New York Times Leaf Article
 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/598.../?redirected=1

75 years later, new findings reshape the Jackie Robinson rookie card discussion
By Michael Salfino
Dec 10, 2024

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

Collecting chaos.

That’s the issue now with the 1948 Leaf baseball cards, which had been the exclusive rookie cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige. And they were given co-rookie card status with the 1948 Bowman cards of Stan Musial, Warren Spahn and Ralph Kiner, among others.

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.

But Brian Kappel, author of the book “re: Leaf: The story of a collector, a candy company, a stack of baseball cards and a search for answers,” has done ample research — even looking at court documents from the period in question — and concluded that no Leaf 1948 cards were shipped until 1949. That’s at most a couple of months before the 1949 Bowman cards shipped.

https://static01.nyt.com/athletic/up...d-924x1536.jpg
Jackie Robinson’s first Leaf baseball card. (Photo: Sotheby’s)

That could mean that the 1949 Bowman Robinson and Paige deserve rookie status previously only awarded to the Leaf issues. And even more consequentially, the 1948 Bowman Musial would thus be the only Musial rookie card, no longer sharing that designation with the 1948 (really 1949) Leaf issue. That Leaf card, if reclassified, would be a second-year card no different than the 1949 Bowman Musial.

According to Kappel, the smoking gun is the 1949 court filing forwarded to him by a collector in researching his book. The filing addressed Bowman contention that Leaf violated its exclusive player contracts.

In the response, Kappel says, “Leaf states in plain English, when the first cards left the factory (March 14, 1949), as well as acknowledging that when the paperwork was processed (March 30), the cards had been in stores for a few weeks.” The parties agreed that Bowman, as of March 1949, had not yet issued its comparable baseball card product for that year.

Kappel forwarded to The Athletic a Leaf advertising flyer announcing its baseball cards with a 1949 copyright on it.

Typically, all first cards of professional players issued in the same year are considered the player’s rookie cards, regardless of which company issued the card first that year.

Jason A. Schwartz, Co-Chair, Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) Baseball Cards Research Committee said, “Without a doubt, I classify the Leaf set as ‘1949 Leaf’ based on definitive evidence that no cards were distributed prior to March 1949.” He added, “I make no distinction between Leaf and 1949 Bowman as far as rookie cards are concerned. The situation is analogous to comparing the 1983 Topps, Fleer, and Donruss cards of Tony Gwynn.”

This is tremendously important when it comes to card value, as rookie cards are most prized by collectors and generally generate the largest investment returns.

For example, the Leaf Musial that today is considered a 1948 issue/rookie card sells for $2,400 decently centered in PSA 3 (very good) condition. The 1949 Bowman, because it’s considered a second-year card, sells in the same condition for just a fraction of that in the same condition — about $500. The number of graded Leaf and 1949 Bowman Musials are about equal.

The 1948 Bowman Musial, considered less desirable aesthetically for their smaller size and black-and-white image, sold recently for just $725 in the same “very good” condition. But if the Bowman card is now the only true Musial rookie, given it was issued about a year earlier, it stands to reason the price of that card would increase. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Musials as the Leaf Musials, according to GemRate, which tracks graded card populations.

Rookie card status can impact value more than population numbers. Consider that the 1948 Bowman Yogi Berra, his unquestioned rookie card, sells for more than twice the amount of the 1949 Bowman, in the same condition. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Berra cards as 1949 Bowman Berras.

“If a player has a card in 1948 Bowman, then there is no basis for regarding the Leaf card as a rookie,” Schwartz said.

The biggest card in both the Leaf and 1949 Bowman sets is Robinson’s, which, according to Schwartz, should share rookie-card designation. An SGC 3 of the 1949 Bowman card sold recently for $4,151.51. But an SCG 3 of the Leaf Robinson recently sold for $11,400. The populations of both the 1949 Bowman and Leaf Robinsons are nearly identical, according to GemRate.

https://static01.nyt.com/athletic/up...-l1600-56.jpeg
Jackie Robinson’s 1949 Bowman baseball card. (Photo: eBay)

“I am not sure I would completely reclassify the ‘48 Leaf (Robinson),” said Jason Eggert, a top collector of Robinson cards and memorabilia. “To many, it will always be his rookie card. Kind of like modern cards, I have no problem having several different early cards be considered rookie cards.”

The Paige card is a short print in Leaf but that, in addition to its rookie status, gives that card a value of about $40,000 in SGC 3. The Bowman 1949, considered a second-year card, goes for about 1/10th that amount. GemRate says there are about six times as many graded 1949 Paige Bowmans than Leafs, so the “rookie” designation of the Paige Leaf card is still a considerable part of its value.

“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”

Brian Dwyer, president of Robert Edward Auctions, says collectors will impact the future value of the cards.

“How prices for these Leaf and Bowman cards fluctuate in the months and years ahead will be determined by the collectors themselves, but we wouldn’t be surprised to see a noticeable uptick in the interest of these cards,” Dwyer said. “While some may perceive them differently now, there are passionate fans and collectors of these sets (who) will continue to view both sets as 1948 issues for rookie card collecting purposes.”

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8d631be36e.jpg

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

When I first saw the post, I actually thought the story was in reference to this video posted 2 days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x3wC9QoSc

The Portrait IS his rook.....now you tightwads out there, start paying up!

The most knowledgeable collectors in the Hobby have been on board the 1949 train for a while and have decided what Jackie’s rookie card(s) is/are based on the criteria they deem relevant.

However, the majority of collectors put their trust in PSA or other Hobby authorities to figure such things out for them, and this is where PSA has been and remains:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a1a506b21f.jpg

Right, because Ted Zanidakis (rest in peace) used to complain about it all the time on here. However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

I personally think that the 49' Bowman baseball cards are a great buy right now. The gap between both sets (Bowman and Leaf) will start to close over the years.

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

He's also in 1947 Homogenized BB, but I don't think most people would go there either.

Agree. If you consider Jackie's true rookie to be the 47BB, then logically the Montiel must be Musial's rookie card (or at least supersedes the 48B for rookie card status).

Logically we could distinguish a US baseball issue from a Cuban multisport issue, no?

Usually I would agree but the Montiel is a tough one. Musial appears in his Cardinals uniform and his career up to date with the Cardinals is featured in his bio on the back. The issue is also referred to as 1946-47 which would I think challenge any other issue.

When did he wear #19?

There are no winners in a regional issue vs national issue RC debate.

Then there's "Do exhibits count?" and "Do card game cards count?"...etc

It ends with more RC's than people thought possible once everyone has stated their side.

No idea. DiMaggio is wearing number 18 on the Hank Erickson National Chicle.

This write up on Musial's 1941 debut features the original photo used for the Montiel card. Looks like a Cardinals uniform to me:

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...-league-debut/

From the photo credit on the web page: Stan Musial — pictured wearing a number 19 jersey during spring training 1942 in St. Petersburg, Florida — hit .426 in 12 games as a rookie call-up in September 1941. (National Baseball Hall of Fame Library)

So the Montiel features a photo of Musial from spring training 1942. I would say that's another plus for that card.

What a trivial debate. On a more interesting subject (at least to me), can anyone tell me just how “short” the SPs are for 1948-9 Leaf? They seem to get a massive premium suggesting they are much more than twice as rare as their non SP counterparts. Relative pop counts suggest the same. Is there an old net54 thread someone can direct me to that helps answer this question? Why are these SPs so dang short?

Good find.

The recent Ruth Morehouse (regional issue) was auctioned as a "rookie". What's up with that then?

Yes, indeed. The Hank Aaron Clowns card that recently sold at auction is perhaps another example.

I wouldn't be surprised if, over time, regional and minor league cards of major stars will become more coveted by collectors -- especially if they were issued earlier and are rarer than the national issue.

(I could also see this playing out in the modern arena. A Mookie Betts 2012 card when he played for the Lowell Spinners feels much more interesting to collect than one of his myriad modern rookie cards and rookie card parallels. Especially if Mookie gets to, say, 100 WAR).

1949 Leaf Spahn and Kiner are not rookie cards. PSA designates players with both 49 Leaf and Bowman as having two rookie cards, so no change there.

Many people will point to 1948 Bowman for both of them...some will point to 1947 Tip-Top Bread for both of them...

Grover C Alexander...his RC depends on whether you count supplements, leathers, silks, transfers/stamps, or table game cards that came before his 1914 Cracker Jack card many say is his RC.

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money. It doesn't make them rookie cards.

I don't know that there is a quantifiable number to encapsulate how SHORT the SHORT actually is, that said, in talking with a ton of people while writing the book, they were not really even known about until the 1970's. When speaking with James Beckett on his podcast, he recanted that he, and other dealers started finding them in the 70's centralized in the Great Lakes states. This would make sense as the lawsuit with Bowman hit in March of 1949, but the second suit hit in May, which essentially shut down the east coast distribution of the cards. I think amidst litigation, and wanting to get rid of any inventory that had been produced (the short prints), LEAF pumped out the cards to distributors close to Chicago in an effort to shut down the baseball card endeavor and not lose any more money on it.

Some were probably issued on the east coast.

The shop I hung out at in the late 70's early 80's had a box of cards in so they could make an offer. I got to look through it but had to be careful since it wasn't theirs yet.
ABout halfway through I mentioned that it was really cool to see a bunch of "high number" leafs (The way they got referred to which was incorrect but less awkward than other ways)
Huge thing, lots of consternation, would raising the offer make the seller change their mind? That happened a lot, especially if they thought the early offers were lowball offers.
Call made, situation explained, new offer made and accepted.

I hoped to get one for spotting them, but no deal. No big deal as I got deals from them on other stuff all the time.

The SPs are very tough cards. I still don't even have a common.
And I've pretty much thought of them as a separate set.

Oh please, can something lose a designation and become worth less just because the NYT says so? (Then I might have more than a snowball's chance in hell of ever owning one...) :D

You're right Steve, I should have clarified, the May injunction was aimed at Pennsylvania based distributors, that said with the first truck that left Chicago with the cards was heading to Boston, (which validates the Antique Roadshow video), so there is a good chance that some of the Short Prints would have gone that way as well.

Thanks. They do seem legit tough. As an example, if you’re looking for a dom dimaggio, as I am, it’s interesting to note that there are 43 Joe D’s presently up for sale on eBay and only 2 Dom D’s. Tough to find specifics on the net about just how rare they are relatively speaking. I have purchased the article from old BB cards written by a much beloved recently passed net54 member and am curious if that article sheds further insight. Curious not only just how scarce they are but if some are more scarce than others.

I know the word is abused in hobby circles but I find the set imagery extremely iconic. Recently reacquired a Ted Williams and it’s quite mesmerizing.

The two baseball series were produced the same way, 4X49 cards per sheet. So from a production standpoint, all short prints were produced at the same number. What survived the years, that is another story. The big names always hang around, the lesser knowns sometimes don't as few care about the commons.

I go one step further in my book re: LEAF (available on Amazon) and point out that there was a late printing of the main run of the cards. In that print run there are plate changes made that create an alternate version to the main run of the cards, true variations. So if you were wanting to run down the rabbit hole, there are at least 3 runs of the cards, Early Print, Late Print and Short Print. This has to do with the printing plates, and not the color variation which was a result of the inks that were used. It also doesn't include the printing errors, which there many!

Good thing I’m starting my own YouTube channel right after the first of the year to discuss this vintage rookie card debate among other topics including Negro League Baseball material. :)

Truth.

Certainly it predates the others, but doesn't something have to be a card to be a rookie card? The Montiels are just paperstock cutouts that otherwise look like baseball cards.

So what baseball card did Ken Keltner show to the bartender?

December 24 Wisconsin newspaper
Attachment 644257

I was of the notion for a long time that Alexander's rookie card, being issued in 1914, but now have to go with the '14 CJ CJ, as that seems to be the common belief. Shame there aren't more cards of 'Ole Pete', given his significance to the game.

Sorry, meant to reference the T222 Fatima card.

I don't like the 47' Bond Bread set because they are all Jackies! Are they all rookie cards? Furthermore, imagine if Mantle had thirteen different cards in the 52' Topps set!! Would they be sought-after and worth so much ?? Probably not, because having that many cards would just water down the values.

We also have to look at brand loyality here. People love Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. and it's no different with sports cards. People want Leaf, Bowman, Topps, O-Pee-Chee, Upper Deck, etc. How many fans are there of Bond Bread ?? What else did they make other than that Jackie set ??

I’ve never heard of anyone refer to the Montiel Desportes set as being hand cut. They have received number grades for as long as I’ve been familiar with them.

They made an entire set of cards other than Jackie.

The Jackie Portrait card was produced specifically to promote Jackie because of his historic achievement, as was the rest of the set that followed. Why would any Jackie fan prefer another card to the portrait? The portrait is the first appearance of any black player in a major league uniform.

I don't know if they were cut by hand or not. My point was merely that they aren't cards.

Of course the M101-2 is even earlier, but I prefer the Fatima.

But all that said, the Portrait commands very strong prices.

Since we know some of the photos were taken in 1948 or 1949, I think we can rule out those Jackie Bond Bread cards from rookie card contention. Whether any of the ones issued in 1947, or merely the earliest one, should be considered a rookie card is a separate issue, but I'm inclined to say anything that came out before the end of the 1947 season deserves the label.

Then what are they? Cards can be made of a material other than standard Topps cardboard and be a card.

Then what are they? Cards can be made of a material other than standard Topps cardboard and be a card.

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.

Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

:rolleyes:

What issue is this?

While I like rookie cards because they depict the youngest version of the player when they have so much potential ahead of them, I love a player’s last issue card because it memorializes their career in achievements and stats.

That is the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait. It was the first depiction of Jackie in a major league uniform. The rest of the Jackie set was released after the portrait, which was used as a promotional item.

Which dealers were those, and when?

Poking around, it seems Grover Alexander's RC status was discussed on Net54 in a past poll 12 years ago...with an expected all-over-the-place landing point.

https://www.net54baseball.com/poll.p...lts&pollid=123

Thread: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151396

[citation needed]

Once again, why is it that every time the subject of Bond Bread Jackie cards comes up, we focus solely on the portrait card being from 1947 along with how some/all of the remaining 12 cards were issued after 1947. What about the much more widely released D305 Jackie card that was included with the Musial and all other cards from that set. I have never heard any debate that this card was issued in 1947 so why isn’t it mentioned first and foremost in these conversations? This has to be the second or third time this subject has been brought up and no mention of the D305 Jackie until I interject numerous posts later.

It started before my time. But I'll be very surprised if you can name me a dealer who didn't immediately embrace the concept and jump on the bandwagon.

Are you asking me to cite some "authority" to belabour the obvious? How about Adam Smith?

:confused:

Rookies cards, rookie cards. Sigh. Back in the day, someone did a heck of a job promoting this new notion of this thing called a rookie card. And everyone bit - hook, line & sinker.

If the concept didn't resonate with collectors they would not have accepted it.

Not all of us collectors:

Some of us still reserve the right to shake our heads or roll our eyes.

;)

No, I'm asking you to cite your source because it isn't an obvious point to belabor. In fact, I doubt its veracity. Many collectors prefer the first/earliest issue. This isn't unique to sports cards, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of dealers. If cards had zero value, collectors would want the first. It's literally human nature.

Your assertion that collectors prefer the first because they are stupid and gullible is insulting and ignorant.

Ironically, you have now moved the goalposts from dealers convinced the stupid collectors to buy their old cards, to dealers embraced the idea. Obviously, they would embrace the idea. But they didn't come up with it.

That YOU personally don't value rookie cards says nothing about the hobby as a whole, much less prove that this is some conspiracy foisted on dumb collectors by unspecified people at an unspecified time. Next point, if you have one?

The only RC that I feel like a fool for having in my collection is 1963 Topps Pete Rose because it's an ugly as hell card that has cost too much since the 80s.

I would say at least the value is way more than than when I bought it many years ago, but it's a card in my collection not an investment I'm trying to turn for a profit.

The 63T Tony Oliva is ugly as hell, too, but at least it's not anywhere near the price of a Rose.

I love my Ken McMullen rookie card. ;)

I collect all major sports and there is only ONE RC I refuse to own because it's so hideous -- Moses Malone 1975 Topps. Opted for a 1976 instead.

The Bond Bread Jackie’s were issued from 1947-1949 the Portrait with facsimile auto is the most abundant of the set and its earliest of releases.

This is true. Let's take Marilyn Monroe, for example. Her stuff (TYPE 1 photographs, magazine covers, calendars, etc.) from the 1940s are worth more than her stuff from the succeeding decades. It has something to do with being young ... and fresh ... hey, that's human nature!! :D

I am aware that there are different card stocks, but the Montiels are not printed on any of them. The paper they are printed on is newsprint, so you can call them sports images or whatever you like, but if you try to hold one level (horizontal) from the corner you'll find that they are decidedly not any sort of card. They'll just flop over, the same as any sheet of newspaper would, because that is how the material behaves. I don't expect we'll ever all agree on the minimum or maximum length or width for a baseball card, but I think we can at least agree that it needs to be a card.

FWIW PSA calls them cards.

https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/mu...-deporte/27394

Hmmmm. Apply the concept of cui bono and it is indeed an obvious point. If you are indeed a lawyer you should be well aware of the concept. In fact I'm wondering why you didn't apply it immediately.

You instead asked me to produce a "source" for something that should be obvious to any prudent man. Sellers will try to talk up the value of their wares. That's no surprise to any prudent man.

Or by source do you mean "originator"? If so I'll leave the Sisyphean task of sorting through the mists of time to find this originator up to you. After all, you're the only one who's interested in his identity.

Methinks you just want an argument. Fine then. You've come to the right place.

The last time I checked, collectors were a subset of consumers in general. But most every other consumer prefers the latest rather than the first, the latest fashions (well women do anyway), the latest most advanced tech, the latest and thus freshest bread, tomatoes, etc. Admittedly we collectors can be strange. Try explaining the exorbitant price rookie cards command to the proverbial prudent man on the street. The price differential in almost all cases comes down to marketing.

Here, let me give you one of those sources:

These things are always a matter of degree. Yes, a prudent man might be able to understand a 60 year old card selling for 5-10% more than a 59 year old card. But 5X or 10X the price? He'll just shake his head and pronounce it "Crazy!"

That was just an unintended side effect, collateral damage you might say, of you asking for a source/originator. Very tough to say who did something first when it was then immediately done by all.

Source?

Hey, I can dole out as many insults as you deserve! Once again you've come to the right place for those. The ignorance though you'll have to seek elsewhere.

:p

Yes, fresh, like the tomatoes I referenced in my previous post.

;)

This isn't true. A player's first card was the most valuable because it was assumed to be the rarest. When Topps started out, they printed fewer cards, see 1952 Topps high numbers, and as they developed a reputation, their sales increased.

In the early days, a player's card wasn't always the most valuable. Brooks Robinson's 1967 Topps card was worth more than his 1957 Topps card. Johnny Bench's 1970 card was worth more than his 1968 card. A lot of the 1963 Topps Pete Rose card's value was tied to it being a high number card and printed in lesser quantities than his 1964 Topps card.

As time went on, the concept of the rookie card was marketed to collectors, newer collectors in particular. As the chase for current year rookie cards became more intense, the values of vintage rookie cards rose to the point where it was the only card that mattered and scarcity no longer as important.

Well clearly not. Trying to wax eloquent and explain the hobby as a whole to even other collectors let alone non-collectors would be one of those Sisyphean tasks to which I referred two posts ago. Feel free to take on the task if you're so inclined.

I take it you've yet to notice that collecting isn't like mathematics. As a not entirely rational activity driven by deep-rooted psychological impulses (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), it's not amenable to hard and fast proofs.

Yes I do indeed! Why do you and OhioLawyerF5 so often come across as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or Abbott and Costello if you prefer? Is it the water in Ohio? Something more sinister perhaps? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like an explanation, if there is one.

;)

Oh absolutely! I agree!

It was the 1952 Mickey Mantle high numbered rookie card that got the ball rolling (helped along by sellers sitting on Mantle rookies circulating stories of untold cases of high numbers being dumped in the Hudson River). Then the Topps 1958-59 Bobby Hull rookie card was the last card in the set thus being more susceptible to pocket wear and rubber band damage. But those sitting on inventories of rookie cards, i.e. dealers, fanned the flames of demand for rookie cards which is how/why the silliness took hold and escalated beyond all reason.

:(

Gracias.

That's a long way of saying, "I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertion." :rollseyes:

For someone so verbose, you sure lack logical substance. Comparing collecting mentality to broader consume markets is asinine. They are literally the opposite. Consumers, by definition, are buying to consume. Collectors are buying to keep/hoard/curate/build a collection. Very different purposes. A distintion that causes one to want the newest, and one to prefer the oldest, for obvious reasons that a prudent man would understand.

But given that you appear to think your post actually contained a shred of evidence to support your claim that rookie cards are preferred because once upon a time dealers convinced gullible collectors what they should like, tells me you aren't even remotely close to being a prudent man.

Well, which is it? Did collectors prefer rookie cards because older/first cards were more rare, or was it because idiot collectors were told they should cost more? You can't have it both ways.

Regardless of your contradiction, every single collectibles market, be it art, comics, beenie babies, guns, antiques, or sports cards, prefers and values older and earlier to newer. It's been that way for centuries. Card dealers didn't come up with it, as it predates cards. There is obviously more to it than marketing.

Further, as I explained to the not-so-sly fox, the fact that dealers anf manufacturers leaned into and embraced the desire of collectors to have the earliest cards of a player, does not mean they created that desire.

If your position is true, that high number cards' perceived scarcity was the reason for collectors preferring the earliest, then this phenomenon would be limited to sports cards. But it's not. It is universal in collecting. If your argument about collecting mentality is based solely on a scenario unique to baseball cards, and begins in 1952, you have already missed the mark. Collectors preferring the earliest pre-dates the very existence of sports cards.

All you are doing is trying to rationize why you prefer the cards you do. And you have to do it by denigrating the way others collect.

It was plainly stated in my post, but I will repeat it again. Cards in the early days of rookie cards were valued based on rarity. It wasn't until later that there was a preference for rookie cards. This preference for older doesn't necessarily apply to baseball cards. A players oldest card isn't always his most valuable. Mickey Mantle's most valuable card is his 1952 Topps, it is not his oldest card.

His Topps card is still a first appearance card. It was his first Topps card in what people consider to be the first major Topps set. It is a short print, but it was also double printed and I don't think anyone in the hobby considers it a rare card.

For a while there was some validity to most rookie cards being worth more.
And it was all about the survival rate of those cards.

Kids typically collected as kids for maybe 3-4 years. Yes, there were outliers like me and probably a bunch of others here who never really stopped.

And the occasional purge of "stuff" by mom was a thing. Sometimes a favorite card or two would be saved, but most got thrown away or given away.

So for example, a kid gets a 54 Aaron. Bit loses interest in cards a bit into 55. By spring cleaning 56, he's not really interested. Maybe isn't a Braves fan, and probably not a fan of then kid who hit a decent number of home runs but isn't flashy like Mays or Mantle and who knows if he will get any better?

So the favorite player and maybe a few stars get saved, but the Aaron rookie goes in the bin with the rest of the cards.
So they were less common.

By the late 70's, that was less of a thing. The hobby was more advanced and popular. Not that kids collected longer, but the Rookie card thing had been established. So they got saved more often than not.

By the junk wax era - yeah, it was nothing buy hype. And Beckett for better or worse promoted guidelines that said local issues couldn't be rookie cards. They had to be major nationally issued sets.
I would say that for most sets since the mid 70's the rookie cards are more common than all but a few stars. But not by much.

It's sort of silly for prewar cards, and even late 40's cards.

A few other things influence it, mostly that people have a bit of a fascination with "firsts" . Sort of like a first edition of a book, or a card of someone who was the first to do something.

Identifying a few historical examples where the RC was not the most valuable does not prove the hobby never cared about rookie cards. Even today there are such examples, not only Mantle. Pedro Martinez' RC isn't worth a nickel. In high grade, a 71 Munson and I think too a 71 Vida Blue are worth more than their RCs. There may be others. Nobody is contending relative abundance/scarcity is entirely irrelevant. Do people care now more than ever about RCs, perhaps, but again that does not show there was a time they did not.

Sometimes a card just has a cool image like the Pee Wee Reese Bowman. But generally speaking I would say the hobby appreciates rookie cards.

I’ll admit, I’ve never totally understood this phenomenon. I would take Jackie‘s ‘52 or 55T over his Leaf card any day of the week.

The price you'll pay for the Art Whitney with Dog N172 is about 5% Whitney and 95% dog.