Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog
I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.
If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.
The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)
|
Great points Glenn, and it helps to further illustrate how different people can look at the rookie card parameters in a multitude of different ways. As I've said before, I don't think there is one single way to define what is a person's true rookie card, and there are no wrong answers. I also think it then makes sense to list the different options and such that can fulfill different people's definition of what they think of a rookie card. The listing from Phil's site is a perfect example. It doesn't list just one single card/collectible for each player, but multiple ones, including first ML cards, first professional league cards, and some collectibles that are not traditional "cards" as well. As I suggested, he could even create separate columns to make it even easier for people to see which cards/items relate to first ever appearance, first amateur/minor league card, first ML card appearance, and even the first traditional "card" appearance, and so on.
As others have noted, for some of the Negro League players their first really true "card" turns out to be a 1974 Laughlin card. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right to me, and obviously many others as well, as to being their "true" rookie card. For a card to be someone's rookie card, you would think/hope it had to have been issued at some point while they were still playing, and if nothing else, at least while they were still alive. But again, to each his own. There are no 100% right or wrong answers. Still great to discuss and think about though.