vintage rookie cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

I am new to the vintage card world, and was wondering if anyone had any info they wanted to share. I am looking into putting a set of HOF rookie cards. I am 20% done and getting ready to start on some pre-war cards. My question is how are pre-war rookie cards defined? Also any other advice is appreciated. thanks for any and all input.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i think it's safe to say there is not 100% agreement on what a rookie card is in the pre war world. here's a helpful link.
http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/hofers.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Stan Musial was "active in Baseball prior to World War II" and he's not in the listing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

What does it mean when it says this-1909-13 Sporting News Suppliments? What does the 1909-1913 mean? I know that its the years but why is it grouped as 1 card?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are so many opinions at to what constitutes a player's rookie card that you almost have to make your own decision on a case by case basis.

Some are clear cut, but where there is a varying opinion just choose the one you would most like to own.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If you are going to collect rookie HOF'ers, Pre-War, you need to have a personal definition of "what" constitutes a rookie card? I would say the very first hurdle should be to ask yourself if a pre-major league card is a rookie? There is no definitive answer. We have discussed it a million times. You might even go as far as to say either a "first card" or a "first major league" card. There are many HOF'ers whos first card is a minor league one....especially for many that were in the Zeenut series. Do searches on this board for great discussions on the topic, and think about it...come up with what you are comfortable with...then make a list of the cards you will go for. Some will probably be out of reach financially, or completely unattainable, so 2nd choices will be good too....welcome to the board and Good luck in the hunt....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

thanks for your replies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Green

Some pre-war cards were issued over several years. For example, the postcard-back exhibits were issued between 1925 and 1931, thus they are the 1925-31 Postcard-back Exhibits. So, in many cases it's a guessing game as to which year or years a particular player in the postcard-back exhibits was produced. Perhaps a player retired in 1928 and he is in the 1925-31 postcard-back exhibit set. Therefore, you know that his card was issued in 1928 or before. Another player might have started playing in 1929. Therefore, his 1925-31 postcard-back exhibit was issued in 1929 or later. Perhaps a player was traded in 1927 and is shown on the postard-back exhibits with his new team. Therefore, you know that his 1925-31 postcard-back exhibit was issued in 1927 or later. The uncertainty in years for sets like this makes collecting rookie cards more difficult. You know that the 1952 Topps cards were produced in 1952. However, some pre-war cards cannot be pinned down to just one year like the Topps cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- one of my favorite examples is the perceived rookie card of Kid Nichols.

The majority of collectors consider his N300 Mayo to be his rookie, but at that point he had already played in the major leagues for six seasons.

I consider his N172 Old Judge to be his first, but because he is pictured with Omaha collectors generally disagree, and consider it his "prookie", or pre-rookie card, since Omaha was in the Western Association and not a major league club. In the end, choose the one you would rather have.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

lol this sounds like it could get very odd? Anyway thanks. I am getting out of the current rookie market, I think it will crash in the immediate future. Too much up and down in the market and now MLB sets the parameters on what is a rookie card. I started working on this at the first of the year.
I am super excited about my project. It is getting ready to get expensive!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Dan,

You have opened up a can of worms with your statement, "...MLB sets the parameters for what is a rookie card." I'm not aware that MLB has said a single word regarding what constitutes a rookie card.

Both the card manufacturers and Beckett's have been trying to define a rookie card for a while. At the same time hobbyists don't adhere to either definition.

If MLB really cared about the hobby they would say something but so far they have remained quiet.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Beckett's definition of a Ruth rookie is his 1933 Goudey cards. Yikes....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

1933 was Ruth's 20th season in the majors!

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

It has nothing to do with vintage "rookie cards".......

But MLB has done something about the Modern "rookie cards". I guess MLB recently made some rules the modern card companies need to go by.

Im not interested in this and its a long read but this guy explains it in another message board post.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68142


As far as vintage, I would rather have a "first card" rather than a MLB "rookie card" ie. 1933 Zeenut DiMaggio, 1914 Balt News Ruth, 1946 Prop Mont Musial

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

FKW,

Thanks for the link, the article refers to ML Players Association and modern day rookie cards. MLB, itself has not spoken out. Also, there is no reference to pre-war or vintage cards.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Dan:

Even the post-war HOF rookie card chase presents interesting challenges. For example, the earliest issued card for Ozzie Smith is the 1978 Family Fun Center Padres and the earliest issued Dave Winfield card is the 1973 Dean's Photo Service Padres. Just two examples where the more commonly accepted rookie card is a very easy to obtain Topps issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Dan,

I wish you well in your efforts, but be aware of what you are getting yourself into. Collecting the rookie card of every Hall of Famer will be literally impossible. And even if it were possible, it will be prohibitively expensive.

Take, for example, Cy Young. I think there is general agreement that his rookie card is the 1893 Just So tobacco card. There is exactly one known copy. The owner of the card (who participates on this Board) is not likely to sell it any time soon for any price. If he did sell it, it's anyone's guess what it would actually sell for. I think it's a safe bet that it would not sell for less than $100K, and I wouldn't be surprised if it sold for half a million.

Then there's Hugh Jennings. His rookie card is the 1894 Alpha. Again, just one is known.

If you consider minor league cards to be rookie cards, then Babe Ruth will also be tough. His 1914 Baltimore News card will set you back a quarter million. Only a few examples are known. If you just want his first major league card, it will still cost you about 10K for a presentable example.

If you include managers, umpires, executives, etc., then you will need a Frank Selee. There's only one in existence, his 1904 Allegheny card. It's hard to call it his rookie, since he retired after the following season. But it's his only card, so you might call it his rookie. This one is also not for sale.

The Negro Leaguers will also be a problem. Several of these players have cards from Cuba or Puerto Rico. Most are very expensive. There is only one example known of Pete Hill's rookie card, and I don't believe it's for sale. Biz Mackey is very tough, with probably less than 10 examples known of his only card. Oscar Charleston and Pop Lloyd will also be very expensive.

Even excluding all of these super tough ones, many of the 19th Century players will kill you financially. Ed Delahanty's rookie will cost at least $5,000 in decent shape. The same is true of Bid McPhee. Amos Rusie will also be 4-5K.

I'd suggest trying to get one card -- any card -- of every Hall of Famer, which is a huge task in itself, with a few near impossibilities like I just mentioned. You can strive for rookies when they are not obscenely expensive, but be prepared to settle for a non-rookie for many players.

For some players, it will tough to get even close to a rookie card. Cy Young is a good example again. After his 1893 Just So, his next card is his 1902 W600, which is very tough. His next card is his 1903 E107, which is even tougher. His next card after that is probably his 1906 Fan Craze. That is probably his oldest reasonably obtainable card. And he played from 1890-1911, so he wasn't exactly a young man when that card came out.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to throw cold water on your plans. I just thought you should go in with your eyes open.

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

On this rookie card thing:

Who made the rules that "rookie cards" are worth an arm and a leg more than the other later cards of a player?

Why do people have such a herd mentality - and go ahead and pay the premium for the rookie card?

Rookie cards are not necessarily low population. Rookie cards often are not the most asthetically eye appealing cards.

Just food for thought, Steve.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

You have it backwards. No one says they are worth more. Its demand that make these cards worth more. More collectors want these early cards. Its quite a challenge to find the first or rookie card of many HOFers, and when you do locate one you usually have to fight others for it.

Value is always about supply and demand.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan P.

I think it was Mark Lewis of old CPU fame who started the "rookie card craze" with high prices in his price guides in the late 70's to mid 80's.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Paradis

Dan, I've been "trying" to collect rookie cards for every MLB HOF player now for 2 years. I've defined pre-war rookie cards as the closest card to their 1st MLB card that I can afford. Obviously, that's ridiculous. However, it's virtually impossible to complete a collection of HOF players real 1st MLB cards unless you're willing to spend $1,000,000 on cards (actually I don't think a million is enough).

As someone mentioned earlier, forget about Cy Young's 1893 and for the most part, just about everyone that has a 1st card is a E107 (they're very rare and expensive).

So what I decided to do is collect Fan Craze cards (instead of E107's). They are reasonably priced and I think really nice cards. I am trying to collect OJ's since most of the HOF'ers OJ cards are reasonably priced (around $500-$1000 in low grade).

I actually have a spreadsheet of every card I've purchased (along with when, grade, $$ spent,etc). If you email me I'll send it to you. Keep in mind I wasted a lot of money while "learning the ropes"!!

Here's a link to pictures of my HOF cards:
http://picasaweb.google.com/danp306/MLBHallOfFamers

Here's a link to future HOF:
http://picasaweb.google.com/danp306/FutureHOF

Good Luck!
Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: dan

Thanks guys for all of your help and input, I realize this will be an expensive journey! lol I am prepared to accomplish it over years. Sorry for not responding sooner, it would not let me login? I had forgotten that my c was supposed to be a C. duh! Anyway thanks again! Also Dan nice collection!

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Dan:

One idea that you might want to consider is to collect team cards such as the 1913 Fatima T200's & 1906 Hammon Chicago Cubs/White Sox Postcards where the individual players are identified on the bottom of the card and you can pick up several HOF'ers on one card and the prices are generally not that crazy in mid-lower grade condition.

I also collect the earliest image of each HOF'er that I can afford and this team card strategy has filled in a number of holes in my collection:

T200 Brooklyn w/Casey Stengel
T200 Chicago w/Ray Schalk
T200 Philadelphia w/Eppa Rixey
1906 Hammon Cubs w/Joe Tinker & Johnny Evers
1906 Hammon White Sox w/Ed Walsh & George Davis

You should understand that many collectors do not consider team cards as candidates for rookie cards but to each his/her own, I guess....