OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps
 

Almost every auction house is selling a 52 Topps Mantle. Even though there are many out there for sale, they are getting insane prices.
Mantle started his playing career in 1951 which is considered his true Rookie year. Since Bowman came out with his card in 1951, I would think that this is his rookie card.
It does not seem to be the case since all of his 52 Topps cards are sold as his Rookie card.
Why is his 52 Topps considered a Rookie card?
Also, which card do you consider his Rookie card?

I'm not sure how this can even be debated, since 1951 always comes before 1952 (my birth year). Calling the 52 Mantle a rookie card is simply a marketing ploy.

This has been discussed in prior threads more than once. Hard to argue with Barry's point that 1951 came before 1952 :).

I guess you could call the 52 card his "Topps rookie card" and be correct.

Definitely 1951 Bowman is the rookie. It's his first card from a major manufacture.

I would say the 1952 topps is the better, more iconic card though.

1951 Bowman is only Rookie card

1952 Topps can be called First Topps card but that is it.

They are both iconic and gorgeous classic cards regardless of title in my opinion.

By that logic every card in the set except for a handful of '51 Red and Blue Backs and some All-Stars are "Topps Rookie Cards"

With so much focus on the Mantle cards, nobody really pays attention the the Mays rookie card. He also entered the major leagues in 1951. Bowman has produced a card for him in 1951 and Topps did the same thing in 1952.
Yet, the 1952 Topps card is considered his Rookie card also. :confused:
Was there a time when the grading companies actually considered the 51 Bowmans their true Rookie card? If so, there must be an image of those actual cards.

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

Would love to hear the argument for the 1952 from the people who voted for it.

nevermind

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card.

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey???? :eek::p

:)

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

Jay, you beat me to it.... yup no "rookie" cards way back then.

Here's something to ponder... Topps first year for BB cards was 1951. Could you imagine if Mantle was on a blue back Topps in 1951, let's also say it was an SP to boot. I wonder which card would be more desirable, the Topps or the Bowman?

Thank goodness Joplin didn't put out a minor league card of the Mick in 1950.... where would we be then?:confused:

i am in canada and your are 100% corect in your affirmation. people here chase only first card. the 54 howe topps is the most underrated card here in canada i think. its the best howe looking card but here in canada not many people have interest. everyone want the 51 ugly parkie howe because its the rookie.

i also think the 51 bowman is the rookie but i prefer way more the topps... the design and the size the color etc.... probably one of the best looking sport cards ever.


last week i bought a V145-2 howie morenz card 1924 his second year card. the rookie for morenz is the v145-1. the image and design of the card is the same at 95%. people said to me bahh its not the rookie its only the second years blablabla .... the v145-2 is more rare than the v145-1 ...
in hockey you also have the c55 vezina VS the c57 vezina. the c57 is way more rare and better looking than the c55 but people want the c55 because its the rc

but a lot of people in canada in hockey don t see that

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... :p Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Bottom line is that you're right, collect what you like. If you have to have the "rookie" card then good for you, however if you like the '54 Howe more, then by all means, GET IT and bully for you!

William Edward White, Moses Fleetwood Walker or Jackie Roosevelt Robinson - who was the first African American major league ball player???

I would say that most of us recognize Jackie as the first, but I'm sure some baseball nerds will point to one of the other two gentlemen.

And so just like the above example, I would assume that most people outside our group of baseball nerds would say Mick's 52 Topps is his RC, and we'll all jump up and down and and be technically right that it was his 51 Bowman.

So, Jackie or Moses or William White???? 51 Bowman or 52 Topps??

BTW, I voted for the 52 Topps and Jackie is my choice.

+1
It's a hobby invention.

Dilly dilly!

I AGREE, the term "rookie card" is useless. Why should it be worth anymore than a second year card if the sets were produced equally? This term began being bounced around in about 1980 when the monthly Beckett guides starting coming out.

Strictly a sales pitch and many older collectors will remember there was hype around future Hall of Famer Bob Horner and his "rookie card." Ooops

















'rookie card
'

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

Fred, how old are you? 11? Considering English is not Nelson's first language, I think he writes really well.

Nelson, you provide excellent points. The Howe RC is indeed a very ugly card that has very little color, poor registration and a blank back. And despite this, Canadians go absolutely nuts over it.

Sheesh, this is why lots of people stop commenting for the most part -

Looky here, another Canuck coming to the rescue of Nelson.... really? ;) Oh shit, now beat me down for using the C-word....

Cripes, I was only alluding to Nelson's use of Hockey cards when referencing rookie cards. This is a baseball card forum and the reference to speaking "Canadian" was for the reference to Hockey cards (a "Canadian" thing, for the most part) .... sheesh..

No, I'm not 11, however you're not far off depending upon how relative age is to what ever you feel like referencing. Get a grip dude... look, I capitalized Hockey, do I get redemption points for that?

To all the Canadians that post here and are offended by my use of the C-word, my apologies except for that Canuck from Toronto.... :D

Im in quebec like many know and i try do to my best to write in english.
Try to write corectly in french my friend amd we will laught together hehe
When i goes to show in boston back then i tried also my best to speak and i can say 99.9% of us people are absolutely cool with me and my poor language.

Yes, "rookie card" is a hobby invention. But at the time, not an unreasonable one.

And it was around at least a few years before 1980.

The reasons they were worth more were
The general human obsession with things that are "first"
Before the mid-late 70's maybe a touch earlier, most cards were bought by kids. And most kids only collected for 3-4 years. At the time, many players didn't become stars right away. So the chances of having a players first card were fairly slim, and the chances of that card surviving the new hobby/mom cleaning/interest in cars/girls/ move to college .....were poor.
Using the 54 Aaron as an example, if you got one, which card went in the spokes? The established star? Favorite player? Local hero? Or that kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers? And if 54 was the last year you were into cards, it likely got tossed with the rest of the collection a few years later.

So yes, there's a reason rookie cards especially in better condition are worth more.

Calling the 52 Mantle a "rookie card" is generally ignorant. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they call it that. Especially dealers.
The 52 Mantle is the most overhyped double printed card of a great but somewhat hyped player in a regional market that thrives on hype. (Any questions how I rate the card? :D )

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

Burdick was a set collector though - I don't think he was much of a baseball fan. I think rookie card sets like the HOF rookie set tend to be popular among those who are fans first and collectors second as the idea of having one card each of a lot of all-time great players may be more appealing than collecting company issued sets.

Neither Steve nor Jay is 100% correct, but Jay is closer. I don't have time for a full post on this subject (which I've been meaning to write one of these days), but here are the essentials.

As several people have noted, the modern concept of a "rookie card" did not exist in the early hobby. As I documented in a previous post (here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233772), it was not until the mid-1960s that dealers even began consistently charging a premium for cards of star players, let alone "rookie cards". When the term "rookie card" was used in the hobby in the 1960s and 1970s, it referred to those multi-player "Rookie Stars" cards that Topps put out every year during that time. During this period, "sophisticated" collectors took pride in not caring who was pictured on a card, only about how rare it was and whether they needed it for their set.

(By the way, Steve is correct to say that before 1980 most baseball cards were bought by kids -- and that remained true for quite a while after 1980 -- but we're talking about the organized hobby that had existed since the 1930s. Whatever kids were doing, the adults who collected baseball cards in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s did not care in the slightest about owning the first card of a given player, as opposed to any other card of that player. Also, Steve is incorrect to say that the monthly Beckett guide began in 1980 -- the first issue was not until September 1984, by which time the rookie card craze was in full swing.)

The first time people in the hobby began caring about a player's first card came when Hank Aaron approached and then broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in 1973-74, and for a few years after that. Aaron's 1954 Topps card began commanding a significant premium on the open market, and a lot of old-time collectors were not very happy about it. When Jim Beckett distributed his first card price survey in late 1976, he asked about the price of only one non-rarity star player card -- the 1954 Topps Aaron. When Beckett presented the results of the survey in the March 31, 1977 Sports Collectors Digest, he called it "Aaron's rookie-year card #128" (see footnote 1 on page 50 below), and discussed the controversy over its pricing on the following page. (My full post about Beckett's first price surveys is at http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216495)

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...s/image_55.jpg

By this time (the mid-to-late 70s), prices of star player cards had begun to rise steadily, and cards from early in the careers of superstars were starting to command the biggest premiums. See my post of Lew Lipset's report on card auction prices in 1977-78, including a June 1978 column focusing on the 1952 Topps Mantle. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear anywhere in these columns:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243152

See also these articles from Baseball Hobby News in 1979 about the state of the hobby, including rising prices. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear in these articles either, but editor Frank Barning did discuss the top young players to invest in, which would become a key element of the rookie card craze in the following decade.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241548
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241741

In 1980-81, the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle skyrocketed beyond what anybody had though possible, and at the same time people started paying more attention to rookie cards of star players, initially just established superstars, but also younger stars. Starting in the early 1980s, the term "rookie card" became more and more prominent in the hobby press, and it expanded into popular knowledge later in the decade when the hobby approached the peak of the boom. I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

The Bowman ....
 

Is ugly so that settles that ...

Great info and a joy to read. Thanks for putting all this together and posting.

It was much earlier. The 1963 Topps Pete Rose was the first hyped "rookie card." By 1979-1980, it was selling for over 100.00. In 1982, it was counterfeited. By 1985, it was over 1000.00.

New rookie cards were definitely being hyped by 1983 (Fleer Ron Kittle) and 1984 (Mattingly and Strawberry). Also with the Cubs reaching the postseason in 1984 for the 1st time since 1945, Ryne Sandberg's 1983 rookies were also being hyped.

Topps itself was designating cards as rookie cards as early as 1960, not sure I understand some of what was posted above about it being n 80s phenomenon.

Interesting discussion on the "rookie card" term. Excellent post there, David.

I guess my theory for why the '52 Topps Mantle would ever be considered a "RC" doesn't hold much water since the term did not exist until the late 70s. I figured the specific term "rookie card" wasn't used by collectors in the 50's, but I assumed collectors put importance on a player's first card. I see now that this is not the case.

FWIW, Beckett’s 1985 guide lists the price of a 1963 T Rose in Mint condition at $300.

Rose broke Cobb's hits record in 1985 driving the price of the 1963 Topps Rose through the roof.

I think that it already had skyrocketed in anticipation of Rose breaking the record. In comparison, here are a few other notable Mint Card values from the same 1985 guide:

1951 Bowman Mantle $400
1952 Topps Mantle $2,100
1954 Topps Aaron $175
1955 Topps Koufax $60
1955 Topps Clemente $100
1968 Topps Ryan $36

Beckett did not list the 1963 Rose as a $1,000 card in mint condition until 1994.

DITTO
And I'll add this to rats60 post....Rose had a great 1979 season with the Phillies (BA= .331). Followed by a great World Series in 1980 (BA= .400) which helped the Phillies win the W.S.
The excitement for Rose's 1963 TOPPS card was unbelievable. At the Willow Grove Show in 1981, it was selling for $100+. I had stocked-up with Rose rookies for that show. They were
all sold Friday nite. I don't recall Rose's rookie card selling for 1000 during the late 1980's. But, I do recall selling them for $500-800 in near Mint condition during that timeframe

In 1977, when I started collecting BB cards again, the 1951 BOWMAN Mickey Mantle card was unknown by many in the hobby.....and, an ExMt card was selling for $50.

In 1977, the 1952 TOPPS Mickey Mantle (ExMt) card was selling for $300-400. And in 1980, it sold for $3000 at an Auction in Philadelphia.

Anyway, the 1951 BOWMAN Mantle is obviously his 1st card (or if you prefer, rookie card).

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

That's odd because I have the November 1984 price guide, it has Rose at 350 and the rest of those cards all lower at a time when everything was going up in price.

Beckett may not have had it listed for 1k, but mint ones were bringing that. Do you have a monthly from around September 1985 when he broke the record? I know it was at least 700+.

Beckett was slow in those days at raising prices. For example he listed 83T Sandberg at 3.25, but they were 5.00-6.00 all summer long. My guide had 52T Mantle at 1400, yours had it 2100, but I turned down 3000 for mine.

As a 10 year old starting to collect in 1984, rookie cards were definitely being hyped. My local card shop had Rose, Seaver, Brett, Yount RCs, etc. showcased. I don't remember exact prices, but my parents would give me $5 and I know those were out of my league. Even as a 10 year old, I was drawn to the older cards. That shop also had a Clemente RC and I do remember it was $100. I also remember buying some 1960's Clemente's with my $5 budget so I know RCs carried a pretty big premium back then.

My dad did end up buying me that Clemente RC in 1985 for my 11th birthday. Knowing my dad, I'm sure he negotiated and the card (which I still have) is not mint, but we didn't know about price guides back then.

It wasn't until around 1986-87 that I remember the rookie card craze getting out of control.

As for Mantle, the '51 Bowman is what I've always considered his RC.

It's not like the term "rookie" was coined in the 80's. I've been collecting for a while and don't remember people using the term "rookie card" (as people now use it) until the early to mid 80's. Yes, they had cards that had multiple rookies on the same card but I don't recall people calling the first player card (where the player is solo) a "rookie card" back then. That term (rookie card) seems to be used so loosely these days. I've seen people apply it to post cards and other issues that people may not consider cards.

One of the most popular hobby publications was the SCD. Perhaps someone can try to find the time frame when the term "rookie card" was a common ad description.

No, all that I have are the yearly guides. I got rid of all of my monthly Beckett guides years ago.

Despite the premise of this thread, I don't know of anyone who considers the 52 Topps to be Mantle's rookie card.

Seems to me, and I'm sure there are technical terms for it, the rookie card phenomenon is simply a natural byproduct to supply and psychology.

As a general observation, there are less 1980 cards than there are 1990, less 1970 than 1980, less 1960 than 1970, and on and on. Seems only natural that we would assume subconsciously that a player's first card is their rarest and be drawn to it above all others.

I saw this excerpt on cardboardconnection.com:

"Baseball Rookie Cards versus 1st Year Prospect

Before the 2006 baseball season, the MLBPA announced some changes that were meant to make defining rookie cards easier. Both Topps and Upper Deck were on board but, honestly, things just got more confusing and a window for a new breed of pre-rookies opened.

With the rule change, official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster. In its most basic form, it was a great idea. Collectors chase rookie cards when they're first-year players. The rule has had great success in hockey. Although not an official rule, it's like this in basketball and football too as players generally make their team's rosters fresh after the draft and don't spend several years developing in a minor league system."

If we follow this, then the Mantle 51 Bowman is a 1st Year Prospect
card, while the 52 Topps is his Rookie card.

The '51 Bowman Mantle was part of the high number series. The low number series was released mid-April 1951. Mantle made his MLB debut April 17th, 1951. Since the high number series was produced after (look at your definition again) his major league debut, it is his rookie card. Now, if the '51 Bowman Mantle would have been released with the low number series, then it would not be his rookie card because the card was issued before his MLB debut. In that case, the '52 Topps would have been his RC.

Says right on the slab - "Rookie Card"

Great point David. I was just quoting something I found on the Internet. I think the 51 Bowman is his Rookie card just because it was the first card that he appeared on.

When I first came into the hobby in 1982, I remember the hottest card in any dealer's showcase was the Pete Rose rookie. I recall prices is in the $250-300 range, and in some instances the card would be in a dealer's case with a "Not for Sale" sign next to it. It was that big of a deal.

With regard to the Mantle cards, the 1952 Topps is more iconic, more valuable, more aesthetically pleasing, in greater demand, and arguably the most recognized of all post-war baseball cards.

The one thing it isn't, and can never be, is Mantle's rookie card. The 1951 Bowman was issued and released a full year before it, so I see no debate whatsoever.

I agree that the '51 Bowman is his rookie card, but the simple fact that it was issued before his '52 Topps is not what makes it his rookie card. It's when the card is issued in relation to his major league debut. As I pointed out, if the card was issued in the low number series (before his major league debut) it would not have been his rookie card. See Howard's post above. His definition of a rookie card is absolutely correct (official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster). He just had the events out of order.

Derek Jeter's first regular issue card is 1993 Bowman and Topps. Is that his rookie card? He didn't debut until '95. How can you have a rookie card if you're not a rookie?

Just convention. At least in the 90s, cards such as the Jeter are generally accepted as RCs if they are included in a major issue. E.g. 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera. As for Mantle, the discussion above is probably hypothetical because I doubt in those days Topps or Bowman ever issued a card of someone who had not been on a roster yet. If I am wrong let me know.

What?! That makes no sense. Mantle played 96 games in 1951, starting in mid April.
Cards then weren't issued starting in January, but during the season. So the 51 would have been issued after Mantle was on the roster.

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

Nice write up!

I didn't mean that Beckett started in 1980, but that I'd heard the term "rookie card" before then.

One thing I found most interesting was that I'm pretty sure the first time I heard it used was at the first show I went to in early 1978. When I asked why the 54 Aaron was $60 the answer was that it was his rookie card. What's interesting is that that event and your timeline of the term match fairly well.

In the second image in the second Barning article link he mentions the "Jim Rice rookie card"

The first rookie card of a new player I can recall being hyped was Joe Charboneau in 1980.

Finding more on the history of the term might be a nice project, I have a few publications from the 80's, not complete runs, but enough to give a good look. Of course they're all in random boxes somewhere....

I don't doubt that the term "rookie card" (in the relevant context) existed before 1980; as I pointed out in the post, Jim Beckett referred to Aaron's "rookie year card" in 1977. But the term certainly wasn't very widely used before about 1980 or so.

Nice catch! Though it's possible that Barning may have been using the term in its older sense of a multi-player card depicting "Rookie Stars".

I have a lot of hobby publications from 1979-81, including a complete run of SCD and Trader Speaks, and the annual Beckett guides. I'm missing some Baseball Hobby Newses and Card Prices Updates from late 1979 and early-to-mid 1980, but I have enough to do a pretty thorough historical study, if I can find the time one of these days.

I'm using my phone and accidentally voted for the 52 as Mantle's rookie card. Hopefully the other 17 did the same. There is no definition of a rookie card that I'm aware of that would not consider the 51 Bowman his true and only RC. An auction house including the designation in a description does not change what is or is not a RC.

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

https://i.imgur.com/2Mto2FA.jpg

Why doesn't it have the 1st Bowman logo?

Haven't read this whole thing, but it would seem any longtime collector knows what's up:

The 1952 Topps Mantle is "the" card. Most popular of the two. Sort of the standard bearer of the Post War card hobby to the public.

The 1951 Bowman is Mantle's rookie card.

Though beauty is entirely subjective, I'd venture many collectors would say both are appealing to the eye.

For Mantle or Post War collectors, both are big cards to own.

And both present the collector with unique challenges, in terms of finding an eye appealing specimen. The 51B has endemic centering and focus issues. The 52T has endemic centering and tilt issues.

Well as expected the majority of us believe that the 51 Bowman is the Rookie card. Since popular votes do not count, it appears that the 52 Topps is still the Rookie card.

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

Nothing would change, in terms of values. For one, most people buying the two cards know that the 51B is his rookie. Also, the dominance of the 52 Topps in regards to value is not a product of the grading companies' labels.

And here is the '52 Topps for comparison. Future star does not a rookie make.

http://i65.tinypic.com/28wnpqr.jpg

Well done Aaron. Damn well done.

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

The poll is comparable to one asking people to vote on how many sides they think a triangle has. What's more interesting to me, than just asking people if they know the correct answer in this one particular case (Mantle), is to force people to operationalize their terms.

If a player has a card issued in 1909 but doesn't appear in a major league game until 1910, do you consider his 1909 card a rookie card?

If you say yes, then what you what you mean by rookie card is merely earliest card, and the M101-5 Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.

If you say no, then what you mean by rookie card is a card issued during the player's rookie year (and then we can further quibble about players who didn't exceed the rookie limits during their debut seasons or who didn't have any cards issued during their rookie seasons), and the Baltimore News Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1993 SP Jeter.

I'm fine with people using either definition, but there's not much benefit in using either of them if you aren't going to be consistent about it. That is, either you're in the pre-MLB-cards-count camp (i.e., the Baltimore News Ruth and the 1993 Jeter are rookie cards) OR you're in the nothing-prior-to-MLB-debut-counts camp (i.e., the M01-5 Ruth and the 1995 Topps Jeter are rookie cards).

In neither case does it makes any sense to call a 1952 Topps Mantle a rookie card.

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

In 2006, Beckett published "The Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia", with some pretty silly criteria for what counts as a "rookie card" for pre-WWII players. Among other things, this led them to designate the 1933 Goudey Babe Ruths as his "rookie" cards, and I believe the same was true of the other players in 1933 Goudey. It looks like they must still be using those criteria on Beckett.com, even though nobody takes that seriously any more. Here is a thread about that book from three years ago, including a mea culpa post from Rich Klein, who worked on the book when he was at Beckett. I'm not sure if Rich has anything more to say about it now.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=181414

For us set collectors the poll results matter not. And if you collect variations with such sets, that means one 51 and two of the 52s, rookie or not :)

I think RCs are here to stay. Certainly for post-WWII and pre-shiny insert era the RC is usually going to be the most valuable card. Other than 52T Mantle and the non-HOF 71T Munson I can't think of any exceptions. I'm the opposite of the above, if I don't have a player yet I need a very good reason to buy a card other than the RC or an earlier oddball card.

I'm the "rookie" card guy, and even I'm confused :confused::confused:

"earliest card" or "first card" or "rookie/pre-rookie" all work for me. Personally, I'd rather have one of Jeter's 1992 minor league cards over his '93/'95 Topps "rookies". Or for the daring, try going for his 1982 Oakwood Little League Team Photo! Haha! Yes, it's all a game to jack up the price. I am paying that price.

To me, it's all about researching interesting and esoteric sets that no one else knows or cares about. I prefer the oddball to the standard Topps/Bowman issues. For instance, I just "discovered" Joe Torre's earliest card (or what I believe to be his earliest card). I always assumed it was the '62 Topps. But lo and behold, I was searching eBay and found a postcard from 1961 produced by LL Cook Co. that was postmarked in 1961! Hallelujah and eureka!! I don't plan on re-writing the books, but it's fun for me to have a checklist that no one else is pursuing - even all those "rookie" card collectors out there!

Great thread, BTW. Would love to learn more about when "rookie" cards became mainstream.

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

At least they didn't depict them as 17 year olds in street clothes like some of the early 90s Bowman issues. ;):D

PS I really should bag this one in favor of the 1990 Tampa card.

Here's my Jan 1986 SCD. Note the significant difference in $$$$ between the the real Mantle rookie (51B) and the his 2nd year card (52T). A factor of 5 to 1, which Mantle's
52T card's value has over his 51B card in this listing, has been (more or less) consistent since the 1980's.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...tle51Bx52T.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eteRose25x.jpg ......The $300 listed in this guide for Rose was really a "buy price" that most dealers were paying in the 1985-1986
timeframe. This card was so "hot" back then it was mind-boggling. Furthermore...."a rising tide lifts all ships"....was very apropo to describe the Rose card's affect on the rising
value of many other "rookie" cards of major BB Stars during the 1980's. It was a really great time to be in this hobby.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...RoseRookie.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...issueCover.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I actually like his 51 Bowman card, a lot...but, here's my analysis.

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

But...

His more desirable, more iconic, better looking, better investment card? The 52 Topps. The most important card, in the most important post-war set.

Look at some of the greatest players in history, and their "rookie" cards versus their "best" cards...not always the same, actually often different...

Cobb- T206, Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson- T210, Cracker Jack
Etc.

To me, "rookie" cards started mattering more in the 60's & 70's (and beyond), whereas 50's and pre-war, it's a more complicated formula, which leans towards rarity & beauty, which equates to desirability, and ultimately value.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Sure, on land.

Hey Mike

SGC pop reports have approx. the same difference (factor of 1.25)

1951 Bowman = 565

1952 Topps = 470


Take care, good buddy

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..