Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
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.
|
I agree some players don't have rookies. If no card was made in early career, there is no rookie card. I have no clue what "so how is a post career card a rookie?" could possibly have to do with what is being discussed. 1947 Bond Breads and 1948 Swells are not post-career cards? Nowhere am I arguing, in any way, shape, or form that post-career cards are rookies. I do not see how it is possible that one could construe that from anything I have said. I'm not sure why photos, post-career cards, cards of other players who are in the foreground of a card focused on someone else etc. keep getting brought up into this, as none of these have a single thing to do with Jackie's rookie.
The Bond Breads, as several others have explained already, were not obscure regionals and had a broad geographic area of distribution. They were the MOST available cards of 1947, are readily found for sale, and are easily available. Yes, there are not as many as there are 1949 Bowman's, but that seems a strange standard to set. What is the print run required to qualify?
If this is our standard, then only certain parts of certain sets can be rookies, at best. The 1949 Leaf second series sure can't, as that was only issued in a few small regions. Topps high numbers sure weren't nationally issued and many areas never saw them at all. I guess the players next first series Topps card becomes the rookie then? Heck, were even the first series truly issued everywhere? I guess the 75 Topps Mini Brett isn't a rookie either, as it wasn't sold everywhere.
This feels like splitting hairs, and relies on vague definitions that exclude many series of even Topps and Bowman sets, based on distribution and print runs that can be estimated or told from the anecdotal but not positively known as the documentation does not exist or has not been discovered for any of the vintage sets.
"Collect how you like, but let others do the same." Who am I stopping from collecting anything? Couldn't this same sentence be said of anyone who disagrees with me on the exact same logic, if to disagree with your definition is to stop people from collecting what they want? This is clearly absurd.