[jchcollins]

Not much before the early 1980's. Hobby publications from the 70's have a lot of stuff about error cards, which for a time were all the rage. But like in 1978, a Nolan Ryan rookie or something was not worth more than the Mantle or the Mays from the same set. Ryan then was not the legend he is now, but he was a superstar pitcher in the prime of his career with 4 no-hitters and a single season K record under his belt.

I started buying packs at age 9 in 1986, and by then of course rookies were all the rage. The obtainable one for my friends and I was the '84 Topps Don Mattingly. The most famous vintage rookie card then was probably the '63 Pete Rose, or the '52 Mantle - yes, people were referring to it as a RC even then - though we know the "First Topps" card designation is more accurate.

I too would agree that cards from an MVP or best season, or even a last season card to include the few that capture all career stats - should have some type of premium placed on them. As a kid who did not have the luxury of owning many vintage rookie cards, I would shoot for when the player was in his prime, or often just throw that out the window in favor of an "older is better" mantra. To my child's eye, a '51 Bowman Duke Snider was going to be more valuable than his '56 Topps - simply because it was older. Does that make any sense? It seemed to a lot more back then as compared to now.