Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe- you would never be able to play that game with orange borders! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey Ted,<br /><br />The Reulbach hands at side card...<br /><br />150 Piedmont first,<br /><br />then 150 Sweet Caporal,<br /><br />then 150 Sovereigns... right?<br /><br />So if Reulbach is also in Hindu, and nothing else, do you reckon Hindu was the 4th group of cards distributed???<br /><br /><br />Frank.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Exhibits:<br /><br />Since they are my obsession, I have to raise a point on this quote from Wes: "I also associate exhibits with postcards and do not put them in the rookie card equation. It could be because while not all of them do, some exhibits have postcard backs."<br /><br />Actually, the vast majority were never intended to be used as or sold as PCs. The first PC backs surfaced on the regular issue machine vended cards in the 1928 set and are a small minority of the printing from that issue. That means 7 years of production weht by without a PC back. And, by the mid-1930s they were basically done with PC backs. Almost none of the post-1939 cards have PC backs: there are a few known rare printings in the 1950s with Mutoscope PC backs on them and some of the 1961 Wrigleys have PC backs (again a small minority of the print run). The 1925-29 PC back set itself was initially issued blank backed, then had a PC back put on it, then had that back modified to state that the cards were not for use in exhibit machines (an early effort at product differentiation, I suppose). Since many of the key rookies (Gehrig, Simmons, Lazzeri, Gehringer, Comns, etc.) precede the printing of these cards with postcard backs, I don't buy the argument that they are postcards and not rookie cards. I'd argue that from 1921-27 (at least) Exhibits were as pure a collecting vehicle for baseball cards as you can imagine. They were sold nationally, without any other product, for the sole purpose of collecting. But if you insist that Exhibits aren't true rookie cards, please sell me your Gehrig, Lazzeri, Combs, etc. cards on the cheap. I will give them a good home, I promise. <br /><br />Prookies:<br /><br />Another of my pet issues. Philosophically, why do we care about rookie cards? Because they are first (or for the cynics, because Jim Beckett decreed 25 years ago that we should). But if there are multiple "prookie" cards that precede the "first" card, doesn't that destroy the significance of that "first" card? Can you have a first if there are one or more "before the first" and you have to attach an asterisk to it to explain how it is but isn't the guy's first card? The 34 Zeenut Dimaggio is his first card ever. The 36 R issues are his first cards as a major leaguer. Which sounds more impressive (hint: it ain't the latter).

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>"I'd argue that from 1921-27 (at least) Exhibits were as pure a collecting vehicle for baseball cards as you can imagine ..."<br /><br />boxingcardman,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. If Exhibits aren't baseball cards, than baseball cards don't exist. Just because they didn't come out with new, progressively worse designs every year (pick your ugly Topps issue), use bad combinations of colors (why do the 1965 Topps Yankees get pink?) and print statistics on the back that are difficult to read, it doesn't mean they're postcards. They're just big baseball cards, like Turkey Reds. Less colorful, just as thick, but way cheaper ...<br /><br />By the way, was Jim Beckett really the guy who was responsible for the rookie craze/hype/novelty? It doesn't surprise me. It's clear he's a very good businessman ...

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I'm glad you chimed in on the subject of EXHIBIT cards.....what took you so long ? You are our<br /> resident "guru" on this subject. First, I will say it's immaterial as to whether an Exhibit type card<br /> has a postcard back, or stat back, or a blank back. To me it is a rectangular piece of cardboard<br /> with a BB player's image on it.....and that qualifies it as a BB card....period.<br /><br />And, when we were kids, growing up in the late 1940's and throughout the '50s, we spent a lot of<br />our hard-earned pennies getting those Exhibits. We loved them as much as our Leaf, Bowman and<br /> Topps BB cards.<br />Actually, to some degree we appreciated them more since they were more like photos of the players<br /> than the artistry of the BB cards of that era (until the 1953 Bowmans came out).<br /><br />As Rookie card candidates, most Exhibits present a problem in that there is uncertainty in the actual<br /> date of issue of them. The 1907 Dietsche Cobb is an exception to this dilemna, as it is clearly dated <br />on the back.<br /><br />TED Z

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Exhibit baseball cards ARE baseball cards.<br /><br />Anyone who doesn't think they are should reconsider their criteria. Maybe Exhibits ARE cards and that crap that Topps and Bowman put out is merely bubble gum paper.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>"To me it is a rectangular piece of cardboard<br />with a BB player's image on it.....and that qualifies it as a BB card....period."<br /><br />There are many items that fit this criteria. Postcards are rectangular. So are box cutouts. And strip cards too. <br /><br />They might fit the definition of a baseball card since they are "rectangular pieces of cardboard", but I prefer regular gum and tobacco cards over postcards, strip cards, cutouts and exhibits. Just a preference. <br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Chris,<br /><br />The first Beckett's Baseball was issued in 1979, this just happens to conincide with the jump in the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle and a little bit later on the jump in the price of the '63 Topps Pete Rose Rookie. <br /><br />So it could all be coincidence but I don't think so. Beckett's has been instrumental in the Rookie Card craze.<br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I remember that Jim Beckett and Dennis Eckes, in the introduction to the 7th edition of "The Sport Americana Baseball Card Price Guide" (1986), said "the insipid rookie card phenomenon is still with us," and "the bubble has yet to burst." So they certainly weren't promoting rookie card collecting at the time, in fact they were a bit negative on it. [Insipid = "lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge."] However I would guess those comments probably can be attributed to Denny Eckes, Beckett's co-author for the price guides of that period, rather than Jim Beckett himself. In any case, I guess the rookie card bubble never did burst.<br /><br />Beckett and Eckes also said back then "there is no such thing as an EX-MT individual card. A card is either Mint or not Mint." At that time, according to their grading standards, the highest grade a card could be, if it was not Mint, was Excellent. But it soon became apparent to collectors that there were many cards that more than met the requirements for Excellent, but yet couldn't be called Mint. So all the intermediate grades EX-MT, Near Mint, Near Mint Plus, Near Mint to Mint, and so on came into common usage. This was important since so many of the cards sought by collectors, especially the post war material, fell into the Excellent to Mint range. These intermediate grades of course eventually became a part of the numerical grading systems in use today, where an Excellent card only gets a 5 on the scale of 1 to 10 (or with SGC, a 60 on the scale of 10 to 100).

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We cannot blame Jim Beckett for the "Rookie phenomena". Jim's first Price Guide (with Dennis Eckes) was out<br />in 1979. The Rookie craze was just starting by then. I just looked at Jim's 1979 and 1980 PG's and there is<br /> nothing in them identifying Rookie cards.<br /><br />Hey guys check-out these prices....from the 1979 Beckett guide.....<br /><br />T206 Honus Wagner....4800<br />E90-1 complete set.....1000<br />1933 Goudey Ruth..........90<br />1951 Bowman Mantle.....375<br />1952 Topps Mantle........500<br />1963 Topps Pete Rose.......5....YES, only $5.<br /><br />TED Z

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted, that hurts. I'll take 20 Wagners, please. I mean 30. Ok, 40.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My answer to your question about Reulbach's HINDU card is that this back was printed quite early in the<br /> 150 Series; but not before the Piedmont backs. They were first; and, the Sweet Caps must of been a<br /> very close second. I think the HINDU's were next. And, then the Sovereign's.<br /><br />I am certain of this because Mike Donlin's 1st card (fielding) has never been confirmed with a Sovereign 150<br /> back. And, if this back doesn't exist, it verifies that the Sovereign's were last to be issued in the 150 Series.<br /><br />There will be more to this story....so, stay tuned.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>My preference in this whole "Rookie Card" debate is to collect the player's earliest collectible that can be graded/authenticated by PSA/SGC while also being encapsulated within one of their holders. Each of my rookie collectibles is graded for protection and authenticity and the new larger size holders are making a big plus in the market.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Don't you find it interesting that a 52T Mantle was going for 5 x the Ruth cards ?<br /><br />And, if I recall, Wagner cards at a 5K value were not that plentiful at the time. In 1980 when the 52T Mantle<br /> jumped to 3K, the entire nation started taking BB cards seriously as a collectible. And, not only did the 52T<br /> Mantle's come out of the woodwork, but so did more Wagner's. By 1980 the Wagner's had jumped to 15K.<br /><br />Unless you were part of the "scene" in this hobby back then, you cannot fully appreciate the impact these <br />two BB cards (Mantle and Wagner) made in the hobby.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>I agree with those that have a broader definition of what constitutes a baseball card. I have never understood why a postcard isn't considered a collectable? Doesn't the person who sends a postcard to a friend or family member usually choose something with a subject matter that they believe would be of interest to the recipient? Like sending a baseball postcard to a baseball fan? Wouldn't that recipient likely hang on to that card, possibly even starting a collection? I know I would have, had anyone ever sent me one. As far as the requirement that some sort of product be sold in conjunction with a true card: It seems to me that the product (or service) being included with the postcard, is the mail service itself. You are essentially purchasing a postage medium, and getting a cool picture card included with that purchase. Just like getting a card with your purchase of lousy chewing gum!

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well I consider postcards baseball cards. Otherwise, I'd not have a card of Billy Sunday. And I just bought another A C Dietsche of a 1907 Tiger...<br /><br />I do know that the next rookie card I get, if he's slabbed, I'll break him out, and if he isn't slabbed, I won't send him in for grading. I can't stand having them put in something so bulky, that gets in between me and my card. If I do get a card taht I don't know about my self, there's enough experienced collectors on here who're willing to share their knowledge about cards, that I could post a scan or email them and they'd opine for free, so no need to pay someone else for an opinion when mine is either better than theirs or I can get a better opinion free.<br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You and I think alike.....so let's start the "BB Card Free Thinkers Society".....FREE your cards from<br /> that infernal plastic capsule, so the cardboard can breathe and live again. And if you have doubts<br />about a card you are interested in.....seek FREE advice from friends.<br /><br />Anyone can join the "Free Thinkers"....and, there are no club dues....it is FREE-EEEEEE.<br /><br />TED Z<br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>"I agree with those that have a broader definition of what constitutes a baseball card. I have never understood why a postcard isn't considered a collectable?"<br /><br />I think everyone agrees that a postcard is (or can be) a collectible, but is it a baseball card?<br /><br />Present day, postcards aren't considered baseball cards. But ... ?<br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have to agree with Frank, Ted, and Adam.....(that's a lot of agreeing going on)....although I do differ a little bit. I like to hold, smell, feel, fondle and so forth my raw cards...which is probably 50% of my collection...I also like to ogle and check out my graded cards...both kinds give me joy. The fact my most valuable ones are encapsulated means I don't have to worry about little flakes continuing to come off the borders and anywhere else (ask Tbob about that <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>)..I don't have to worry about someone (or me) taking one out of a top loader and messing it up accidentally either....and I will agree with Adam about the first card as opposed to the first major league card being the rookie card of a player. Except in a few cases (52 Mantle especially and many Topps issues) the first card, even when a minor leaguer, is more valuable. It's not a coincidence.....great debate in this thread...It's threads like this that I really enjoy.....good, clean, interesting debate....

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>Frank,<br />You're not a fan of graded cards? Huh... I guess you learn something new every day!<br /><br />And Leon, I hope you at least treat your cards to a dinner and a movie first! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I actually kiss them too.... AND I just hope I remember your face next time you knock on my door at home. I was so embarrassed. I will never forget that.....I know we had only met once before but still.....Talk to ya soon....btw, you need to hook me up with our IT purchasing dept <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.....

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Earliest card is always very cool to gaze upon, but has its own problems.....does the player's image need to be in sports uniform, or are portraits ok (aka N172 Anson)? And if portraits are ok, at what point do you establish that the person was engaged in their playing career such that it was not just 'school' ball, or other organized adolecent activities, or a family snap? If Cobb is captured at 14 in the card recently posted - showing him with other older players just pre his professional career, what exactly do we call that card? At what point does a family pic. become a baseball card worthy of being called their first?<br />I would personally go with minor league prookie as being the earliest possible legitimate 'playing' card, and would be happy if it were recatagorized as in fact rookie. If no such image exists, then their first professional card would be the rc. Anything earlier is just a way cool image in my eyes.<br /><br />And just to throw in again on the ageless slabbed/raw debate.....I've often thought that each side should be very happy the other exists, and celebrate both styles of collecting. Raw collectors make it possible to re-aquaint yourself with a card's living history in all its mustiness, and understand what it is to be a card. And Slab collectors act as curators for those same cards so that they may exist and be known by future generations. It can't be argued that the process of handling cards raw causes degrading of the paper itself, acids get into the stock which further break them down, surface flakes and wears, and the possibility of major tragedy such as tearing or complete loss much more likely while being passed around through older and younger hands. Being encased in plastic for me is much like putting a great vintage poster under uv protected glass and archived with the best acid free mounts. You get to still enjoy the image and lose yourself in its glory, but realize at the same time the importance of saving the remaining examples of original printings because they are so very special.....and they're still small enough to be easily palmed, turned around so that every suface is visible, and enjoyed - really!<br />Don't raw collectors want at least a few examples of each card in every issue protected thus, so that kids in 50 years time have the same opportunity to own and daydream about the game, the players, and history in general? Or if you can't have them raw, should no one be allowed to have them at all?<br /><br /><br />Daniel<br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>To think or imply (and no one has, I don't think) that someone who "collects" graded cards is less of a collector than someone who only collects raw; to me is like saying someone is less of an accountant because he uses a calculator.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Daniel,<br /><br />I agree with you why not collect both slabbed and raw rookie cards. All we need to do is give each side a denigrating name and people will avoid being solely slabheads or Puritans (raw card collectors). <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I always considered Exhibit cards to be trading cards. Excluding the argument about size, there were sold to the general public as collectibles.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with someone calling an overtly commercial/collectible postcard as a trading card. Many postcards have advertising and/or were sold as collectibles. Others were not.<br /><br />Some collectors place size limits on what is a baseball cards, and, thusly, exclude postcards and Exhibit cards. However, some 1800s trade cards and modern baseball cards approach postcard size (jumbo refractors). Most collectors call the 1964 Topps Giants baseball cards.<br /><br />Defining baseball cards in the field involves subjectivity, ala 'I know a baseball card when I see one.' With a Milwaukee Brewers Miller Beer beer coaster, most would say it's not a baseball card even though it's cardboard and rectangular. The common reasoning for it not being a baseball card would be, "Because it's a beer coaster, and beer coasters aren't trading cards." Most hobbyists, from Bill Mastro to a 17 year old Upper Deck collector, would agree with the verdict and reasoning. <br /><br />And the standard explanation for a stamp not qualifying as a trading card? Either "Because it's a stamp" or "Because it isn't." <br /><br />I'm sure many people who don't consider postcards baseball cards know that they're rectangular and made out of card board, but simply don't feel they qualify trading cards. They likely consider them nice and collectible, but something different than trading cards. To me, postcards are borderline. Whether I consider them baseball cards depends on the postcard and the time of day.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I love the slabs.<br /><br />I prefer having everything slabbed.<br /><br />not for the grades... which for the most part I don't care much about.<br /><br />but - the slab is nice and neat, and allows me to toss a big $$$ card to my kids without cringing as they look at the card.<br /><br />its better than a screw down!

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Joe,<br /><br />But would you want your kids to start calling you a slabhead instead of Daddy. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Hey JeffDrum...<br /><br />I love analogies. But realistically, NOTHING is like anything else.<br /><br />I've often thought that if I did what I was best at, it would be to teach mathematics. I have a knack for math, loved my two calculus classes in college. I taught college once, but not math...<br /><br />I can see that an accountant that uses a calculator may be no less of an accountant than one who doesn't. But the one who uses a calculator may well have less honed math skills than the accountant who uses pencil and paper, or does it all in his head. And a collector who collects raw cards, one who is able to identify cards and ascertain their authenticity, he may well know a bit more about cards than a few of the collectors who only collect slabbed cards and rely on what graders tell them about what they have, knowing not for certain themselves. Not always, but sometimes.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I have never taught math but I did teach Logic for two years @ Memphis State in the mid-80's when I was in grad school. Great fun to see the light go on in the students faces after working through a problem.<br /><br />You may be right; nothing may be like anything else. But I doubt that all collectors of graded cards collect because they are reliant on someone elses opinion in regards to authenticity. I myself have many cards graded and non-graded. I like the way they look, stack and the protection that the "slab" offers. But most of my cards that are slabbed were bought raw and submitted by me. I still buy most of my cards raw to this day. I am by no means an expert but I am self reliant.<br /><br />Collecting is great either way.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>It is the collecting that is great... yes, sir.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff, Frank, guys,<br /><br />The solution is simple collect both and avoid being called a slabhead or a puritan. Do any of you guys want to do a presentation at the National on how slabheads and puritans have ruined the hobby and collectors should join hands and celebrate the hobby. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I do collect both............and you can call me anything you want. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />My advice, try to find a more entertaining speaker than myself.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Peter, <br /><br />Thank you for the offer...<br /><br />I'll work on Jeff, will try to get him to agree for us to jointly speak, half seminar half discussion panel. We'd need limo to airport, 1st class round trip, limo to hotel, obviously a suite, per diem, honorarium, and some really interesting slabbed and unslabbed cards to have as door prizes... maybe a slabbed 1990 Griffey Jr, a raw Cobb green portrait, a slabbed 1988 Nolan Ryan, a raw Old Judge cabinet... you get the idea.<br /><br />Work on a package and I'll convince Jeff to do it.<br /><br /><br />Oddly enough, I've considered buying a slabbed T200 a few times. I don't have one of the little ones, and I've wanted one as a type card. Buying a raw one in person isn't so difficult for a puritan, but on eBay some of the raw ones I've wondered about... and therein is one of the two great beauties of slabbing. Another is that if I get a card slabbed it will sell better.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Frank,<br /><br />Your too expensive, we can probably get Barry to emcee at the National for less. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />But seriously, all this controversy over the definition of a Rookie Card is probably helpful to the card market. If Joe D. has two or three possible rookie cards then hobbyists can get excited over 2-3 cards instead of just 1.<br /><br />Peter<br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I do not see any of this as subjective, borderline, nor open to interpretation. To me, an item is either a card, or it is not. If you hold it by its edge, and it does not support its own weight, it is not a card. Good bye Mello Mint, Dietsche, bread labels and other pieces of paper.<br /><br />In order to be a rookie card, the card must depict a player after he has made it to the Majors. Good bye Zeenuts, Obaks, and other minor league issues.<br /><br />The '52 Topps Mantle is fine, but it is his Topps rookie.<br /><br />Beer coasters, like Dixie Lids are cards, as are blotters and anything which meets the rigidity criteria above. This definition does not require the materials of construction to be primarilly cellulose, but allows plastic, metal and other card materials.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />I hate to keep going back to Beckett's definition, but what I like about it is that it's clear-cut and easy to apply. People may not agree with it but it is easy to understand.<br /><br />In order for a card to be a card there must be a copyright date on it, otherwise, the card is subject to being reproduced at a later date. Also, the card should be approved by MLB. And finally, it should be nationally distributed by a known baseball card manufacturer. So the Post Cereal cards should be considered cards.<br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well I think that definition is crap...<br /><br /><br />The T206 Wagner doesn't have a copyright date on it, so that's why it is copied and reproduced... That would not dare happen with a 1933 Goudey card of Dizzy Dean, no reprints of it 'cause it has a date and copyright. Right...<br /><br />Goudey Gum cards weren't approved by MLB, 'cause MLB didn't exist back then...<br /><br />Nationally distributed, nonsense. Fred McMullin's rookie card in my mind is his ZeeNut card. No national distribution there.<br /><br />And lord only knows who the true manufacturer of the ZeeNut card was... I understand ZeeNuts distributed them, but who printed them??<br /><br />Frank.<br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>"People may not agree with it <i>but it is easy to understand.</i>"<br /><br />Well, I guess that settles that. As long as it's easy to understand, you know.<br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I see your point.<br /><br />Easy to understand but inadequate is better than too complicated for 5th graders to understand.<br /><br />(Now before someone flies off at that 5th grade jab, "5th" grade is the point set by that new TV show, and my Mom taught 5th grade. When I was 7 she treated me like a 5th grader, when I was 17 she treated me like a 5th grader...)

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>Well if you are comfortable saying that the 1933 Goudey is Babe Ruth's rookie then Beckett is the way to go. If comfort and not being taken seriously is what you're after, then Beckett may be the way to go.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />In a way it doesn't matter what we think about Beckett's definition anymore. A couple of weeks ago I was looking at a '33 Goudey Mel Ott holding a bat and the dealer said that the '33 Goudey was considered a rookie. Of course, he was referring to Beckett's definition.<br /><br />Peter

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>VTRon</b><p>Naturally we all have opinions, so I'll add mine.<br /><br />Many opinions on what constitutes a "true rookie" card are self-serving, being that the person owns the card and wants to have rookie card value associated with it.<br /><br />If a sport card is part of a multi-card set of the same sport, and it is the first time a certain player is featured in such a set, and the set is 'generally available to anyone', that would be my definition of a rookie card, whether the set is licensed or not by MLB, NBA or otherwise.<br /><br />This doesn't mean the rookie card would be the most valuable card of a particular player. There may have been other cards issued prior to such a set that could be more valuable. That would depend on supply and demand.<br /><br />I did say multi-card set of the same sport because multi-sport sets would not likely feature most/all players of the same sport. Neither by this definition would cards issued for one particular team only be regarded as containing rookie cards.<br /><br />Add your opinions.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Before you consider what constitutes a rookie card (umm I may be a little late here), shouldn't you consider "why collect them in the first place"?<br /><br />Afterall: why would anyone care? Now I could certainly understand collecting a player's final card (if there was such a thing) which was issued immediately following his last season. And showed his lifetime stats.<br /><br />But I remember rookie cards from the 50s. Nobody wanted them! Who was Aaron in '54? Clemente the following year? Nobody! Now a Musial, Williams, Mays, and lots of others - they were sought actively. But rookie cards were cards which you wanted to get rid of. And I still do.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>and that is exactly what dealers were thinking when they invented the "Rookie Card" and it helped to sell a lot of cards.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank C</b><p>Great topic, good enough to lure me out of lurkdom...<br /><br />Funny this came up, I had recently decided to put together a HOF rookie collection, and was struggling with these very same issues in compiling my HOF rookie master list. After all the debate here, I may just have to scrap the idea altogether. But it really bugs me that there is no definitive and widely accepted definition of 'rookie'! (or 'card', for that matter). <br /><br />I think I'm just gonna go back and continue my slow climb of the Monster...

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Hal Lewis probably has a pretty good list of HOF rookie cards, even though his definition of "card" is wrong <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> and I would always prefer a Baltimore News Ruth to the M101.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Gee, I am surprised that this old thread has been reprised. Anyhow, I just wanted to say it was great meeting and talking with you,<br /> Scott, and Leon at booth #542 last week. I already knew Jay, and it's always great seeing and chatting with him.<br /><br />Collecting "rookie" cards for me is an incidental thing, as they just happen to be part of any given set that I am trying to complete.<br /><br />TED Z

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Frank:<br /><br />I can provide you with a pretty good list of HOF RC's if you would like.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Frank C</b><p>Phil,<br /><br />Yes the list would be great. E-mail fcastro@zoominternet.net.<br /><br />thanks

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Gil, please feel free to send me all your rookie cards that you do not want!<br /><br />Phil,<br />If you have such a list of HOFer RCs, could I be so bold as to tag along with the same request?<br />Please send to leinbergeranz@yahoo.com if not too much trouble<br />Thanks in advance!<br />Jason L

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Paradis</b><p>Phil has a great book listing (with illustrations) each HOF'er's RC. We may not all agree with his definition of RC, but it's a great place to start. It seems like this would be the forum to promote your book Phil?? I love the book and review it every time I bid on a RC. <br /><br />Dan

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Thanks a lot, Dan. I'm glad you are enjoying the book and using it as a useful resource tool!!!<br /><br />I am presently working on an updated version of the book with many new items that I have added to my collection over the last year when I published that book and hope to have something out by December. Unlike many collectors who upgrade their collection by card condition, I focus on obtaining a piece that pre-dates my earliest item of a particular player and then typically sell that item in order to afford my next purchase.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Paradis</b><p>Phil, that's exactly what I do. It seems to be getting more difficult (and a lot more expensive) lately to get a vintage HOF RC card!! Are there a lot of collectors who collect just HOF RC (as opposed to collecting sets)???<br /><br />Dan

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Ted, <br /><br />It was great meeting you on Friday. Thanks for your time to discuss the '49 Leaf set. It was a real pleasure. <br /><br /><br />As for rookie cards, I consider a rookie "card" as a player's first issue, regardless of postcard, baseball card, or other. I suppose it's all in the definition of "card." <br /><br />

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>In Topps Allen and Ginter 2007, there's a Jack the Ripper Rookie Card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter C.

Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i define a rookie card as the 1st image (with his name) of a player on cardboard. very simple.