Your site is fantastic! Tremendous research into the earliest cards of these HOFers! Love it!

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

I agree. I mean you can still have a hierarchy, with the non-subset McCovey being the primary RC or whatever.

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

No reason that thinking can't evolve to be in line with today's designations though.

+1

Of course you mean it is your opinion, right? I have read many different opinions on this thread as to what a rookie card is and it seems like this will always be an individual choice at the end of the day.

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit

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

Adam

My folks took us to the Jersey shore when we kids in the late 1940's. And many of the Arcades on the boardwalk had Exhibit vending machines.
I poured a lot of pennies into them getting Exhibit cards. Although, as you probably know, I was an avid Yankees fan. I would try to get most of
the Yankees. However, I was very impressed with Satchel Paige in 1948.
I've gone thru my Exhibit card collection from my youth, but can't find the Satchell Paige card. Perhaps some one will chime in here with a date.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Agreed. I should mention that the 1946 Minoso cards aren't in MLB uniform. Nonetheless I have always found them more interesting (although I do like 52T Minoso a lot...it's a great looking card!). AND since MLB recognizes Negro League careers/statistics now, I see a good argument that these Cuban and other cards of NL players could be considered major league cards....

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

The chase is no fun when it's easy ;)

Peter/Bob:

Where this logic fails in today's world is that, in an effort to get every possible card an "RC" logo on it, the manufacturers issue that designation on numerous subset and insert cards. That's where everything changes in the modern and ultra-modern card markets.

Yes that is certainly what they've done, but what other than past convention says it's necessarily wrong? Maybe the old school view that there could be only one RC from a set is dated.

I actually much prefer the new method of sticking an RC on contemporary releases across different products. It gives you the ability to choose your card. I often find the Heritage cards the nicest rookies and am glad I'm not stuck with whatever's available. Some really good players have awful rookies if you only go by first bowman.

The only RCs I have refused to own so far are BKB cards, 1974 Topps George Gervin 1975 Topps Moses Malone and 1981 Topps Kevin McHale. All "pinheads" where you can barely see the player's face. Thankfully, all the postwar HOF baseball RCs are IMO at least presentable.

I don't know how anyone can own either the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera or the Chipper Jones. Yikes.

I'm also not really partial to multi-player rookies but I've always thought the Jack Morris 78 Topps was the worst of the worst.

This Morris is better.

Much preferred.

Nice Trammell and Whitaker in the set too, IMO.

+1

And again, this rookie card fixation seems to borne from the 80's surge in collecting, fueled mostly by baby boomers remeniscing about their early Topps and Bowman cards. Because those were the card sets (and the rookies from them) primarily in collector's sights back then, the widely accepted definition of what a rookie card is, put forth by the likes of Beckett and others at that time, were based on pretty much solely those early Topps and Bowman sets. Pre-Topps/Bowman vintage, and even more so pre-war vintage, were nowhere near as popular back then as they've grown to be today. So that being the case, Beckett and other hobby influencers at that time didn't really care how their definition didn't really fit in with pre-Topps/Bowman sets. So they just tried to shoehorn those earlier sets in to fit the definition of a rookie card for the more popular Topps and Bowman sets at that time. And that's how you ended up with the stupid idea that Babe Ruth never had a rookie card till his 20th season in the majors.

Fast forward to recent years and now you have the card manufactuers purposely trying to dictate what is a rookie card, and also expand the number and variety of those rookie cards being produced every year to continue driving the way and reason cards are sold primarily online today. So why are we letting the card manufacturers call the shots on what is a rookie card today, especially since their sole reason is only to create more interest and more sales with modern collectors? Not much we can really do to change that, but here's the rub then. Hopefully at least some of these modern collectors will eventually find their way into the pre-war side that we are already into. And in so doing they will naturally lean toward a rookie card definition more in line with the way they collect modern cards now. So down the road I can see the idea that cards from different sets and types put out in the same year will be more widely accepted as all being a player's rookie cards, not just the one base card from their one main set. So if a current player's rookie card can be a die-cut, autographed, game-used, booklet, or limited number card, why for the old vintage player's can't it also be a doubleheader, super, stand-up, stamp or some other oddball kind of card or related item that can be considered a player's rookie card as well?

What it sounds like is some others are kind of suggesting that we maybe have different rules or definitions for different years or periods of time. So should we have different definitions of what constitutes a rookie card and have one for say 19th century cards before the major league as we know it today was really established? And then maybe a different definition for the pre-Topps/Bowman era starting around 1900 and going to 1947, followed by a Topps/Bowman era going from 1948 to around say 2000? And then finally a modern rookie card definition running from around 2000 through today? I don't know for sure if that will end up being what happens, but I'd like to think as a hobby that we could eventually come to a consensus and more or less agree upon one rookie card definition that covers all eras.

I think you guys were referring to this one. Agreed on SSPC set being issued in 1976, not 1975.

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...rsley%20PC.jpg

That is the one (and maybe the only).

I'm not sure if I'm right but I thought for the most part the rookie card
designation started with Beckett's.

Here's an article from the Feb. 2007 Beckett that covers some of the attributes
that they used at the time.

Attachment 465519

Attachment 465520

Attachment 465521

Attachment 465522

Attachment 465523

Interesting how in the definition it says a rookie card is just the base card from a set put out by one of the major card companies. So is there a separate definition of what a "major card company" is somewhere? Doesn't say anything at all about having a national distribution either.

Mentions how in some instances Beckett would also go against the Major League Baseball rules of when a player was or was not a rookie, and how the card companies would also make their own designation of a card as a rookie card, also contrary to MLB, sometimes to get the card of a player out there for marketing and sales purposes.

So who in the collecting hobby ever gave Becket, MLB, or even the card companies, the right to decide for us as collectors what is or isn't a player's "rookie" card as defined by them? Beckett has attempted to assume the position of being the self-proclaimed, de facto voice of the collecting hobby, and supposedly then tell us what the rules are for what we collect and how we determine the condition and value of those items. When the initial card surge started in the 80's, let's face it, those Beckett price guides were everywhere, with their definition of what a NM or VG-EX card was, what was or wasn't a rookie card, and probably most important of all, what the perceived value was of a card and how the condition of it affected it's value as a percentage of that particular card's NM perceived price. All those new people jumping into the hobby back then used their monthly Beckett magazines they had picked up at the grocery store as their own condensed collecting bible, and blindly adopted and believed everything in them was the gospel of the collecting hobby.

Well that time has passed and no one that I know seems to really ever read or follow Beckett anymore. Yet the influence and bias of those early Beckett rules and ideas of value and condition were so pervasive back then that they still permeate and influence the hobby today. What I've always thought would be best is to eventually have some recognized group or organization formed by and for the collectors (not dealers, card companies, auction houses, TPGs, etc.) to be the one to decide what counts as a player' rookie or first year card or collectible, to determine and codify the grading standards of all cards so they are uniform and the same and subject the grading companies to independent, periodic, outside review of their grading standards and procedures, not allow each TPG to just do what they want, and to possibly set up an overall registry system for the hobby that includes all graded cards, and not just certain ones. These kind of changes would put more control and direction of our hobby in the hands of the true collectors, and not have the guidance and direction of it being dictated to us by those that have a more vested/monetary interest at heart. Probably never happen anytime soon though, but can still dream.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ni%20Spahn.jpg

1947 Sports Exchange Spahn

A couple of underappreciated (IMO) and really tough to find rookie cards

Adam and Chris! Those are simply outstanding!!!! Love that '47 Sports Exchange Mini Sheet w/ Spahn and, of course, the absolutely impossible '46 Sears PC of Musial. I don't have either of those. I'll have to settle for these for now:

1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange
https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...ahn%20W603.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...3%20Musial.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...6%20Musial.jpg

Notice that the '46-47 Propagandas Montiel uses the same image as the '43 M114 Baseball Magazine Premium (just tilted a little).

Here's another Musial you don't see too often - 1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange:
https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...ial%20W603.jpg

Rookie Stamp ?
 

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

..a lot of nostalgia with this roster....Joe Garagiola with hair...and who can forget "Slats Marion"....


...Eureka Sportstamps Issue in 1948


..

Now "1975" SSPC cards were actually issued in 1976? Ay caramba. It's tough keeping up with all of these updated dates of issue. Why are so many still being corrected after so many years?

I think the Eureka Sportstamps were issued in 1949. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to hear about it! That would be, as my 8-yr old son says, epic.

The SSPC set was definitely issued in 1976. Here is a pretty good blog post about it.

http://1975baseballcards.com/card-spotlight-1976-sspc/

Lots of sets have been assigned erroneous dates over the years. I imagine that when the hobby pioneers were researching hundreds of sets that they guesstimated the years for many based on a cursory look at the players. The subsequent guides, publications, grading companies, etc., copied that misinformation and most of it was not corrected until collectors did more thorough research on a particular set.

https://cdn.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-1039x1536.jpg

1946 Sports Exchange Trading Post Musial issued 4/1/46. The precursor series to the W602 and W603 series.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...w602-and-w603/

This is how I feel, many of the dates "updated" in recent years are fairly obvious. Boudreau's "1948" Leaf card, Clarkson's "1887" A&G, SSPC's that were even marketed as a 1976 issue by the company. The catalog's and websites are unfortunately replete with assumptions, half-truths, questionable narratives labelled as fact, and untruth's amidst actual facts. It gets even worse when one ventures outside of the big sports

Thanks, Kevin. It’s easier to understand for the older issues, but I would have thought that the date for something more recent like SSPC would have been nailed down from the start. Oh well. Thanks for the info.

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

G1911

"Most valuable player in 1948" was awarded to Lou in December 1948. This LEAF set was definitely issued in the Spring of 1949.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...udreau25xb.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...oudreau25x.jpg.


Incidentally, Boudreau is featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

It's really inexplicable with something so recent. Leaf too, really. If you really want to see misdating sometime, look at Hollywood and music cards and PSA dating. Truly awful. Elvis cards labeled 1950 when he was 12 or 13. Sets issued over four albums across eight years all designated 1969, creating the artificial appearance of first cards for some performers. The great thing about PSA is they just ignore the very knowledgeable people who communicate these errors.

That’s exactly my point ;)

So much for 1936 World Wide Gum being a 1936 issue...

Does this mean the WWG Joe DiMaggio is now a 2nd year card?

Strange wording on that card. Says he was runner up to Buddy Myer for the batting title "last year", which would have been 1935, and then jumps to mention of the trade in early 1937.

Totally agree. I understand how so many errors occurred in the vintage sets, but the more modern ones not so much.

This is another great example. It’s a 1937 set, I don’t know why every publication and grader continues to insist it’s a 1936 issued set.

While some cards in this set clearly point to being issued no earlier than 1937, I'm inclined to think this may have been released in 2 parts during the 1936-37 timeframe. How else would you explain no mention of Joe D's amazing 1936 MLB rookie season on his card?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/UYsAA...OG/s-l1600.jpg

4.WWG's 1936 baseball set is, in fact, a two-year (1936-37) release that "imported" Goudey's photo premiums as promotional support.


https://www.number5typecollection.co...an-goudey.html

1936 is almost never mentioned on backs, “last season” means 1935 even on the multiple cards that could only have possibly been issued in 1937 or later.

It is possible it is a 1936-1937 issue, or 1937. I don’t know. I have seen no evidence it was actually issued at all in 1936, just articles saying it was without providing proof. The backs suggest it was originally intended for 1936 but was updated and actually put out in 1937. I’d have to find my notebook that has the lowest numbered card that could not possibly have come out in 1936.

.

Thank you Derek; love your stuff.
One of mine, ..... Hmmmmm.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=31196

.

Don't forget Emil Verban!
(Game winning/Series winning hit of game 6; 1944 "St. Louis" World Series!)
I am giving this to his son; Dr. Emil Verban, Jr. - DDS; next time I stop by Bloomington, IL, where he still practices.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=31197

To Derek's point; even PSA gives the nod to '49.

How tough of a find is Eck's 1975 postcard?

Honestly, pretty damn hard. I know a collector of Cleveland Indians postcards and I think he still doesn’t have this one. It was part of an “update” set and is not part of the standard 1975 team issue.

I bought mine in 2014 and, while I don’t track every AH and eBay sale, my spreadsheet notes show that I have seen a total of zero since that purchase. I believe I learned of the card in 2010 or so and hadn’t seen any for sale for the four years leading up to my purchase. There’s always a chance you stumble upon one in a random postcard lot, so don’t give up hope. But I wouldn’t hold my breath either!

Gotcha. Thanks, Derek!

I learned of this through Derek years ago and have not seen one since.