I don't, but I would love to own one. The only thing bigger than a T201 Mecca I would consider a baseball card is an Exhibit. I make an exception for those because of the unique, random way they were distributed. If there were a bunch of players you could only find in W600 that would be one thing, but all those guys have actual baseball cards. A 5x7 you get in the mail goes against the spirit of what a baseball card is. Opening up a pack of cards (or cigarettes or gum or a box of Cracker Jack) and pulling a card out is a fundamental part of it.

EDIT: Also, because of the long production period for W600 (1902-1911), it's hard to know when a player's card was produced, although I'm sure there are ways to tell. When did Chance's W600 come out?

Ohh, I like that one. As to the latter part of the definition, I would look at intentionality when it comes to items like strip cards: was it meant to be cut out and stand alone? If so, it's on my list for sure. One of the bigger controversies in boxing cards is about Muhammad Ali's first card. There are two very early M-style issues: 1960 Hemmet's and 1962 Rekord.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...met%20Clay.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...%20PSA%204.jpg

Some collectors don't care for these because they are cut from larger media. Others contend that because they can stand alone and were designed to be cut out, they are cards.

The W600 of Chance that I posted came out in October of 1902.

Thanks. I thought he looked pretty young in the photo.

I copied and pasted the below from my original post in this thread. These discussions always go down the same path and end the same way, collectors will agree to disagree on what does or does not constitute a rookie card. Due to this perceived "controversy", the hobby never accepts a universal answer to the question, what is the true rookie card for XXXX. This lack of a clearly defined answer prevents the mainstream hobby from making this segment of collecting BB HOF RC's an important part of vintage card collecting. There is such great potential here but it all ends up never being realized at the end of the day because some individuals are more intent on proving that a definitive answer is not possible. Let's work toward the solution for the betterment of everyone that chooses to pursue this type of collection.


"I strongly believe that the first step in identifying rookie cards, especially pre-war, is to have a consensus where the vast majority of collectors agree on what constitutes a card and what does not. Working towards that goal will make it possible one day to have that definitive rookie card list available as opposed to those trying to find fault with the system and arguing every parameter that is trying to be established by the majority of us collectors. I believe that if you break down the parameters that I have previously identified one by one, you will find that each and every one makes sense and there might not be a better alternative. If there is a better one though, then we all should try and champion the cause to follow that through.

The first parameter that I created for identifying rookie cards is that neither minor league nor amateur cards be included. My reasoning for this is that they have their own clearly defined designation as being pre-rookie cards. This includes things such as Zee-nuts, PCL Exhibits, etc. This in no way deters the value of these kinds of items as many are more highly sought after than their MLB counterparts, it is simply something that does not meet the definition of what we are trying to define as a rookie card.

Secondly, no team cards are considered to be rookie cards as each individual player image can be so small as to possibly not even be discernable. Since Topps, the leading card manufacturer for over 70 years now, used this definition over the years limiting rookie cards to a maximum of 4 players on a card, I have done the same for rookie card qualification.

Next, I have chosen not to include 1-of-a-kind items for the obvious reason that this entire endeavor is being done to grow the interest in pursuing pre-war rookie cards and an impossible task as searching for only one item in existence is only going to frustrate the collector. Instead, I move on to the next possible option going in chronological order. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to own the "true" rookie for that player, kudos to you but then no one else can.

The next item that I address is the exclusion of stickers, stamps, paper premiums, etc. as the various item names indicate, they are not cards and whether or not they are encapsulated by a TPG company does not change that.

Another requirement for my rookie card qualification is that the card must be catalogued. Typically, the old Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards is the go to source for this. Unfortunately it's been a number of years since the most recent update to this previously annual issue. Now that Bob Lemke is no longer around RIP, I guess Krause never found anyone to pick up the editing duties.

Finally, I do not include team issued items as being considered for rookie card status. Most of these have been paper photos over the years and are not cards. Some did issue postcards which makes them more of a gray area but since they are not part of any kind of advertising or regionally/nationally distributed set, I choose not to count them. This is probably the one parameter that could be argued either way but mostly comes into play with post-war rookies and the main focus of this entire endeavor is to identify pre-war rookie cards."

I agree, except the minor league issues.

Agree, except I think pins should also count--hello Cameo Pepsin

An example of just what we are discussing occurred in Al's last LOTG auction. I consigned a Fleishman Casey Stengel with coupon graded SGC 1.5, which I believed to be his first MLB card. The result was somewhat disappointing. Shortly thereafter, SB in his auction offered up an Old Mill T210 Casey, which got a lot of attention and did well.
Just an example of the complexity of this issue.

That's mostly because of Beckett. Rookie cards were a thing, supposedly because most players didn't become huge stars until after the typical 3-4 year window for kids to collect so they didn't get saved.
Think like early 50's, when someone might save a couple favorites from moms purge of "junk" Mickey Mantle and a couple personal favorites got saved, but that Aaron kid who only hit 13 homers last year? Nah, he's in the bin.

When minor league and draft pick sets got really big, some dealers hyped guys who might never even make the majors cards as "rookies" some definition was needed. So Beckett being the unofficial arbiter of everything (Kidding/not kidding ) Made one up.

Local issues, team issues, limited anything was out. Minor league cards were out, update sets were out. I forget exactly how it really reads, but it should have read

A rookie card is the earliest card of a player that exists in enough quantity for all dealers to benefit from the hype.

Total nonsense in my opinion.
Then since some complained, they came out with XRC for cards from update sets, FTC, FDC, FFC -first card for that plater from a manufacturer...

Other than peoples fascination with "firsts", there hasn't been a real reason for rookie cards being worth more since around 1977, maybe earlier. That was sort of the beginning of hobby shops proliferating, catalogs that listed what cards were in what set, people realizing they could buy a stack of 100 of almost any card they wanted to put away...

I don't see making any semi "official" checklist not include cards simply because of the expense.

BUT, for your own collection, I think it's fine to use you own criteria and collect as you want.
Heck, I've just changed mine to "the oldest card of a player I can get for under $10."... and now I'm complete at least pre-war.

I know Beckett had a major influence on those things, but it was all for the good in my opinion. And it's not all that complicated. First card in a widely distributed MLB set. That generally guarantees it's a card that collectors can actually find. It would be less good if Jackie Robinson's rookie card was the '47 Dodgers team issue or Bond Bread. It's better for collectors that his rookie cards are Bowman and Leaf.

Post-war collectors are heavily influenced by Beckett, no doubt. Pre-war collectors are heavily influenced by Burdick. All this is largely for the good. But just because something is "in the catalog" doesn't mean we have to bow to that. Receiving the designation W600 doesn't, in my mind, bestow baseball card status upon a 5x7 portrait one received in the mail.

EDIT: And expense isn't the issue. It's being able to find the card. If cards are virtually non-existent, why bother making a rookie card list at all.

The W600 is a cardboard set of baseball players. They are very clearly baseball cards. And the set contains Rookie cards. Collectors of all types can aspire to own them, or just admire them, or choose to not consider them like you. Whatever!

Normally I'm all for "whatever" but the point of the thread was to create a consensus for prewar rookie cards for the purpose of increasing interest in that corner of the hobby. I'm mostly in step with the OP, except for these oversized, not randomly distributed issues like W600.

I think the consensus is that W600s, T3s, N173s, T5s, and similar issues are baseball cards and can be considered rookie cards. Their method of distribution or size was not something I thought excluded them from being baseball cards.

Technically, T cards were not directly available to many people (children) because they could not buy tobacco products. It's not a perfect analogy, but as you said in post 75, "the point isn't really if Midwest kids in the 30s could find one, it's can we find one?".

W600s do have a long issue date but there are four different mounts and also team changes that can help date them. For example, Old Cardboard consider the W600 with Bresnahan on the Giants as his rookie cared https://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/roo...tail.asp?id=27 but not the later one with him on the Cardinals.

Close to a consensus on this thread for sure, but I've seen it debated elsewhere. And random distribution is definitely a must for post-war rookie card eligibility. (Topps Now doesn't count as a "true" RC, for example.) I probably try to unify things across eras too much, but to me randomness feels essential to what the spirit of a baseball card is. But feelings can be wrong.

But we literally can't find one. Total pop (PSA+SGC) for W600 is 448 and there are 465 players in the set. Less than one card per player. I know there are lots of ungraded examples out there, but the graded population is at least a way to compare one set to another. Old Judge isn't exactly plentiful, but that average pop/player is 35.

Well, it is a fun discussion and something that will probably never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. First we need to agree on what a card is. Then we need to agree on whether something that is not a card (say a pin, leather, felt, or newspaper supplement) can be included because it is a collectible.

Then we need to decide whether the distribution method matters. Then we need to decide if "rookie" means first minor league (or earlier) collectible or first major league collectible. I guess group image vs. individual image is also in play for some people.

The one thing I will disagree with you on is that "literally can't find one" is not the same as "it exists but is very rare".

If we can agree on the other terms (like what a "card" is and what a "rookie" is) then I don't think rarity or cost should come into play. If a collectible actually exists, and it meets the other criteria, then I would count it.

Although we could certainly have a list that differentiates between attainable items and one-of-a-kind or exceedingly rare items.

It is his first MLB card and is therefore worthy of designation as his rookie card. That said, minor league cards, particularly scarce ones from popular sets that predate a player's MLB debut are understandably more expensive than the same players' later rookie cards, but I think one of the issues the hobby is close to a consensus on (and with which I agree) is that a card issued prior to the year of a player's rookie season is not a rookie card -- though as I've pointed out a few times there are more than a few -- what's a nicer word for hypocrites? -- who claim to agree but also think that Derek Jeter has a rookie card from 1993.

To me, the parameters for what constitutes a rookie card are very clearly defined here. There is no debate that the 1903 Allegheny Frank Selee is his rookie card. Given that the entire set is believed to have only one copy of each card in existence, it is a monumental accomplishment for the one individual in the world that owns it. Since this set was a prototype and never reached the commercial distribution stage, it is extremely unlikely that another set will ever surface. The same can be said for the 1894 Alpha Photo Engraving Baltimore cards which include 4 Hall of Fame rookie cards: John McGraw, Joe Kelley, Hughie Jennings and Wee Willie Keeler (unconfirmed). Only one set is known to exist, always possible one or more could turn up but after 130 years, probably not. I don’t know if the same individual owns all of these cards or they are owned by multiple collectors. Again, kudos to the owner of each, nobody else will ever own one of these unless the owner decided to part with them. There are other similar scenarios such as the 1893 Just So Tobacco Cy Young and Jesse Burkett. I think there might be a second or possibly third copy of a player or two from that set. Again, an impossible task to find one of these. So we as HOF rookie card collectors can either accept the fact that we can never obtain every one and move on with collecting them anyway or we come up with the next best thing (although it might not be the true rookie card, it allows us to continue the chase).

That's the major difference.
To me it's all about what came first. That some early stuff is extremely uncommon doesn't affect what was first. Beckett took an approach more like yours. I have always believed that it was done mostly to benefit dealers and keep collectors in the mainstream.

That "we" as a hobby can get the date wrong on something as recent as 49 Leaf when it's both fairly clear and there are people still around who bought the cards new (Hi Ted!) says a lot about how few collectors even consider what isn't "in the book" having firsthand knowledge should make it easy. But it's not.

What defines a "major set"? 48 Bowman is only 48 cards, and probably shouldn't count, but it does. Probably because of its place as pretty much the first postwar set from a gum company. Many of the 1800s cards were part of sets that were 50 cards, but only a handful of baseball players.

The "what's a card discussion" is a totally different topic, one that's got so many twists and turns because almost no matter what definition you use there's an exception. As well as cards that were issued in multiple ways, usually both as cards in packs and a complete set. I see a LOT of room for interpretation there. To the point that if someone wants to claim stuff like mail in premiums are not cards I can see the logic to it. The sportscasters were issued as "sets" by subscription. making them essentially monthly publications. The Spot Bilt Brett supposedly came with shoes, but it a one card "set" So many variations of that...

I agree that Dr. Beckett bears some responsibility about the confusion and controversy that this subject has raised over the years. For example, I believe the run up in Mel Ott's '33 Goudey price recently is Jim's designating it as his RC when we, at least the people on this Board, know that is not the case.

One way to unify that is to go by the set, not the player. Only consider cards from MLB sets. That would eliminate minor league cards (1914 Baltimore News, 1980 TCMA) but allow for pre-debut RCs like 93 Jeter, 85 McGwire, and 60 Yastrzemski.

Exactly, Stephen. The same goes all the way back to the 1880’s and N172’s. They were issued primarily for the Major Leaguers of the day but also included numerous minor leaguers as well. Handling this way qualifies rookie cards like Kid Nichols and others.

One issue I have with ultra-rare sets like W600 and E107 are the incomplete checklists. E107 says on the back there are 150 cards in the set, but only 148 have been identified. Today I'm assuming that T206 is Carl Lundgren's rookie card (it's not Allegheny!), but what if tomorrow someone discovers he was in E107?

Same with W600. Because of the way it was distributed, you could never know for sure which players were in the set, and thus our rookie card list could always be subject to change. Which seems problematic.

That's right. Not giving up my Old Judge Clark Griffith "Milwaukee" RC.

Don’t.

Over the years, many changes have taken place which affected rookie card status. The majority of the time, this has to do with changes to the issue dates of certain catalogued sets. These included: Novelty Cutlery postcards, R315’s and many others. As new evidence comes forward, rookie card status sometimes has to be updated for some individuals. Ross Youngs is an example where a player’s first name was misidentified in the W514 strip card set and was not known to be Ross up until about 10 years ago. That update made the W514 his new rookie card instead of National Caramel. You just have to always be aware that this could happen and that includes spending a lot of money on what was once believed to be a rookie card and later was discovered not to be. It comes with the territory and if you want to play this game, you have to live with it. This happened to me three different times with the Novelty Cutlery postcard set and Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and Eddie Collins. Set was originally catalogued as 1907-09 but has since been determined to be a c1910 issue.

I tend to go with the earlier collectible items and a broader definition simply because the more restrictive the criteria, the more items are left out, often to the point of absurdity. A player might have ten or more years of MLB cards, yet that history will be ignored in favor of an artificial distinction. Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It is easy in an era of nationally issued cards to demand a mainstream issue across the country to be a RC, but that just wasn't the experience before WWII.

So many of our concepts in this regard are based on tradition or inertia or some guide that someone wrote.

It would be nice to be able to accurately rank the hobby's opinions about what aspects of a pre-war RC actually matter. I'm not as experienced with the audience of opinions as some of you guys, but the people I've talked with are as all over the place as the opinions in this thread. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's something to talk about and that's part of the hobby.

There's opinions on RC's that I can understand, but I don't personally follow for my collection.

I'm not willing to die on the hills I choose to stand on in the "What's a RC" battle, but there's stuff I count as RC's that others have a legit reason to say they don't count (regional issues, (WG)game cards) and some stuff I don't count (oversized/exhibits) that others argue absolutely count.

Until the hobby finds some consensus on things most people can agree on I'm collecting my way and arguing my view on why my 1934 Batter-Up Augie Galan is his RC while others would call it a XRC and some would say it shouldn't count as either because it's a "novelty" card and not a real baseball card.

All that you mentioned would qualify as rookie card candidates to me.

People always make this subject way more complicated than it really needs to be.

I personally want the first distributed collectible featuring that player (hopefully by themselves) doesn’t matter if it is a card, a disk, a pin, a leather, a stamp, or an 8x10 team issue.

The parameters we all put are all by their nature completely arbitrary and will make sense only to the person making them.

I will tell you this…the criteria used by Beckett are insanely stupid. They list Babe’s 1933 Goudey as his rookie! Insanely stupid!

+1

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...20DiMaggio.jpg

Rhett is exactly right, all seems quite simple to me as well. A Eureka stamp can be a rookie, a Cameo Pepsin pin can be a rookie, a team issued premium can be a rookie, a Colgan’s Chip disc can be a rookie & an L1 leather can be a rookie. I think I covered them all, huh?

The M101-4/5 is a Babe Ruth rookie card, it’s a rookie collectible and I think it’s safe to say that we can all agree on this one, it’s also a card. That’s the difference between all of those others that I mentioned as compared to the Ruth. For some players, their rookie “collectible” as it might be called also fits the definition of a card, like the Ruth. Those are clear and easy to determine. It’s the other cases where the rookie “collectible” comes at least one year or more earlier than their first card distributed. Collectors like Rhett would prefer to have the earliest “collectible” and would gladly take an L1 leather of GCA if it was distributed a couple of years before his rookie card. Rookie card collectors would probably go with the earliest “card” instead. This is where your collecting preference comes into play, to each their own.

Why isn't the Baltimore News Ruth a rookie card? Because he was not in the majors?

Yes, Peter, a pre-rookie card is the term for it as opposed to rookie card. This does not take anything away from the importance of that "pre-rookie card", more times than not, especially in the pre-war world, the pre-rookie will be valued significantly higher than the actual rookie card.

Since it pictures him with a minor league team in a set that features minor leaguers, I would call it a pre-rookie card, for whatever that is worth. Same thing for DiMaggio’s batting pose Zeenut card.

So why is (just to use one example from the early 90s) a 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera a rookie card? He was three years away from the majors. 1985 Topps Mark McGwire, at least a year away and maybe it was two. Or are you going to be consistent and go against overwhelming hobby consensus here and call those pre-rookies?

The traditional reason is that those are major league sets, and thus the collegiate and minor league players are still rookies. It’s all structured around achieving the outcome that the Topps card is the rookie, since people can profit more off of mass produced hype cards instead of obscure cards that not enough people can get onboard the profit train with to inflate.

Sure, that was the rationale until the RC logo came along, but can you make an intellectually honest and consistent case for why the Ruth is not a rookie but the Rivera is?

…. No… that’s my point.

What's Yaz' RC? :)

Quite a few modern collectors treat the 1987 Topps McGwire as the RC and the 1985 as a pre-rookie, on the Zeenut DiMaggio theory. Not that it matters to most. Personally, I prefer the first card, not necessarily the first MLB card. I'd much rather own the 1977 Chong Modesto A's Ricky Henderson than the 1980 Topps RC.

Adam do those same people do the same for all the early to mid 90s cards issued before major league debuts? That would be news to me but not disputing it. I can't imagine calling all the 93 Jeters pre rookies for example.

And never heard of anyone call the 60 Yaz a pre rookie.

Comparing pre-war and post-war cards is like comparing apples to oranges. All of the post-war rookie cards have already been identified in the hobby for many years now. The challenge is to identify the pre-war cards. Any monthly magazine, annual guide or standard catalogue been able to do that yet? And, Beckett listing every ‘33 Goudey as a rookie card does not count.

There is still some controversy about the so-called XRCs from the 80s, and apparently the McGwire is not a done deal either.

The rationale is that 1992 Bowman is a major league set, and 1914 Baltimore News is a minor league set.

Nobody thinks Goudey is the Babe's RC, not even Beckett. But fixing it now would mean fixing Beckett's entire pre-war database and they're not going to do that. Beckett has always been a post-war resource.

I'm ok with the rookie issue/rookie card separation, but we don't really need to designate the rookie issue for all these players. Just look at the catalog and take the first one. Identifying the rookie card is the challenge, but I think it's worthwhile if we actually want to make collecting pre-war rookie cards a more appealing corner of the hobby. If you're a pre-war rookie issue collector, other people being pre-war rookie card collectors won't have any effect on you.

Nevermind a card not picturing a player in a major league uniform, that 92 Rivera doesn't even show him in any uniform. when I first saw cards from that set, I was thinking it's nice they included the groundskeepers.

Although it might seem like a pretty easy task on the surface, all pre-war baseball issues are catalogued, at least in the SCBC, in alphabetical order by set name. Thus, just looking for the first issue of a player and coming up with an instant answer is not only an impossible task but would take countless hours, literally months or even years to complete. As luck would have it, I already tackled this endeavor about 15 years ago now and posted a comprehensive list of every Hall of Famer's "earliest collectible" here on Net54. Separately, there is another thread which identifies rookie cards specifically. When I have a chance later today, I will post the links here so that anyone who is interested can easily access the info. Why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, right?

I always thought the Baseball Hall of Fame should have a separate wing devoted to best groundskeepers of all time.

Brian

Here is a link to the Rookie Card list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...s+hall+of+fame


Here is a link to the Earliest Collectible list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...llectibles+hof

Phil. These are great. Thanks for creating and posting

It should.
I'm not sure how to calculate WAR for the guy sloping the foul lines depending on if the team bunts a lot or not, or making sure the footing at first is not great when Henderson was playing...

I am a long the lines of Derek in that I try (in most cases) for the earliest issue (accessibility and cost in consideration) of a player, be it a team issue, a supplement, strip cards (in most cases, still can't get myself to get the Frisch), Exhibits, etc. I am content with my Manush and Duke. I won't be running out to get the Goudey and Bowman "rookies" of these two. I am happy to call these two issues rookies, even though they don't fit the traditional definition of a card.

I am the same way with books. I used to collect first editions and I would always prefer the advanced reading copies/uncorrected proofs as they preceded the "first editions," even though the first editions are more valuable and the ARCs traditionally have been ignored.

Phil--why isn't the Selee rookie the 1897 Whitehead and Hoag pin?

This is awesome work Phil. I see in it a dozen ways you and I disagree on identifying rookie cards, even post-war (Jackie Robinson?), but your methodology is consistent and has a lot of support in the pre-war community. Post-war collectors will think you're nuts, but that's ok. Part of the fun of my 1882-2023 collection is I get to butt heads with all of the above.

Jay:

The Cameo Pepsin Selee isn’t on the rookie card list simply because it’s not a card. It’s also not the earliest collectible of any kind (1887 Oshkosh team cabinet) in order to appear on the other list. However, if you eliminate team images, the Cameo might very well be his rookie from an individual standpoint. I never pursued that to be sure but off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything else that pictured him individually between 1887 and 1897.

Oops, meant to say Whitehead & Hoag Selee, not Cameo Pepsin.

I’ll throw my hat in the ring. It’s far from complete (from a shared images perspective), but the “checklist” I have for each baseball HOFer is about as good as it gets. I doubt there’s much I’ve missed over the years. Half the fun has been finding and discovering new items to add.

Anyway, I started with Phil’s amazing research and have added about two decades worth of additional research and perusing AHs and eBay listings that would put most people to shame. The website is my attempt to give any type of “rookie” collector something that speaks to them that could be construed as a “rookie” and meet at least one definition. If you have a spare couple of minutes/hours, enjoy my website and let me know if you have any proposed edits (or images I don’t already have). You might find some stuff you never knew existed:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

I probably need another 6 months or so to “finish” the project. I’ve supplied early images for about 1/3 of the 342 members of the Cooperstown HOFers. Some players will have upwards of 20+ images devoted to that player - like Cobb:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest/tycobb

And Jay, fear not! Your amazing Cameo Pepsin “On Time Starch” Pin of Sellee will be the featured collectible for him since I prefer the earliest individual item for each HOFer for my personal collection. If you ever…

Happy collecting!

Amazing stuff, Derek. I just looked at a few scattered listings, you have done such a comprehensive job between images and identifications. Once complete, this will be a monumental accomplishment (as if it isn’t already).

Keep up the great work!

Phil and Derek - Awesome work. I only follow a few players and know how difficult it is to come up with this information. I cannot imagine how much work it is to thoroughly cover so many!

The most amazing part of Derek's site is not the cards -- which of course is a phenomenal enough contribution -- but all the early photos which in so many cases predate the cards. Just astonishing work and attention to detail. One of the great labors of love this hobby has seen, and a resource second to none.

I've already spent hours on your site Derek, and I did in fact find things I never knew existed. Great resource.

Amazing work by Phil and Derek! The hobby owes you both a debt of gratitude.

There are a lot of pre-war sets that have multi-year distributions, but people have done a lot of work figuring out what years they actually came out.

Such as:
1886-90 N172 Old Judge
1902-11 W600 Sporting Life
1908-10 E91 American Caramel
1934-36 Batter-Up
1934-36 Diamond Stars

Has any similar work been done for 1909-11 T206? The variations where the team changes are easy to tell which one came out first (Lundgren, Dahlen, Demmitt, etc.). But does anyone know, for example, which Frank Chance came out first: batting, portrait red, or portrait yellow? Or if Piedmont was made in 1909 but Hindu not until 1910, or whatever. I can't imagine there would be any way to tell, but people have studied the heck out of that set so you never know.

I haven't looked at that specifically, but for most HOFers with multiple cards they usually came with different series, and the approximate dates for the series are sort of known. Like 150s were 1909, 350s 1910 and 350-460s 1911. It gets a bit messy, since many individual poses crossed over and were in multiple series. Like all but 12 or so of the cards that were in the 150 series also appear in the 350 series.

Breaking it down by brand is more complex.

Tim Cathey to the rescue:

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

But I think the juice is generally not worth the squeeze with these, as far as determining rookie cards. Except for team changes, I think the simple solution is to consider all T206 subjects to have 1909 release dates. I don't think most people have a desire to declare Piedmont 150s rookie cards but Piedmont 350-460s not.

EDIT: But it does look like Chance's red portrait card was the first to be released. I know we're settled on E107 being Chance's rookie card (or W600 if you're into that), but if T206 was his rookie card, do we think there would be support for only putting the label on the red portrait? It first was released in 1909 but the batting and yellow portrait cards not until 1910.

T206 would never be a Chance rookie card.

If T206s had been Chance's first cards then yes, the 150 series red portrait would be a rookie card and the 350 series yellow portrait would not be. Similarly, we know that Tris Speaker didn't have a T206 until 1910, so if he did have any cards released in 1909 or earlier the T206 should not be considered a rookie card.

I did say "if" Phil.

Technically I see how all that is true.

And it would only be the 150 red portrait, the 350 red portrait would not be.

If Piedmont 150 and Piedmont 350 both came out in 1909, wouldn't they both be rookie cards?

I'm sure this already exists somewhere, but I made a master list of all the T206 sets with all the variations, using the data available on T206resource.com. With the series, print group, and year for each card. Only 5,694 cards to build the master set! Hal Chase has the most combinations of any single player at 81.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Next up: Old Judge!

They did not. Series 150 came out in 1909 and Series 350 came out in 1910 (series 460 in 1911).

According to Tim Cathey they started printing print group 1 with 350 backs in 1909.

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

It’s unclear, but there is support that 150/350 subjects were released in 1909. That said, it stands to reason that series 150 came before 350, otherwise, why distinguish. Regardless, I don’t want to bicker - you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what qualifies as a rookie, so we will just add this to that list. Regardless of when the t206 red chance came out, it is 0% NOT his rookie.

I would be ok calling all 350 series cards 1910 for the sake of simplicity, but we can be pretty detail-oriented around here so I wanted to get it right. And I'm on board with making the practically non-existent E107 Frank Chance's rookie card, you all beat me into submission. I was just using his T206 as an example.

Thats because the print groups are very generalized. The subjects in print group 1 started in 1909, I have doubts about the 350s actually starting in 1910. (Or maybe I have forgotten, there's so D*** much to remember. )

At any rate, there's The 150 only cards, the real print group 1
Then what I'd call 1A, the ones that started in 150.
Then what I'd call 1B The subjects that carried over from 150-350 Often with subtle or not changes in the masters used.

Add in incidentals, like Magie/Magee which may not have been direct replacements, as Magie has several small but identifiable differences that coincide with back flaws that Magee doesn't have.

And at least some 150's came three different ways, indicating three different press runs even within the 150s.

At least one, possibly a small group of 350's is possibly because of the use of leftover sheet fronts from 150 production.

I think of the Published print groups as a general introduction, one that most people can grasp pretty easily. The expanded info is there, and still open for some debate.

So were all 350's 1910? Maybe not
Were some 350's 1909? Maybe?
The carry overs between 150 and 350 that have differences, have almost no cards that should be 150 but with a 350 back.

What makes for a rookie card is simple compared to those.

Chance. Rookie
 

This is his rookie card!:)

Man that’s just a big old piece of paper. But if you’re looking to get rid of it I’ll take it off your hands. ;)

Some might even argue that this is his “rookie” (no longer mine) depending on one’s definition:

1898 The World of Sport Chicago Orphans Team Photo Premium:
https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...20-%201898.jpg

Chance is image 12, back row (Catcher)

That is F-ing COOL!

Yes, very cool…but doesnt say he is a “splendid type of manhood” unlike his teammates as does the M101-1!

LOL! That is awesome! How did I miss that?? You’ve gotta love the backs of old time baseball “cards”!