Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion
 

In an effort not to lose potentially valuable information months/years from now inside a thread entitled Bob Feller Rookie Cards, I thought it best to continue the ongoing discussion about Baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards in a separate thread whereby the appropriate search will be able to locate it. Although the conversation might center around Hall of Famers, the same criteria would apply for all rookie cards.

While there is a pretty widely accepted list for most post-war HOF rookie cards thanks to Beckett including the RC notations in their monthly/annual price guides for many years, the same cannot be said for pre-war rookie cards. In my opinion, this facet of vinatge card collecting has been widely underappreciated and under-collected (if that is a word). As most collectors who might have thought about trying it would likely attest, there is no consensus on which cards to go after for each player. When I came to this realization back in the late 2000's, I thought it would be a great idea to share much of the knowledge that I had acquired during years of research while assembling my own card collection. That's when Lyman Hardeman and I got together and compiled the webpage on the OldCardboard website which has been the go to source for identifying HOF rookie card candidates since 2010. Derek Granger's more recently created website looks fabulous, kudos to all of his time and effort in accumulating all of the images that he has. I'm sure that when finished it will surely be a gold mine for rookie card information and leave many choices up to the collector.

Since that time, collectors have made it known through card values (based on how much they are willing to pay for certain things) as to which items meet the definition of a rookie card, with "card" being the key word. As we can just about all agree unanimously, "cards" bring higher values than original photos, paper premiums, etc. Thus a W600 Wagner in nice condition sells for $50K+ and an E107 Wagner for easily $50K+ for over a decade now. Going back in time, an M101-1 or National Copper Plate Wagner could be had for $10K or so. After the recent boom, that might not be the case any longer but I'm also sure that the E107 in decent condition can't be found for under $100K any more either.

So, I strongly believe that the first step in identifying rookie cards, especially pre-war, is to have a consensus where the vast majority of collectors agree on what constitutes a card and what does not. Working towards that goal will make it possible one day to have that definitive rookie card list available as opposed to those trying to find fault with the system and arguing every parameter that is trying to be established by the majority of us collectors. I believe that if you break down the parameters that I have previously identified one by one, you will find that each and every one makes sense and there might not be a better alternative. If there is a better one though, then we all should try and champion the cause to follow that through.

The first parameter that I created for identifying rookie cards is that neither minor league nor amateur cards be included. My reasoning for this is that they have their own clearly defined designation as being pre-rookie cards. This includes things such as Zee-nuts, PCL Exhibits, etc. This in no way deters the value of these kinds of items as many are more highly sought after than their MLB counterparts, it is simply something that does not meet the definition of what we are trying to define as a rookie card.

Secondly, no team cards are considered to be rookie cards as each individual player image can be so small as to possibly not even be discernable. Since Topps, the leading card manufacturer for over 70 years now, used this definition over the years limiting rookie cards to a maximum of 4 players on a card, I have done the same for rookie card qualification.

Next, I have chosen not to include 1-of-a-kind items for the obvious reason that this entire endeavor is being done to grow the interest in pursuing pre-war rookie cards and an impossible task as searching for only one item in existence is only going to frustrate the collector. Instead, I move on to the next possible option going in chronological order. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to own the "true" rookie for that player, kudos to you but then no one else can.

The next item that I address is the exclusion of stickers, stamps, paper premiums, etc. as the various item names indicate, they are not cards and whether or not they are encapsulated by a TPG company does not change that.

Another requirement for my rookie card qualification is that the card must be catalogued. Typically, the old Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards is the go to source for this. Unfortunately it's been a number of years since the most recent update to this previously annual issue. Now that Bob Lemke is no longer around RIP, I guess Krause never found anyone to pick up the editing duties.

Finally, I do not include team issued items as being considered for rookie card status. Most of these have been paper photos over the years and are not cards. Some did issue postcards which makes them more of a gray area but since they are not part of any kind of advertising or regionally/nationally distributed set, I choose not to count them. This is probably the one parameter that could be argued either way but mostly comes into play with post-war rookies and the main focus of this entire endeavor is to identify pre-war rookie cards.

When Mr. Lemke was still at Krause, I had conversations with him about identifying pre-war rookie cards in the Standard Catalogue. While he was okay with doing that for a few consensus cards such as the Sporting News Ruth, the Play Ball Ted Williams, etc., by and large he wasn't comfortable enough to take on the challenge of going further with the process and, thus, things never moved forward from there.

It is my hope that one day, we can still make this happen but will take a lot of support from well-respected individuals in the hobby such as we have here on the Net54 board. What are everyone's thoughts on this topic, do we agree, disagree, etc.?

Great topic Phil. The modern definition of a rookie card stems IMO from the rise of the Baby Boomer generation in step with the start of Bowman and Topps sets that have been ongoing for years and years. Prior to those sets, the longest continuous sets put out by anyone were about three years, and that was it (Playball 1939, 1940, and 1041). So the more modern definition of a rookie card was based on those post war Topps/Bowman sets. And even if there was another Topps specialty (ie: Doubleheader, Hocus Focus, etc.) or other regional/limited issue set put out the same year, or even in a prior year, the nationally distributed Topps/Bowman sets set the standard of which card was considered a player's true rookie card. This thinking was also promoted IMO by the people putting out the Beckett and other price guides starting back with the hobby boom in the 80s to make sure there were tons of these various rookie cards for dealers to be able to sell. To say there was no relationship and support between dealers and the likes of Beckett would be foolish IMO. And those early price guides were really geared toward the Baby Boomer generation who were mostly focused on the cards from their youth, the 50s and 60s Topps/Bowman cards. Not the earlier vintage and pre-war cards. And thus I think you have a problem.

Just as today's baseball fans look at advanced stats and other metrics that are geared more towards the modern game and modern players, it is definitely biased against older players, especially pre-war dead-ball era players and 19th century players. The game was played differently then, under different rules and conditions and context, just like the baseball card and collectibles issued before the advent of the Topps/Bowman era took over were also issued in a different manner and context. For example, talk about a rookie card having to come from a nationally issued set makes perfect sense in the Topps/Bowman era as they sold cards all over the country. But back before then, major league baseball itself was just a regional sport in truth, with all 16 teams basically no farther West than the Mississippi, and no farther South than St. Louis, MO. So is it really fair and proper to use the same definitions from the last 74-75 years since the Bowman/Leaf sets first came out, of what constitutes a nationally distributed set and the cards eligible to be rookie cards from it, and impose those same standards on the cards and other issues for the approximately 80 years before those late 40s Bowman/Leaf sets were first issued? Ever since the late 40s when the Bowman/Leaf sets first started coming out, there has been at least one nationally issued, continuing card set put out every single year. Prior to that, what is/was considered as being a nationally issued card set was not put out every single year since the first pro-team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, was formed in 1869, through the 1947 season before the Leaf/Bowman sets started coming out in the following years.

I've heard and seen the arguments about who is the greatest this or that of all-time in baseball, and have said that to properly compare and rate players using different standards, measures, and context over the differing years and eras is not fair or proper. In my thinking, you can only reasonably determine who may have been the best by looking at and comparing just the players in particular eras, subject to similar rules, equipment, context, and so on. Otherwise, you end up getting the idiots who will try to tell you that Hyun Jin-Ryu was a much better pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. I hate to say it, but I think you have to not push for one standard definition of a "card" and a "rookie card" over the entire history of major league baseball. From 1948 going forward, yes, you can use the base cards in the nationally distributed sets that have come out from the major card manufacturers every single year since then to define your rookie cards. But prior to 1948, they did not issue those types of sets every single year, and thus I think you may have to modify your definition of what constitutes not just a "rookie card", but what constitutes a "card" itself.

For example, you mentioned not considering paper premiums, stamps, stickers, etc. as not being "cards", per se. But what about games? There were various issues with baseball players that were issued as playing cards in a game, and not issued separately or in packs. Do you include game cards as cards eligible for rookie card status then, like the Tom Barker, National Game, and Polo Grounds sets? And if so, then what about the 1921-30 Major League Die-Cut game piece/cards, shouldn't those be considered as "cards" as well then? Are the 1921-30 ML Die-Cuts really that different from say the 1934-36 Batter-Up or the 1937 O-Pee-Chee cards? Or do you then exclude the Batter-Ups and OPCs as eligible "cards" for "rookie card" status as well because they are die-cuts themselves? And that adds another question regarding the 1904 Allegheny Card Co, cards. The 1904 Allegheny Card Co. cards are supposedly a game card issue as well, not issued specifically as separate collectible cards. And to top it off, only a single proof/test set was issued, so only one Allegheny card of each player exists. You had said that there could be no 1-of-1s in your rookie card definition, but to my recollection, isn't the Allegheny card of HOFer Frank Selee the only card of his out there, at least while he was still alive and actively managing in the majors? So, if the Allegheny Card Co. card doesn't count in your definition, now he doesn't have any rookie card at all, yet a "card" of him does exist. How do you explain that away?

Because of this lack of continuous, nationally distributed baseball card sets for over half the time MLB has been in existence, I think you have to at least bifurcate your rules and definition of what constitutes a "card" and therefore a "rookie card". For anything prior to 1948, I believe you have to be more inclusive and flexible, and in some cases collectible premiums, stamps, stickers, pennants, silks, die-cuts, and the like, actually should be considered as potentially on par with "cards", and thus also eligible for "rookie card" consideration. For example, M101-2 Sporting News Supplements were issued as separate, easily detachable/removable inserts in issues of the Sporting news magazines, and were fully intended to be collected as a set. Helmar Stamps, German Transfers, and BF2 Pennants were issued as collectibles in a set also, along with many other different and oddball type issues from back in the day. Now postcards were not typically issued as collectible sets, CDVs and cabinets were not issued as collectible sets, and game cards were not technically issued as collectible sets either. So where do you draw the line(s)?

For pre Leaf/Bowman/Topps years, i think you have to use an entirely different set of rules and definitions as to what constitutes a collectible/card since there were no nationally distributed card sets coming out every single year like there was after 1947, through to today. Just like the game of baseball has different eras, rules and the way the game was played, so do the collectibles/cards that were issued for the major league ballplayers have different circumstances and eras as well. Also, why continue the modern bias. Instead of imposing the modern card definitions of "cards" and "rookies" onto earlier years, remember that those earlier years before Leaf/Bowman/Topps sets started coming out are actually greater (80+/- versus 74-75) than the modern era of continuous nationally distributed sets. So why aren't you maybe using more relaxed definitions and rules based on the earlier, longer period before 1948 to define what a "card" and a "rookie card" is? Again, I disagree with this often unfair, modern bias that was established starting back in the 80s, based primarily on the Baby Boomers and the emergence/boom of the hobby. And back then, the modern bias was even more disparaging as there was still 80+/- years since MLB collectibles started coming out up till the Leaf/Bowman/Topps sets started being produced, but that modern Leaf/Bowman/Topps era was only around 35-40 years old then, barely half the time of the earlier collecting era. So why did the much shorter era's definition of "cards" and "rookie cards" get to define what those items were in the much longer era preceding it? Seems to me the Beckett's, Tuff Stuffs, and other early baseball guides and booklets pushed collectors to an improper and incorrect set of definitions and thinking. If they could honestly say with a straight face that they thought a '33 Goudey was Ruth's rookie card, they never deserved to tell and dictate anything to anyone in the hobby as to what a "rookie card" was, IMO.

Always a great topic when this has been discussed. There have been a couple of great threads on this. For pre-war issues I am just not sure there will ever be a consensus even if an appointed and respected group of people laid down the law.

I think Phil has put a great deal of thought into this and is far more of an expert on this than I am but I have a very liberal view on what a rookie card is in the pre-war category. I think it frustrates each of Phil's parameters, in fact. :eek: I am not a rookie card collector but when I am seeking a rookie card it is pretty much the earliest appearance by that player that was intended to be distributed for sale or to advertise or promote the player, a product or the team he played for so that item does not have to be a traditional card but preferably made of paper. Size and population would be irrelevant.

Always enjoy
 

Reading what bob c says its like going to school thx Bob appreciate it octavio

The rookie card definition was created for the Topps/Bowman era cards. It doesn't really apply to prewar. I don't think there will ever be a consensus. With prewar you are talking about a player's first card not a rookie card and your definition is more fitting in my opinion.

You crushed it with this answer!!

If anyone is interested in the most current and up-to-date checklist (with images) of the earliest “cards” for each and every Cooperstown HOFer, please check out my website:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

It’s still a work in progress, but it certainly allows people with differing views of what constitutes a “rookie” or what constitutes a “card” to find the item that’s right for them. Feel free to contact me directly with proposed updates or with scans/photos I might be missing.

Wow great website thanks for sharing the LINK. Looks like a labor of love

I think it's a healthy discussion to have and something we can constantly go back and fourth with. I can only offer my limited perspective, as many of the pre-war cards that I seek are out of my price range.

I think due to quality control, the myriad of different companies and the countless sets that were put out before the war, I think it's almost impossible to pin down what a "Rookie Card" should be.

As did you, Derek, with that website. Outstanding effort. Just spent time perusing. There are some awesome pieces there and a great deal of information. Many thanks!!!

Phil and Derek are invaluable resources. Hal Lewis contributed a lot to these discussions back in the day as well. At the end of the day, there are too many subjective judgments that go into the determination for most prewar players for there to ever be a conxensus, as has been said, but it's always very interesting to discuss.

I have little to add. I generally agree with every point that Phil made, except the 1 of 1 (a rookie card would be a rookie card, regardless of how many exist). That said, I also agree with everyone else who said it’s impossible to say for sure and the game, and its collectibles, are very different from Topps/bowman and newer era. And that’s one of the many reasons that prewar is SO awesome

If a rookie card has to be a card and can't be a paperstock cutout that disqualifies Stan Musial's Propagandas Montiel. Mind you, I collect Propagandas, but they definitely aren't cards by any accepted definition of the word. I have a trolley card of Lefty Grove that's quite a bit bigger than a W600 but still arguably a card, as at least it's printed on the correct medium. And while a sticker as such is just sticky paper, if it's issued as part of a card and kept intact, what is it but an image on thin paper backed by adhesive and affixed to cardboard, which also describes N172s.

Postwar is not without controversies either of course. The whole XRC thing. Including kids in major league sets long before they played in the majors until that was changed and official "RC" logos were used. Cards that otherwise meet the usual definitions but were not designated "RC". Team issued cards and regionals the year before the major set debut.

I appreciate everyone's input, especially Bob's detailed explanation with regards to identifying different eras of card collecting and comparing that to the different eras of the game itself. Lots of good points have been made and I agree with many of them.

In my efforts to stress the importance of identifying what is and is not considered a "card", I believe that I led many readers astray by focusing so much on that part of things. My end game here is to one day reach a consensus, player by player, as to which card(s) should be the one(s) collected by those looking to acquire rookie cards of BB HOFers. My purpose is not to define for the hobby what should and should not be considered a card, it's simply eliminating some items from rookie card consideration due to the various parameters that I mentioned in an effort to get to a bottom-line choice or choices. I believe that what is causing most of the difference in opinions here is simply that an item can certainly be considered a rookie collectible for a certain player while not qualifying as a rookie card for that player. It does not lose its relevancy because it isn't a card, it can still pre-date the rookie card, but if it is catalogued as a photo, supplement, sticker, stamp, etc. then by definition it cannot also be a card. This is where I don't really understand the difference in opinions. Let's take Max Carey as a hypothetical example (all of these items may not actually exist for Carey). If I give you the following 4 items and ask you to identify which is/are card(s):

Helmar Stamp
M101-2 Supplement
B18 Blanket
T207

Does anyone on the board feel that the correct answer might be all four, or the Helmar Stamp or M101-2 Supplement or B18 Blanket? I hope that everyone would go with the T207.

I believe that if we take each of the parameters that I mentioned and look at them as being part of the bigger picture, always keeping in mind our ultimate goal of identifying pre-war rookie cards. As Bob already mentioned, this has basically already been done for us during the Topps/Bowman era and carried on for decades thanks to Beckett, the Standard Catalogue, etc. If I ask you what the rookie cards are for each of these all-time greats: Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Pete Rose, Mickey Mantle, etc., I'll bet everyone on here can answer correctly within a matter of a few seconds. I would like that to be the case with pre-war rookies one day. Giving it an open mind, I think you would be surprised how many players we could get through where there is not much debate.

As far as "earliest collectible", lots of us have chosen to pursue that avenue of collecting rookies and how loosely you set your parameters is all totally up to the individual collector. When I was collecting these back in the 2000's-early 2010's, I started out with the traditional post-war rookie cards but slowly gravitated to the earliest collectible that I could find/afford for pre-war. I was accumulating foreign issues, newspaper supplements, stickers, team postcards, type I press photos, pinbacks, etc. This was the greatest collecting experience that I ever had as I was exposed to such a variety of different types of items, not to mention different issues and series, and learned so much from all of this experience. As everyone always recommends, collect what you like and you won't have any regrets.

For those that wish to stick with cards though, and there are certainly many, I would like to see it become possible to try and assemble a set of BB HOF RC's as I once set out to do and the first step along the way is to have a complete want list of what to go after. Hopefully, this explains things a little better and I apologize if this thread originally came across as one man's attempt to define what the card collecting hobby should and should not accept.

Thanks so much for this!

Is this Thorpe’s rookie “card”?

Great site and info Phil, as well as a great thread about what is a "card" and a "rookie card". I wasn't trying to take away any thunder from you with my earlier post, just pointing out how I thought we may have to look at defining a "card" and a "rookie card" based on the different eras in which cards and collectibles are/were issued. It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that 1947/48 is the obvious demarcation line to use when looking at what is and isn't a "card" or a "rookie card". The issuance of those first Leaf and Bowman sets in 1948/49, quickly followed by Topps just a couple years later, clearly defines and sets the standard for what we consider nationally recognized and distributed card sets for the past 74/75 years. Every year since 1948 there has been at least one annually released such set issued/distributed by a major card manufacturer.

Prior to that though, things in the cards/collectibles market were a lot different. If you look in the old SCD catalogs, with the exception of a few years in the 1860's, 1870's, and very early 1880's, they show at least one collectible/set was issued/available for every other single year through 1947. But all of those years did not include such widely distributed true "card" sets as we've seen every year since 1948. Thus the dilemma. Also, your site shows cards/collectibles for HOFers, but isn't the question(s) you're asking actually supposed to be true, or at least applicable then, for ALL major league players/participants throughout the history of baseball? By narrowing you definition of what is an actual "card" you may unintentionally be removing some more obscure, common players from ever having a true "rookie card" then. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but would bet there may be a few, or maybe even more, that would end up with no "rookie cards", or even any true "cards" under a more restricted definition. And that is why I was suggesting the rules before 1948 may need to be relaxed some.

The four examples (Helmar Stamp, M101-2 Supplement, B18 Blanket, and T207) you gave, asking what some of us would consider as true "cards", is a good one. Honestly, if asked which was a "true card", in the strictest sense of the word, I would of course say the T207s. But in terms of what may be a player's collectible/card, I would also say all four of them qualify. The problem as I stated earlier though is that there is a not a "true card" set that was issued every single year up through 1947. And because of those gaps that do exist, the only way you can properly fill them all is by easing the definition of a "card", and maybe make it more like the definition a "collectible", as opposed to just a basic card.

Now I agree that for "rookie card" status you do not include minor or amateur league items, and also do not include civilian or clearly non-baseball related pictures and such either. Also, team photos shouldn't count, and I like the idea of limiting multi-player cards to no more than four players to have it count as someone's "rookie card". Although I know there are some pre-1948 cards/collectibles that had more than four players on them (some R312 cards for example), though I don't think any would be considered as someone's "rookie card". But you never know unless you go researching it.

Now if you want to restrict these pre-1948 definitions of what are "cards" and "rookie cards" to just HOFers, I think you can more easily get away with some more restrictive definitions, such as only counting the T207 cards from your list of four examples as true "cards". But if these definitions are really supposed to be covering ALL major league players and participants (which includes executives, managers, and umpires as well), then I think you really have to have a more relaxed set of definitions as to what is a "card" and a person's "rookie card". In the more relaxed definition version, I can easily see all four examples you named as qualifying as "cards" and therefore as "rookie cards" as well.

The conundrums and possible additional issues and questions can seem almost limitless otherwise. For example, if a card has to be made of paper/cardboard, do Colgan's Chips qualify as a card? Normally people today just think of a modern card as being a rectangular shape only. But a Colgan's Chip card/disc was actually one of the first ever baseball collectibles ever specifically made, packaged, and sold with gum, which is what the post 1947 baseball card sets were all originally based on. Cards to sell gum to kids. How could they not qualify as "cards" then since they were made and distributed for exactly the same purpose of those early Leaf, Bowman, and Topps cards, just because of the shape or exact thickness of the Colgan's Chips cards themselves? And if you say they do/should qualify as "cards", then what about Sweet Caporal Domino Discs? They are even thicker than the Colgan's Chips cards, and much more like and closer to the thickness that makes up the modern cards starting in 1948, but they also are round, AND they came with a metal border/bracket around the outside circumference of the Domino Disc cards for added protection. So, would that thicker cardboard material make the Domino Discs qualify as a card because they were thicker than the Colgan's chips cards, but then they fail because of the protective metal border, or because they were also round and not rectangular? Or here's another example. S74 silks came in two distinct and separate issues. The S74-1 white silk version came with an advertising back attached to the silks, and the S74-2 colored version silks with no advertising backs attached. Under your more strict definition of what is a "card", I would assume the S74-2 colored silks would never qualify as a "card: because they are nothing but a satin cloth material, and have no paper/cardboard at all. But what about the S74-1 white version silks? They originally came with an advertising back attached, which is basically a rectangular card. So do the S74-1s qualify as a card, but the S74-2s don't. And before you say the S74-1s don't qualify as they are a satin material merely glued to a card, don't forget as someone else earlier said, the N172 Old Judge cards are actually photos simply glued to cardboard backings as well. So, what is really the difference between these two sets qualifying as "cards" then. Or take the BF2 Ferguson Bakery pennants. Granted, they are felt pennants, but they have actual photos/cards glued onto them that came from the M101-4 card set produced by Felix Mendelsohn. Just because they got glued onto a different type of backing, does that automatically exclude them from being considered a type of "card" as well then? These are just a few examples off the top of my head. Not always so easy and clear, is it. LOL

And I'll leave you with this. I already mentioned the M101-2 Sporting News Supplement that included HOF umpires Bill Klem and Billy Evans. If you truly want to stay with a stricter definition of what a "card" is, and therefore exclude M101-2 Sporting News Supplements as ever being "cards", Bill Klem at least has a 1935 Schutter-Johnson card. But for Billy Evans I think you're now talking about having to wait till his 1961 Fleer card came out for him to have a "rookie card" then. He retired from umpiring in 1927, 33/34 years before his Fleer "card" was released, and 5/6 years after he has passed away in 1956. That is even worse than saying Babe Ruth's rookie card was his 1933 Goudey cards. At least Ruth was still playing, and alive, when those were issued. LOL I'm not at all trying to give you any grief, I'm just saying it maybe isn't such an easy and straightforward question. And I do not have a definitive answer to it myself. Just throwing some things out there for others to think of, and maybe keep an open mind about. Absolutely great topic to discuss though.

I wonder if at the end of the day the best thing to do is not try to restrict the pre-1948 definitions of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card" to a strict, single definition. Maybe the best thing to do is actually have multiple listings for players. Say one column/listing for first ever appearance on a card/collectible (including minor and amateur leagues), another column/listing for their first true major league "rookie card" using the stricter "card" definition, and finally a third column/listing with their first major league "rookie card/collectible" using a more relaxed definition of what is a "card". Not too dissimilar to what you've already done on your site, but just break the listings into three columns instead of the one where you list the various cards/collectibles for each HOFer and separate the items between the column(s) they fall in. In some cases, you could have the same card/item in multiple columns, like when a player's 'rookie card" under the stricter "card" definition also turns out to be their first ever major league card/collectible issued under the relaxed definitions as well. That way a collector looking at the site wouldn't have to pick/follow one specific definition, they could pick and choose between what they felt comfortable with and how they like to collect. And you've already done most of the heavy lifting with all the cards/items you've already got listed. Would just need to add a couple columns, and then spread the already listed cards/collectible items among them where they belong. Food for thought!

Sorry, double posted on me.

Bob - Klem and Evans each have 1921 Exhibits as well. EDIT: should have written 1922 Exhibits, not 1921 (thanks Phil)!

And my vote on Max Carey would be his 1911 Helmar Stamp. It pre-dates those other items and is, at least, a catalogued collectible in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. To me, that is the “bible”. I can understand the logic of limiting “official” rookies to cards with a production run of some amount to make the goal/checklist achievable. But ignoring collectibles like stamps and premiums is silly in my opinion.

Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.

.

Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...eague%20PC.jpg https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...C%20_back_.jpg

Certainly.

I simply disagree when it comes to team issues. The distinction is artificial. As is the distinction involving postcards, cabinet cards, newspaper issues and smaller premiums. The problem is that the stricter you are, the more issues get left out, until the exceptions swallow the rule. I mean, if the guy has multiple items that predate the 'rookie', sometimes by years, who cares what the 'rookie' is at that point? Let's take Joe DiMaggio as an example and set aside the three PCL issues (2 Zeenuts and the Pebble Beach Clothiers), which I think make the 'rookie' designation superfluous. What've we got?

--1936 World Wide Gum: can a card that was never issued in the country where MLB was played constitute an MLB rookie card? No American kid had a shot at one. That doesn't seem right to me.

--1936 R312-R313-R314: at least these are USA issues. But they are made of the same paper as team issues and were handed out as point of sale premiums.

--1936 Sports Stamps: paper and in a newspaper, but catalogued.

The first 'true American card' you get to is the 1938 Goudey.

Derek,

It is just a fun discussion of a definition(s) that I don't think you can ever get 100% agreement on as to a single one being the sole answer for everybody. And that is a great McGowan postcard by the way. Way cool! But again, do you consider a postcard as a true "card" when determining if something is someone's rookie card? And that is why I also suggested that maybe the best thing to do is actually list multiple answers to the question(s) of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card", and then let each collector pick and choose what suits and makes the most sense to them.

My biggest point though is that I think you have to have different definitions for the pre-1948 years, before the Leaf, Bowman, and Topps sets started coming out every year thereafter, and then separate definitions for the post-1947 years, once Leaf, Bowman, and Topps took the hobby over.

Derek: I know that you meant 1922 Exhibits for Klem and Evans.

I consider Exhibits to be cards/rookie cards. They were sold individually in vending machines with the intent to try and assemble a set, are catalogued, made of thick card stock, have a strong collector base and include the ‘25 Gehrig, which has routinely sold for 6-figures in recent years, prices typically reserved for “cards” as opposed to other types of paper collectibles.

Only a decade ago, when the Gehrig was selling in the low 4-figures, I was strongly promoting this card as the definitive Gehrig RC (amidst the resistance of many who did not feel that a postcard-size item should even be considered as a card) as the year of issue can be pinpointed to 1925 specifically as opposed to the only other option, the W590, which was issued in more than one printing although the Gehrig card itself was initially released on a 1925 strip of 10 cards. Putting it out there on the OldCardboard site, including it in the OCB magazine article that I wrote on the subject as well as including it with the rookie card guides that I self-published during the mid-2010’s, I believe, may have played a significant role in enough collectors jumping on the Gehrig RC bandwagon to see values escalate 30X, 50X, even 100X in high grade.

This is why I believe that the more definitively we can identify some of these pre-war treasures as rookie cards, the more we can see values of those cards escalate, maybe not to the level of an all-time great like Gehrig, but certainly much higher than they are today, even after the recent card boom. I think we have started to see it with the Jimmy Foxx Exhibit RC already.

Not that I'm anti-exhibit, but I think the main issue with the exhibit's in my opinion is that they aren't the prototypical card like you stated. They're the size of a post card. Regardless of how they were sold.

It's fascinating to me that the early 1900's through the the 1910's, we had many mediums for cards, but most of them coming through cigarettes, and cracker jacks at a later date. I wonder why the shift happened, for cards to stop being included in cigarettes? I'm sure some of the Tobacco card historians on the forum could answer my question.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

Interesting question. So, what do you do with someone like Frank Robinson, who was a player, player/manager, and then a manager? Do you then consider him to have two rookie cards, one as a player and a second as a manager? His '57 Topps card is obviously his player rookie card, but then do you consider his '75 Topps card as his managerial rookie card, even though he was also a player, or do you wait until his '77 Topps card when he quit playing and was just a Manager for the Indians as his rookie managerial card? For all the credit Jackie Robinson got as the first black player in MBL history, the importance of Robinson's accomplishment as the first black manager in MLB history shouldn't be overlooked and just dismissed so easily. Had Robinson not been an obvious HOF caliber player, it is quite possible he would/should have deserved HOF status for being the first black manager in the majors anyway. I figured I'd throw that out there before someone says it should only matter for something a person deserves HOF recognition for.

If you're going to separate and consider a not so great player who later on went into the HOF for his managerial accomplishments instead, and determine and recognize he has a separate managerial rookie card, I would think that concept has to go both ways. So, someone that went into the HOF as a player, but also later on managed, should have separate managerial rookie card as well. And you really can't/shouldn't just limit such thinking to only HOFers, I would think it should be across the board for all players and managers then, and you recognize separate rookie playing and managerial cards for everyone, or you only recognize one rookie card for everyone based on when they first started playing.

I agree that it would make sense to have separate player rookies and manager rookies across the board. For HOFers, it's generally clear-cut as whether the player was inducted for his player or manager success. For those where it's not clear-cut -- Joe Torre is a good example -- I suppose you could go with both, though if I collected those things, I would probably go with the player card if it were close.

Great observation but consistent with my views on what a rookie card is for a pre-war player, I would want the managers first appearance on a collectible even if it was as a player and even if he was not accomplished as a player. In the case of Tommy Lasorda I would much prefer a card of his from the 1950s as a player than as a coach or manager in the 1970s.

1956 Kahn's

Agreed, although I tend to prefer his smile on this 1956 Cincinnati Reds Team Issue Postcard over the scowl on his Kahn’s:

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...20Postcard.jpg https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...20Robinson.jpg

Yes, but if you're someone who believes a rookie card is from a nationally distributed set, and not more of a regional set or specialty issue, then it is the 1957 Topps card that is considered his rookie card. Even the SCD Standard Catalogs and Beckett guides list Robinson's '57 Topps card as his rookie card. To each his own, and you are correct that it is Robinson's first appearance as a major leaguer in that Kahn's set. But after the 1948 start of the annual nationally distributed bubble gum card sets from Leaf and Bowman, followed a couple years later by Topps, player's rookie cards have all been considered as coming from those big, annually produced and distributed card sets, not any of the specialty, regional, or other oddball cards and issues. At least that seems to be the case with a large majority of people in the hobby.

If I had said '56 Kahn's instead of '57 Topps, I probably would have gotten someone else posting I was wrong about that. I just mentioned Robinson as he's a perfect example of the potential dilemma in looking for a rookie playing card and a rookie managerial card for the same person, and mentioned his '57 Topps cards as that is the card most people think of as his rookie.

Yes, but if you're someone who believes a rookie card is from a nationally distributed set, and not more of a regional set or specialty issue, then it is the 1957 Topps card that is considered his rookie card. Even the SCD Standard Catalogs and Beckett guides list Robinson's '57 Topps card as his rookie card. To each his own, and you are correct that it is Robinson's first appearance as a major leaguer in that Kahn's set. But after the 1948 start of the annual nationally distributed bubble gum card sets from Leaf and Bowman, followed a couple years later by Topps, player's rookie cards have all been considered as coming from those big, annually produced and distributed card sets, not any of the specialty, regional, or other oddball cards and issues. At least that seems to be the case with a large majority of people in the hobby.

If I had said '56 Kahn's instead of '57 Topps, I probably would have gotten someone else posting I was wrong about that. I just mentioned Robinson as he's a perfect example of the potential dilemma in looking for a rookie playing card and a rookie managerial card for the same person, and mentioned his '57 Topps cards as that is the card most people usually first think of as his rookie.

Almost completely unrelated to the discussion, but I had a healthy chuckle when I saw this part of the post. Couldn't agree more!

Oh, that isn't a made up story, that actually happened and someone actually said that in a different thread on the forum a while back. Modern statisticians, with their modern biases, thinking most all modern players are better than all the older players. They refuse to take into consideration the context and all the other variables when comparing things from era to era in baseball, just like I brought up the thing about having to consider such differences and variables when comparing what is or isn't a rookie card, or even just a card for that matter, from really different eras in the collecting hobby as well.

To truly compare players from different eras, you would have to have a modern player actually born back in the day of an earlier baseball era, and grow up and learn to play in that earlier era, to actually be able to tell if they would have been better than an older era player or not. And the same thing with an older player and having them born today to see how they would turn out with all the modern advantages of science, medicine, equipment, and so on while ending up playing in the games of today. Context is a huge thing, and to my thinking can't be simply defined and measured with some numbers or mathematical formulas. And sort of the same thing with cards and rookie cards. You can't just take the Bowman/Topps/Leaf post 1947 modern era definition of a rookie card being one from a main, nationally distributed set, and simply apply that same definition to everything in the hobby going back to the 1860's. Otherwise, you end up with Babe Ruth's rookie card(s) being from the 1933 Goudey set after all. LOL

So in truth, this isn't completely unrelated to the discussion at all, as it illustrates and shows how thinking and biases from one area, in regards to baseball and the game itself, can be so easily transferred and refocused on another area, such as baseball card collecting.

.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on if foreign cards can be considered as a player's rookie card then? I imagine that question can get a bit more interesting in regard to Negro League players who maybe had cards printed while they were in Cuban or other foreign leagues, and not really in any mainstream American card/collectible issues.

I guess the question would/could come down to maybe whether the card/collectible issue pictured them with what is considered a major league team or not. I would assume a card depicting someone playing in a Winter league, and/or on a Latin, Japanese, or other foreign team, would not be considered as a major league card/collectible. And therefore, if your definition of a rookie card was solely based on it being a major league image and representation, those cards would never be considered a player's rookie card. But if your definition of a rookie card included a player's first ever depiction on a card/collectible as a professional player (or as a minor leaguer or amateur if you had an even more relaxed rookie card definition), then I can see some people considering such foreign cards as rookie cards after all. Depends a lot on the collector themself, and what they think, and not necessarily on what the majority of others in the hobby think or believe after all, IMO.

I would say rules 1 and 2 for rookie card classification are that it has to be a card and can't have been issued prior to the year of the player's major league debut, but that of course has changed in recent years as a subset of Negro League teams have now been retroactively classified as MLB teams, as well they should be. What country a card was printed in or distributed in shouldn't make any difference.

Mind you, if the player has a card issued prior to the year of his MLB debut I can understand why that would be more valuable than his actual rookie card, but I just interpret the word rookie in the phrase "rookie card" as referring to the status of the player rather than of the card itself. Otherwise identifying a player's rookie card is identical to just identifying his first card. Nothing wrong with an N172 Kid Nichols or a 1993 SP Derek Jeter, but they are of course cards of minor leaguers.

So to be clear, if a Negro League player didn't have any earlier cards of him playing for one of the now recognized Negro ML teams in the U.S., but did have as his very first card say a Cuban issue of him playing for a Winter league Cuban team, and not a recognized Negro ML team, you would say the Cuban issued, Winter league team card is his major league professional rookie card?

There is no right or wrong answer, just checking on what you think and meant by what you were saying,

I believe I dodged that particular question. I'll give it some more thought. I presume in this case that the card was issued in a year that the player did play in the majors but that he appears on the card with a different team; is that what you mean?

Bob:

I have always considered foreign issues that are actually cards such as Cabanas, Punch, Tomas Gutierrez, Billiken, Nacionales, Baguer Chocolate, Propagandas Montiel, Toleteros, Denia, etc. to be candidates for rookie card status, particularly but not limited only to Negro League players as there was never a U.S. issued card for any of them up until the Jackie Robinson era. I am aware that Harrison Studios issued a few Grays postcards during the early 1930’s but most are single known examples although a few dupes do exist.

Please delete

Interesting point regarding the SP Jeter being a pre-rookie card. The way that I have always treated these situations is whether the set that the card appears in was designed to be an MLB set or minor league set. In this case, 1993 SP was clearly a Major League issue although several minor league prospects such as Johnny Damon, Dmitri Young, etc. were included. Thus, I consider this to be Jeter’s RC.

Similar situations have come up in the past regarding a few N172 Old Judges such as the just mentioned Kid Nichols. He does appear in a minor league uniform in this set but by and large, the set consists primarily of Major Leaguers. Yes, I know that several minor league teams were also included and if these were given their own set designation, I would not count them as rookie cards but that is not the case.

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

Don't disagree at all Phil that many people will consider foreign issues as eligible for rookie card status. Especially when the player has no other ML cards. Just shows how different people can have different ideas and different thinking when it comes to rookie cards, especially before 1948 when the Leaf/Bowman/Topps era of card production took over.

And the 1993 SP card of Jeter is another great example of the ambiguities and questions that can arise. Same sort of thing with the 1985 Mark McGwire Team USA "rookie" card. When the major card manufacturing companies started including these prospect and minor league players in their regular annual card issues, it potentially changes once again how people think and look at ML rookie cards. It was well over what, 30 years that the Bowman/Topps companies started issuing their annual card sets with just major league players in them? Those years were what kind of set the "gold standard" then for what many collectors during the hobby boom and after considered a player's true rookie card then. Later card issues then adding minor league and prospect players just start to muddy up the waters and thinking even more. Makes the whole issue clear as mud! LOL

I would stick with all of the foreign issues that I listed previously being rookie card candidates. In mostly all cases, the teams that they appear on for those cards are “major league” for that particular country. Very few of us have enough expertise to determine those that are not “major league”. Besides that, the alternative would be that we count the 1974/1978 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards as rookies for just about every Negro Leaguer that had a card issued. This would make all of these rookie cards issued between 30-60 after the player retired. Not a whole lot of fun to collect those if you ask me. Sometimes common sense wins out over a technicality.

Well, that raises another interesting question, especially when talking about HOFers. Would Cooperstown ever allow. let alone consider, a player that only played in what you are terming as a foreign "major league level" league to be able to get into the Cooperstown HOF as an inductee then? I'm pretty sure the answer is a resounding - NO! And also, MLB and SABR and other US baseball related and affiliated organizations do not ever consider any such foreign leagues as "major league level" either, to my knowledge. Think about it, if they ever did, Ichiro would be the all-time hits leader in baseball history, and Sadaharu Oh would be up on the top of Mt. Rushmore for home run hitters, way ahead of everyone else. But neither of them is. So, if apparently no one or no organization part of or involved in any way with the hierarchy of U.S. major league baseball will ever consider such foreign leagues as on a "major league level", why would/should anyone else think that way for purposes of determining a player's "major league" rookie card? It kind of doesn't make any logical sense, does it?

But again, people can think what they want, and to me, there are no or right wrong answers. Just differing opinions.