[mrmopar]

It seems that because people really didn't necessarily card about "rookie" cards until much later, trying to pinpoint a "rookie" among the various issues that predated the players debut well after the fact has become a favorite debate.

Originally, we just had the "major" card makers, a few oddballs and some regional sets. Then in the 80s we saw XRCs because those cards were only sold in sets. Not sure why a card only sold in a set would be any LESS of a rookie card than one from a pack, especially if they were available to anyone, not just people in a certain part of the world.

Then, once you think you have it all figured out, introduce the basketball card dilemma. A few sets issued along the way in the 40s, 50s and 60s before Topps established a regular card market. All those guys who played in the mid to late 60s with nothing until Topps shows up, or reappears actually, after a long hiatus. Then it happened again when Topps shut it down again after the 81 set! All those guys after 81 until Fleer started producing the primary sets of the time in 86...unless you count Star, but those were sold as bagged sets so they don't count or are XRCs (says many people).

I would tend to think the true rookie item is the item issued the earliest, dedicated to that player. By that I mean, some modern star as a kid in the background of another players card is not a rookie. A guy pictured on a world series card is not a rookie card. A guy pictured on a 4 player exhibit card could very well be considered a rookie card. A guy on a food issue, when no other major issues were available, could be considered a rookie. Just my personal opinion.