Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmopar
Widely distributed (and more substantially sized sets) like Leaf and Bowman vs smaller, perhaps even regional issues. I guess it depends on your own belief of what a rookie card should be. Earliest item, regardless of origin? Does a premium promotional or retail sold photo or PC get the same credit as a trading card?
Here is one to be pondered. There is a current hockey guy, don't follow the sport and don't recall the name. He is apparently in the stands and captured in the background of a then current players card. 94 or 95 Pinnacle is the set.
Clearly, this is coincidence that this kid in the game action photo goes on to be a star in his own right, but people are now paying substantially more for the common card because this future star is pictured. Definitely a rookie for that guy, but is likely the earliest national issue picturing him.
|
I would take a pretty literal definition of a 'card' and say photos do not count, a postcard does. It doesn't affect Jackie though, I don't think anyone can argue that Bond Breads and Swells are not cards.
If Bond Bread (which must have been distributed over a fairly large area for the set featuring many players, as there are tons of these cards today) is too minor or not a major manufacturer, then I don't think Leaf is. The 1949 Leaf set was illegal, using players images with no licensing rights which got the set pulled. I'd think that wouldn't count either then, making his 17th issued card, the 1949 Bowman, a "Rookie", which seems pretty absurd to me. It's not like the Bonds or Swells are some truly obscure issue even put out only in some town. At least the 1952 Topps Mantle "Rookie" is his third issued card.