Quote:
Originally Posted by drcy
I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.
Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.
If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.
And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).
P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..
|
I am not sure what back in the day means, but going back to at least 1959 Topps included players with no MLB experience in their sets. Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.
I agree that Topps, Bowman or Fleer don't hold a monopoly, but it must be a national set, where the majority of collectors could obtain the card. So, if Post had made a card of Willie Stargell in 1963, it would be a rookie. IDL is not. It also must be a major league set.
Also, the point of a player not having a rookie card is a valid one. It certainly doesn't need to be released by his rookie season, but if it occurs several years after, is it a rookie card? Then does the player not have a rookie or do we find a card that doesn't meet the definition, a "first card" for people to chase?