Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.
The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.
|
Go along with rats, it has a lot to do about the money. Dealers want there to be enough rookie cards so they can sell them as rookies and charge more to make more. If an earlier issue like Tip Top Bread would have ended up being recognized from day one as a player's rookie card, instead of a later Bowman card, those Bowman "rookies" wouldn't be worth anywhere near what they are today. And since Tip Top cards are a lot scarcer than Bowman cards, there would have been far fewer "rookie" cards for dealers to sell at an elevated price.
Seem to remember this debate from way back when the Beckett price guides used to list Ruth's Goudeys as his rookie cards if I remember correctly. Haven't looked in a Beckett price guide for 15-20 years, do they still claim a '33 Goudey as his rookie? For cryin' out loud, he came up in 1915 with the Red Sox, was in an unbelievable number of sets over the ensuing years, but doesn't have a rookie card till his 19th season in the majors?!?!?! Give me a break!!! Always felt that was a major reason the Goudey Ruths have always been so expensive. It's not like '33 Goudey Ruths are particularly scarce and hard to find either. I've always felt they are significantly overpriced as a residual effect coming from this misapplication of what the definition of a "rookie" card is. Take a look at any other ballplayer, especially ones from the modern Bowman-Topps era, and compare the value of their 1st and 2nd year cards with those of their 19th season, and tell me how they differ. I know it is not a perfect comparison, and we are talking about Ruth and the very popular Goudey set, but the Goudey Ruths still seem disproportionately high to me. And I believe that still has a lot to do with the old definition of what was a "rookie" card from back when the Beckett guides were fueling the card collecting popularity as it was taking off.
Plus, don't know if this was a factor or not, but Beckett sold an awful lot of those monthly price guide magazines back in the day. Well, they only had a limited number of pages to work with and list their price guide info on. So when it came to the earlier years, they wouldn't want to take the time and trouble (and cost) to list all the sets and issues we are aware of nowadays thanks to things like the internet, the SCD catalogs, and overall increased collector interest in the more obscure/regional sets over time. So when Beckett would just list a few of the old sets (like T206 and '33 Goudey) in those price guides, I often wondered if they didn't push their definition of what a "rookie" card was so they could make the few vintage sets they selected for their price guide magazines look more important and valuable with more "rookie" cards in them. And that would also be more helpful to dealers when they would just show a potential customer at a card show/shop the page in the price guide and say, "See, it's worth more because it's his rookie."