Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Again, I’m not picking out items that are debatably cards or debatably Jackie Robinson cards or are even obscure or small regional issues. If the Bond and Swell are too tough to be the rookie, then 1933 Goudey and T206 are pretty much the rookie sets for every pre-war player like Beckett used to allege, as almost all the other sets are also too tough. The Bonds were probably the most available baseball cards in 1947, Swell the 2nd most available set in 1948 I think.
|
Except they are regional issues. If they were issued nationally we would see numbers more in line with the Leaf and Bowman sets. There is nothing that says a player has to have a rookie card. Some players have no cards issued during their playing days, so how is a post career card a rookie? Reggie Jackson played in 1967 and his rookie is 1969, not much different from Jackie. John Havlicek played in 62-63 but since there were no sets between 61-62 Fleee and 69-70 Topps, the Topps is considered a RC, but should it?
Pretty much anything before 1933 Goudey isn't really a rookie card. I have no problem saying a player doesn't have a rookie card. If others want to chase obscure regionals and call them rookies, they can collect how they like. That doesn't change that they don't carry the spirit of what a true rookie card is. The first nationally issued major league card, a card that all fans and collectors have access to and can collect while they watch that player develop into a star or bust. As was pointed out above, the hobby has evolved and early card history doesn't fit with more developed times. Collect how you like, but let others do the same.