Posted By:
warshawlawWhen it comes to these old issues, it is really tough to decide what card is the right one. Remember, the Topps-enforced card monopoly did not exist until the mid-1950's. Many card makers issued nationally distributed cards and deciding which is a "rookie" is often about as subjective as deciding on an alltime greats team.
Sometimes, the seller wants it to be a rookie card even if it is not. For example, I had some jackass of a seller at a recent show try to pawn off a Canadian 1930's card on me as a HOFer rookie when the player had several prior Exhibit issues. When I pointed out the earlier cards, he said that Exhibit cards don't count. I then told him that Canadian cards are not generally accepted as US rookie cards and left before he could wedge the other foot into his mouth.
Other times, the definition of "card" is the issue. An example is Lou Gehrig's 1925 Exhibit card. This card is accepted by many experts as Gehrig's rookie card, yet many others who would prefer to have a later issue be a rookie card and justify it by excluding oversized cards from the definition of card. Ditto for DiMaggio's 1936 wide pen and fine pen cards.
In terms of minor league cards, no, sorry, they ain't rookie cards because they lack the one essential feature central to any rookie card: the player being a rookie in MLB. Heck, I'd love for the definition to be otherwise--my Zeenuts would be worth a lot more--but I think at a bare minimum any rookie card has to feature a player in MLB. Anything else may be a first card or even an only card, but it ain't a rookie card.
The Cuban issues of black players pose a special dilemma since they were excluded from MLB. I still don't accept the idea of those cards as rookie cards, for the same reason as any minor league card, but I do recognize the validity of another viewpoint.