Are post cards rookie cards?
 

Hi all,

I'm working on a creating a custom list of all rookie cards and ran into instances where a few guys have their first "card"" as a postcard.

If someone's first appearance is on a post card, do you consider it a rookie card?

Why soitenly.

Only if the PC is part of a set of some kind. Otherwise, it's just a PC.

And, by "set", I mean a collection of PCs that was produced in some sort of quantity, even if only two copies of each PC were printed. Otherwise, it's just a PC.

A single known PC of some Negro League HOFer shouldn't be considered a RC or card of any sort simply because there's so little else available on that player. It's just a PC.

Same rules apply to cabinet photos of 19th century players, even if more than one copy is known. They may be lovely, but if they're not part of any series, they're photos.

I think a lot of the rule-bending, for lack of a better term, can be placed on auction houses trying to squeeze more money out of buyers by convincing (some of) them that items like these can also be considered cards. Clearly, many people have taken the bait. Again, it doesn't make these items any less fetching in most cases, but let's call a spade a spade.

I suppose that someone will counter my feelings with pointing out that the Peck & Snyder is considered the first baseball card, yet is not part of a larger set! ;) Due to the advertising on that card, I'd like to think of it more as a premium, but there are technicalities everywhere we turn! Hey, we can call it a "set" due to the variations!

These aren't hard and fast rules, but they're my take on it. The best part is that the only rules are those that you have chosen to consider in your own collecting. If you consider that elephant over there to be a card, so be it! More power to you.

That's the ultimate takeaway.

Some people won't consider regional issues even if they're the same size, type, etc of cards considered "real."

Some people won't consider anything that was mailed in to claim even if similar cards were released as a food/item premium.

Some people won't consider anything that didn't come in a pack.

Some people won't consider anything oversized... or too undersized...or stamps...or leathers...or wrappers (Overland Candy)...etc...

I consider non-oversized regional issues RC's if they're the earliest cards. I know numerous people that would not...

[QUOTE=BillyCoxDodgers3B;2515128,

These aren't hard and fast rules, but they're my take on it. The best part is that the only rules are those that you have chosen to consider in your own collecting. If you consider that elephant over there to be a card, so be it! More power to you.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Seems like the latest trend in collecting over last 5 years are so is that everything counts.
PLus people are saying things are the "rookie cards" to increase its value so they get more.

I love Postcards and some of them have been more accepted as cards then others.

To me in general there are to many rookie cards however you want to define them.

As an example I think Ty Cobb has more than double digit rookie cards.

Some places you hear and read that consider 1933 Goudey Ruth Cards his Ruth cards. (GOOGLE IT)

If you need help creating your custom checklist for HOF rookie cards, my site will likely help you tremendously:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

It’s about 50% complete now, but I’m hoping to have all images and verified checklists by the end of the year. The checklists are generally complete, but may have a few holes for those players where it still says “under construction”. Of course, if anyone sees anything missing, please let me know. It’s intended to be all encompassing.

Generally yes, unless it was produced prior to the year of his MLB debut.

I admit I haven't read through all of this. Throw in cabinets.

Thanks! I've been using a few different sources to determine rookie cards. I effectively started with the post war rookie HOF list from PSA and have expanded it. MY goal was to make it something achievable. So I relied upon sets like 1950 callahan and 1974/78 Laughlins. Once I'm happy with the list I'll finalize it and post it here for feedback

A wondrous resource, and just great to browse as well.

Perhaps apropos of nothing, I thought the thread title referred to "Post" (as in the brand), which may open this up to a tangential discussion.
If a card appears on a box to be cut out, would that count as a true rookie if it preceded other issuances?

Great question! In reviewing the lists of HOF rookie cards, I haven't come across a box cut or strip card yet. Anyone can feel free to correct me!

A baseball card is a trading card, a postcard is a card meant for mailing and sending a message. I don’t consider them the same so a rookie card designation wouldn’t apply, in my mind…and I love vintage baseball postcards.

Strip Cards
W590 Gehrig
W519 Frisch
W520 Coveleski
W514 Youngs
W504 H Wilson
W502 Dickey
W573 Hartnett
W520 Kelly
W590 Lindstrom

Box Cut
76 Hostess Eckersley
78 Hostess Murray
79 Hostess O Smith
75 Hostess Yount
61 Post Santo

If I own the PC it is a RC. If not, not. ;)

I see both sides, but postcards were definitely meant to be collected back in the day in addition to being mailed. They were issued in series to collect and books were made to display them. Collecting postcards was a very popular hobby.

Most of the postcards that exist were never mailed and have no messages written on them.

Ok, I rescind what I wrote. It's this. ;)

That is true, and I can see that side of it. I guess I just don’t consider postcards to be the same as baseball cards.

Post cards are trash.

Postcards
 

This is what I have learned in my 50+ years of card collecting. Terms like "Rookie Card" and "Baseball Card" have varying and evolving definitions. My personal take on these terms is that there tend to be strict and broad definitions depending on the catalogue, book, collector or dealer you read or speak too. I have found that generally those using a strict definition for rookie card refer to the first year card picturing a Major League baseball player in a national set by a major manufacturer (Goudey, Play Ball, Bowman, Topps, etc). Those using a broader definition consider a rookie card to be the first card picturing a Major League baseball player in any baseball card set (Major Manufacturer, Regional, food, Exhibits, Premiums, Postcard set, Foreign, etc.). Again these definitions vary, sometimes widely, and in the end we as collectors must decide for ourselves what we ultimately consider a baseball card and the rookie card of a player. In my personal collection I seek out the first available card of every Cuban born player that has played in the Major leagues. My personal take is that I swing from strict to broad depending on the player. Many players did not have cards made by major manufactures so I seek any card available for the player. In my collection I have included items like foreign cards, postcards, team issued premiums and photos for players that had no other item made. In conclusion we should all collect what we like. And a note to "Postcards are trash guy," if you ever run across a 1915 Postcard of Babe Ruth in Spring Training with the Red Sox, before you throw it away please ship it to me. I would gladly pay for shipping, handling and insurance.

I thought we were talking about Post Cereal cards. No issue at all with postcards, although I don't view them as baseball cards per se. I'll keep an eye out for that Ruth for ya!

Regarding post cards:

In the early 20th century there are so many post cards with "limited" availability/distribution. Is the poll taking into consideration that these could be "rookie" cards?

im sure you've seen this resource as well. good complement to what you're working on and what DRG provided that i reference often

https://oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/RookiesList.asp

Post cards are not baseball cards, in my opinion, so I don't think the question is relevant if we're taking about baseball cards. Otherwise, why not first posters, or first magazine cover, or first type 1 photo being a "rookie card"?

The whole "Rookie Card" thing was created as a commercial gimmick. I remember when Card Prices Update (CPU) ruled the world of card perceived value/pricing. Every month prices would bounce up or down, 90% of the time up, and beside some cards was the designation "RC." I think the rationale was that it was similar to the first edition of a book, and therefore more valuable.

They even had the 1952 Topps Mantle designated RC, to get that price elevated.

My point is, "rookie card" was basically a money-making gimmick from the beginning, and people have been trying to bend and twist its definition for decades, to suit their own purposes (and inventories/collections.)

Seriously, for you actual collectors, would you rather have a 1963 Topps floating head Pete Rose, or a 1964 Topps Pete Rose, if the bogus "rookie card" phenomena didn't exist?

I completely get where you're coming from with that question, as the '64 is a thing of beauty, as is the '69 Bench and, to a lesser extent, the '69 Ryan. The '76 Yount ranks right up there, too. There are so many cases of this, aren't there?!

But, I do love that '63, perhaps because I'm focused on autographs. Love, love, love multi-player RCs when they're all signed up! Forgive the reprint here, but the autographs are real. This card sure made the rounds, including a flight to the Dominican via Puerto Rico in order to get the inaccessible Gonzalez to sign. By that time, Pedro had lost a leg to diabetes.

The saddest part of this tale was that I also had two genuine copies of this card ready to be sent along to Pedro, but a shady, two-bit huckster who fancies himself a promoter promised me that he was having a "hush-hush" signing with Rose that ended up being a complete fabrication. He held on to my cards forever; poor Pedro passed in the meantime. No point in only getting three players on the card...then Rose and his autograph handler were going through their phases of "no RCs" or "RCs signed for a ridiculous upcharge". So, here I sit with my fully-signed reprint and two unsigned RCs sitting in a box somewhere. Guess I should really try to find them! :)