Originally Posted by seanofjapan (Post 2115842)

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.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog (Post 2115948)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2115949)

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?

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2115957)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2115970)

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

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb (Post 2115896)

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

Originally Posted by JLange (Post 2115873)

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116005)

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.

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog (Post 2115948)

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2115961)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116009)

It would be everyone's Federal League rookie card.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116017)

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116035)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116014)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116040)

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116047)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116039)

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."

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116050)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116048)

Again, no. Are you trying to say Kid Nichols's N172 is a major league issued card despite him playing in the Western Association?

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116054)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116053)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116056)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116062)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116053)

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.

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2116072)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116060)

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2116076)

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

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 2115938)

Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2116062)

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.

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 2115239)

Packs

Do we know which Jackie Robinson card was issued first....the regular issue 1947 BOND BREAD card shown here, or his special series of 13 cards (example, your scan) ?

I remember pulling the regular issue cards from BOND Bread packages in the Fall of 1947.

The special series cards of Jackie were never available in our neighborhood in Hillside, NJ.

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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by h2oya311 (Post 2116006)

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2116074)

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.

Originally Posted by h2oya311 (Post 2116006)

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

Originally Posted by BobC (Post 2116111)

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.