Quote:
Originally Posted by h2oya311
Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.
  |
Derek,
It is just a fun discussion of a definition(s) that I don't think you can ever get 100% agreement on as to a single one being the sole answer for everybody. And that is a great McGowan postcard by the way. Way cool! But again, do you consider a postcard as a true "card" when determining if something is someone's rookie card? And that is why I also suggested that maybe the best thing to do is actually list multiple answers to the question(s) of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card", and then let each collector pick and choose what suits and makes the most sense to them.
My biggest point though is that I think you have to have different definitions for the pre-1948 years, before the Leaf, Bowman, and Topps sets started coming out every year thereafter, and then separate definitions for the post-1947 years, once Leaf, Bowman, and Topps took the hobby over.