookie cards of that player pre-date it.

Also important to note that all qualified rookie cards from the same year are true rookie cards, whether one was issued earlier or later in the year than another does not make it the only true rookie card. It could be considered the first rookie card produced and may sometimes be accompanied by a premium because of that but not necessarily so.

Glenn:

You are correct, sets that consist of predominantly Major League cards but also include some Minor League/Amateur players would qualify for rookie card status. Examples of these would include N172's, '85 Topps McGwire, etc. From around 2000 on, the card companies started defining what constitutes a player's rookie card so once you get modern/ultra-modern cards into the conversation, things change dramatically. That's why my parameters are designed strictly for vintage cards.

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

What about a set like Cracker Jacks or some of the Coupon sets that feature a heavy Federal League presence? Are those considered major league cards?

Yes.

Yes, Federal League was considered a major league in its day and records are incorporated into players stats.

Can you discuss your perception of the Federal League a little more? I brought it up to talk about perception. The Federal League was actually founded in 1913 but only the 1914 and 1915 seasons are “counted” as major league.

Personally I see the Federal League as a mirror of other “major” leagues that are not THE major leagues. Like the Japanese League and how an earlier discussion of Ichiro differentiated between Japanese rookie and MLB. Federal League players had cards issued among major league sets but I don’t think it can be said they were MLB cards if the MLB existed and they weren’t playing in it.

Understood but I think the acid test for a US league is whether the stats count.

Who counts the Federal League stats though? Baseball Reference or MLB? I honestly don’t know.

I think both?
Contributions of those four other groups — the American Association (1882-1891), Federal League (1914-15), Union Association (1884) and the Players' League (1890) — were recognized in a 1969 report by MLB's Special Committee on Baseball Records.

Thanks. And agree with you.

The Federal League is counted as a major league by MLB, also by Baseball-Reference and basically every other compiler of statistics readily available. I'm not sure that it SHOULD be but it is universally recognized as a major league. Further, I'm not aware of any significant players whose rookie card is a federal league card, or of federal league cards from 1913, so I'm not sure this is relevant anyways.

I substituted "first" with the word "earliest"...but this is a great post. I have "earliest" photos that pre-date "earliest" cards. There's a lot of grey area out there, so why not allow people to collect what they like!

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

It would be everyone's Federal League rookie card.

There are certainly several "rookie" cards of HOF players that were not yet in the majors.

For instance, Kid Nichols' 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Omaha of the Western Association (minor leagues). Similarly, Clark Griffith's 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Milwaukee of the Western Association.

Interesting point. So with the recent acceptance and inclusion of Negro League player stats now counting as major league baseball stats, are there any cards or sets for those Negro League players that crossed into the majors that could possibly now be considered their true rookie or first cards, instead of the Bowman or Topps cards that had previously been considered their rookie or first cards? I do not really know of anything myself.

I'm not aware of any officially licensed Negro League cards but many Negro League stars have rookie cards in Cuban and Caribbean sets.

So Frank Robinson has a National league rookie card and an American League rookie card? I suppose this can be technically so (just as every player has a "rookie card with X team" or any other qualifier one wants to add on), but I don't think this is a definition used by anyone or relevant to the discussion here.

Well, no. The American League and National League are part of the same league. The Federal League, though I guess considered a major league, was still an entirely different league.

This is not correct, they are not part of the same league. The American and National Leagues remain separate leagues to this day. They began to cooperate a bit in 1903, they remained separate. The National Commission had little power, the commissioner's office was only created in 1920. The American and National leagues even then remained separate legal entities until 2000, and remain as 2 different playing leagues to this day.

The American and National Leagues are not the only recognized Major Leagues. That a player's rookie is dependent on each major league is not a standard I have ever heard before. If it is to be a standard, it should be made the same across the board; if 3 Finger Brown now has a Federal League rookie card in Crack Jack, then Frank Robinson has 2 rookies as well.

This is an odd line to draw.

Most of the focus here has been on what a "rookie" means. This gets much more difficult at least for prewar if one focuses on the question what is a "card."

If you say so. The Federal League was a separate league as evidenced by it's own champion and non-competition against major league baseball.

The American League champion played the National League champion in both 1914 and 1915 because those teams were part of major league baseball, or the same league.

It's surprising one of the successful Negro League teams didn't put out a team set somewhere along the line.

Major League Baseball is not a single league, the American League and the National League constitute the current MLB umbrella organization that is composed of these two leagues. This umbrella organization did not exist at all until 1903, and remained fairly toothless for quite some time after that. The Federal League has been universally recognized as a major league, along with several others, for many decades. I guess no player before 1903 has a Major League rookie, by your redefinition of what "major league" means. Cy Young's first major league card is now his E107. "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are not the same thing, one is a description of the level of play and acceptance in the stat books, the other is an actual organization.

Again, no.

It is possible to be a rookie in one league and then another and have them both be considered major leagues. But it is still not major league baseball unless you're playing in major league baseball. Ichiro is the perfect example. He played major league baseball in Japan but it was not THE major leagues. He became an MLB rookie when he played in the MLB. It can go the other way too. If you leave MLB and go play in Japan, are you not a rookie your first season in NPB?

I love the Socratic, start with defining what we mean, both "rookie" and "card".

I would start by proposing: A collectible trading card is a cardboard-stock item, dominated by an image, made with an intent to distribute in some way, whose image is not intended to be separated from the rest of the card and does not have pages.

Which is to say it must be card stock of some kind, must not be a sticker, and must be made with some intent of distribution to exempt home-made items that could never be catalogued or checklisted and exist in unlimited supply and type. Me gluing a photo of Barry Zito to construction paper doesn't make it a collectible card.

You just busted up half the soccer rookie cards out there by saying no stickers.

There have been endless discussions of card definition over the years here.

You are not reading what was written. The Western Association was not a major league. The list of major leagues was already posted by someone else on this page. The Japanese Leagues are not recognized as a major league in the US. It is a very specific list universally recognized in the United States by the current MLB, Baseball-Reference, and essentially every other compiler of statistics. The Players League, The American Association, The Union Association and the Federal League have been universally recognized as major leagues for decades. This has recently been expanded to include 7 negro leagues as well.

Again, eliminating the Federal League does not even change any significant players rookie card. A players major league rookie card does not mean The AL and NL after 1903 only. There were other major leagues that have been universally recognized as such for decades.

In other words the Federal League may have sucked but get over it.:eek:

There are many items catalogued with cards that are not cards. I like the M101 Sporting News Supplements, but they aren't cards. I don't think a sticker is either, a sticker is intended to be removed from the piece that makes it a "card" at all, and thus is something else. Doesn't make them any less cool or less rookie, just not a card. If a thin paper sticker is a card, then most any paper-stock item is, I think.

I like Federal League history, but they sucked and I think it's level of play was significantly below the NL and AL ;)

When asked, what is art?, Picasso allegedly replied, what is not? That would be my answer. I would rather go by feel than rigid definition. I would count an M101-2 for example, but wouldn't count a Type 1 photo or pin or decal. Not sure I can define the difference in every case.

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

Solution:

Just buy all of the early cards of a player that you can. In the end, you can name them whatever you want.

No one has said this. The Players Association was a major league. The Federal League was a major league. Major League Baseball, the capitalized business entity, consists of the American League and the National League. No one has said the Federal League joined a partnership with the American and National Leagues under a unifying umbrella organization.

I still believe a lot of that "Beckett type" thinking comes from those early Topps sets that along with the regular, main cards sets issued every year would often have separate, ancillary, non-regular card type sets issued over the same years as well. Sets of pins, stamps, stand-ups, coins, deckle edges, transfers, and so on, were issued alongside the regular sets in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't remember a single instance during those early years where Topps ever included a player in one of those non-regular ancillary sets unless that player's card had also been included in the regular, main set of Topps cards for that same or an earlier year. And in those cases where a player's card in the regular set was deemed his rookie card, if he were also included in whatever ancillary set was issued by Topps in that same rookie year, that ancillary set item (stamp, rub-off, super, transfer, game card, whatever) was never referred to or listed as a rookie card or item for that player. And I feel that influence/bias from those collectors following Beckett's lead in what was a rookie card then, carried back to have a major influence on the rookie card definition pre-Bowman/Topps.

But how many ancillary sets even included first year cards? I don't know some of the sets that well but none in 64 Giants, or 64 Standups, or 65 embossed, or 68 Topps Game, or in the coin sets I can think of, for example.

A card is anything I like and want to have and need to justify having a reason to add to my card collection!

I wouldn't go quite so far, but I trust my instinct for what feels like or close enough to a card more than I would some abstract definition, I think. The Malcolm Gladwell school of rookie cards.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...15%20ODoul.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ODoul%20pc.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...17%20ODoul.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ty%20odoul.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...quDoul%202.jpg

Take your pick...

A lot of people are splittings hairs on the proper definition of a "major league". Some I think are being too literal in that they are more narrowly defining a major league team as having to belong to the legally formed and organized Major League Baseball as we know it today. But professional baseball has been around a lot longer that just the inception of the American and National League organizations as we know them today. Because of that, I think you have to look more at the overall level of talent of players in a league or on a team to determine if they are at a major league level, as opposed to only accepting players and their teams as major leaguers because they play in a league that calls itself part of Major League Baseball. When you go back to the Federal League of 1913-15, or the Player's League of 1890, they both included many stars and everyday players from the reconized Major Leagues at those times. So the players and talent were on par with the reconized Major League teams, so why shouldn't they also be considered major league teams as well. And the fact that the MLB and the HOF both recognize and count the stats of players in those non-traditional leagues as being part of their major league career total records pretty much seals the deal that those were in fact major league players on major league teams. And now that inclusion is being expanded even further with the recent recognition of Negro League stats as being part of a player's major league career stats. So in effect, MLB and the HOF have now more or less officially sanctioned the Negro League as part of major league baseball, whether you like it or not.

Away from my research atm, but 1st card (facsimile) in set of 13 was issued first. June/July of 1947. When I'm at my computer, I can provide the exact month.

That said, I'd still classify both the set of 48 and first in set of 13 to be his RC.

Old Gold Kneeling first distributed Sept 1947

Impressive list, Derek! Majority of those items I didn't know existed.

1946 Brooklyn Team Pack
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...GESBGS_NEW.JPG


...if you didn't want to wait until 1947....


...

Didn't go looking at all the years, but remember Reggie's '69 Topps card is his rookie card. He was also in the '69 Topps Decals set, the '69 Topps Super set, and also included on the '69 Topps Team Poster of the Oakland A's. None of his items in those three ancillary sets ever get denoted as rookie cards or items. It will be the same for any other rookie in any other year I believe.

Great website Derek. Thanks so much for putting that together.

Not baseball, but the other one that immediately springs to mind is O.J. Simpson's Super Glossy and Topps Super cards in 1970, alongside his regular issue "RC". Sellers seem to consider them RC's, buyer's not so much

Totally agree. There is only one team "set" that I can think of off the top of my head. In 1931, the Harrison Studio produced real photo postcards of the Homestead Grays. The collection included both a team postcard and those of individual players, including Josh Gibson.

Right. Of course if the JD McCarthy postcard is actually 1968, and the uniform would suggest that, then what?

Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war
 

Mike

Gil did not play with the Dodgers in 1946. He played for their farm team, Newport News (129 games, BA = .278 with 8 HR's). He joined the Dodgers in the Spring of 1947.

Although I was a NY Yankees fan in my youth, I really loved watching Gil play. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. SEVEN consecutive years driving in 100+ RBI (1949-55).
If anyone in BB deserves to be in the HOF, it certainly is Gil Hodges.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Killibrew's rookie is his '55 Topps card, and he's also in the Topps '55 Doubleheader set as well. And once again, his ancillary Doubleheader card is never referred to as his rookie card.

Hector Lopez's rookie card is his '56 Topps card, and he's got a'56 Topps pin issued also that is never referred to as a rookie item.

Zoilo Versalles, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Bill Stafford, Jim Brewer, and Juan Marichal alll have '61 Topps rookie cards, and are also all included in the '61 Topps Stamps set issued. And of course the stamps are never referred to as a rookie issue or item.

Don Schwall has a '62 Topps rookie card, and is also included in both the '62 Topps Baseball Bucks and Topps Stamps set issues. Jack Baldschun, Tim McCarver, Joe Torre, John Edwards, and Bob Rodgers all have '62 Topps rookie cards as well, but are only included in the '62 Topps Stamp set. And once again, with no rookie designation for items in either of these ancillary sets.

I'm going to stop there, this should be more than enough to satisfy your question. Likely more players will have items issued in ancillary sets during their rookie years as well if I keep searching. How hard did you look? LOL

Absolutely right. And of course the sellers want to claim those others as rookies, so they can mark them up and charge even more .

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.

Don't disagree with your point at all. I'm still saying though that the baby boomers who fueled the initial surge in card collecting popularity and prices back in the 80's were most familiar with Bowman and Topps sets that came out when they first started collecting. So no surprise then when Becket first comes out and primarily bases the concept and definition of what is a rookie card on those early Topps and Bowman sets. That subconcious bias is a main reason why lots of people still make certain claims, like Ruth's rookie cards are his '33 Goudeys, which is his 20th season of playing major league ball. Makes no common sense at all.

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

Yeah and parallel insert cards get the RC treatment too.

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.