[novakjr]

Phil, I've gotta agree with Rob. Cons 1-3 aren't cons for a HOF rookie card collection...However, I do agree that they can at some point become one..

The loose definitions that some people have of both "rookie" and "card", plus the lack of any definitive resourse, actlually gives some leway to the beginning collector, and might encourage one to take on the task.

Basically, If I were starting out, and knew for sure that I had to have the Just So Young and Burkett or Baltimore News Ruth amongst other specific cards, there's no way that I even bother... The lack of these specific designation, give me a chance to set my own parameters at the start. And then as we all know, our opinions change over time, and we all eventually move closer to the "true rookies"..

Take a player like Al Lopez for example. Currently, I'm ok with pursuing the '34 Batter Up, but eventually, I will end up upgrading to the Baguer. In this case though, the loose option of the Batter Up helps keep the interest as a "filler"... Same for Joe Medwick. I'm ok with one of the '34 issues, but will ultimately eventually move on to the '33 Worch Cigars.

Also, using the loose definitions, a person might ultimately end up going the earliest photographic image route, as you did, and include woodcuts and such.. Or kind of a mix-match of the two, using both "rookie cards" and/or images that pre-date said "rookie card".

It's an evolving project..