Team Issues and Rookie Cards

[topcat61]

I've been curious lately about larger team issue premiums (like 1940's Brooklyn Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox) -could some of these be considered the rookie cards of players like Pee Wee Reese or Duke Snider?

What constitutes a rookie card and how do collectors feel about team issued cards and premiums?

My own feeling is that the 8x10's, or odd sized stuff is difficult to display, but on the flipside, they're mostly cheap and provide a great way to obtain an otherwise difficult or expensive player.

Thanks.

[Leon]

There have been numerous discussions, on the forum, over the years and the only consensus is there is no consensus.
Here is an older thread concerning rookies...

http://forum.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603


.

[shagrotn77]

Hi Ryan. If you get 10 replies to this thread, you'll probably get 10 different opinions. To me, that's part of the beauty of collecting - it's all about what does it for you. Personally, I think photos are photos and don't qualify as cards. I am, however, okay with postcards and exhibits qualifying as rookie cards. Again, just my dos centavos.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ryan:

I also loved to pick up many of the 1940’s team issued photo pack singles when I was working on my HOF Rookies collection several years ago. These can certainly qualify as rookies or possibly even earliest collectibles for the appropriate player but would not be considered rookie cards because the items in question are clearly not cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Post-war, but anyhow I would call Carlton and Seaver rookie year issues, not sure what I would call Murray, pre-rookie I guess although to me that connotes a minor league card.

[triwak]

Great cards, Peter!!

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by topcat61

I've been curious lately about larger team issue premiums (like 1940's Brooklyn Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox) -could some of these be considered the rookie cards of players like Pee Wee Reese or Duke Snider?

What constitutes a rookie card and how do collectors feel about team issued cards and premiums?

My own feeling is that the 8x10's, or odd sized stuff is difficult to display, but on the flipside, they're mostly cheap and provide a great way to obtain an otherwise difficult or expensive player.

Thanks.

You'll notice in the thread that Leon shared, the Veeck rookie is considered the 1952 St. Louis Browns Postcards. I believe that's outdated, and his actual rookie is considered the 1948 Cleveland TEAM ISSUE.

So yes, I would consider team issues to be the rookie card. Additionally, there's a large debate surrounding Babe Ruth's rookie card, whether or not the more regional Baltimore News(?) issue is his rookie or the nationally-released Sporting News(?) is his rookie. I would consider this to be a similar debate, and if you consider the Team Issue cards to be their rookie cards, perfect. Do what makes you happy with your collection.

Originally Posted by Leon

There have been numerous discussions, on the forum, over the years and the only consensus is there is no consensus.
Here is an older thread concerning rookies...

http://forum.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603


.

This thread has been bookmarked in my HoF spreadsheet for a while. I refer back to it constantly.

[uyu906]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Post-war, but anyhow I would call Carlton and Seaver rookie year issues, not sure what I would call Murray, pre-rookie I guess although to me that connotes a minor league card.

Murray played all of the 1977 season with the Baltimore Orioles. That club issued photo is from Murray's rookie year. Topps, of course, did not print his rookie "card" until 1978.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Good choices, Peter. Seaver - Rookie Card, Murray - Rookie Card, Carlton - I think is a similar size to a postcard but I don’t recall it being one, either way, I think Rookie Card works there too.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Sorry, Kyle. The ‘48 Veeck is an oversize paper premium and in no way meets the definition of a card so, therefore, it cannot be a Rookie Card. It is a Veeck Rookie and maybe earliest collectible.

[h2oya311]

Here's my checklist for Veeck:

1930s Photo (High School Portrait)
1935 Press Photo (w/ Eleanor Raymond)
1943 Press Photo
1944 Press Photo
1945 Milwaukee Brewers Team Postcard
1946 Cleveland Team Photo Postcard
1948 Cleveland Team Issue
1948 Cleveland Team Issue 4-on-1 Picture Pack
1952 St. Louis Browns Postcards

I'd consider the '48 Cleveland Team Issue his individual rookie. Heck, SGC grades them...not cardboard stock, but earliest checklisted and standard issue with his image. Good in my book. Here are a few of my Veeck's:

[JLange]

I count Larry Doby's 1947 Cleveland Indians Picture Pack photo as his true rookie card, or "earliest collectible" is probably a better way to say it. As much as I like the 1949 Bowman and 1949 Leaf cards, those came out 2yrs later! Really hard to argue with that.

[Copa7]

So this was a topic of conversation in another forum.

I brought attention to the Russian pro hockey league which featured standard size hockey cards with Alex Ovechkin. To me, this was easily in every definition of rookie card.

While other players have debuted in leagues outside the big 4 - Warren Moon in the CFL and other like Jim Kelly and Reggie White in the USFL.

The point best presented here, is collect what you like.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A few alternative hockey rookie issues. The Roy is a year before his Topps/OPC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And a Gretzky alternative, not to mention one of the Russian Ovechkins mentioned above (although I think this is from a subset).

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Here's my checklist for Veeck:

1930s Photo (High School Portrait)
1935 Press Photo (w/ Eleanor Raymond)
1943 Press Photo
1944 Press Photo
1945 Milwaukee Brewers Team Postcard
1946 Cleveland Team Photo Postcard
1948 Cleveland Team Issue
1948 Cleveland Team Issue 4-on-1 Picture Pack
1952 St. Louis Browns Postcards

I'd consider the '48 Cleveland Team Issue his individual rookie. Heck, SGC grades them...not cardboard stock, but earliest checklisted and standard issue with his image. Good in my book. Here are a few of my Veeck's:

Impressive checklist.

[Leon]

+1
I like the term earliest collectible more than I do "card" for some of the items.
While I consider postcards as cards, I agree with Phil, photo packs aren't cards. They are photos (pictures), like it says.

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ryan:

I also loved to pick up many of the 1940’s team issued photo pack singles when I was working on my HOF Rookies collection several years ago. These can certainly qualify as rookies or possibly even earliest collectibles for the appropriate player but would not be considered rookie cards because the items in question are clearly not cards.

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by Leon

+1
I like the term earliest collectible more than I do "card" for some of the items.
While I consider postcards as cards, I agree with Phil, photo packs aren't cards. They are photos (pictures), like it says.

I'm glad to see people say this. I've found it frustrating that over time Beckett and others have gradually expanded their listings to the point where virtually anything depicting a player can show up in their online catalogue or Trading Card Database--even pages from photo albums and yearbooks.

Like everyone else on here, I certainly have no issue with those things being collectibles, but if anything and everything is classified as a card, the term itself has no meaning.

On a more specific note, one of the problems I have with classifying team-issued photos as cards--besides the fact that they are really just photos--is the lack of any inherent restrictions on them being reprinted. Most true cards have identifiers (bios, stats, copyrights, etc.) tying them to a specific year, and the licenses probably are good for only the given year anyway. But team-issued photos generally have no year identifiers--and that's on purpose. The teams can and often do distribute those things over multiple years. In fact, they presumably would have no restriction against reprinting team-issued photos even decades after the fact.

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I'm glad to see people say this. I've found it frustrating that over time Beckett and others have gradually expanded their listings to the point where virtually anything depicting a player can show up in their online catalogue or Trading Card Database--even pages from photo albums and yearbooks.

Like everyone else on here, I certainly have no issue with those things being collectibles, but if anything and everything is classified as a card, the term itself has no meaning.

On a more specific note, one of the problems I have with classifying team-issued photos as cards--besides the fact that they are really just photos--is the lack of any inherent restrictions on them being reprinted. Most true cards have identifiers (bios, stats, copyrights, etc.) tying them to a specific year, and the licenses probably are good for only the given year anyway. But team-issued photos generally have no year identifiers--and that's on purpose. The teams can and often do distribute those things over multiple years. In fact, they presumably would have no restriction against reprinting team-issued photos even decades after the fact.

This is an interesting topic and I'm glad to see collectors chime in. This more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that "Picture Packs" and larger team issued sets should be classified as Premiums.

I believe that they do have a place and in many cases, can provide a great opportunity and in some cases the only opportunity to add a difficult or expensive player to your collection.

[triwak]

Right. How the hell else would I ever expect to get THIS guy, lol??! (Actually, this photo is postcard size. But who's counting)?

[h2oya311]

C'mon Ken! Don't you have this one yet???

[triwak]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

C'mon Ken! Don't you have this one yet???

LOL, Derek!! Funny that you ask. There was an autographed version of that Royals Picture Pack photo on ebay a couple of weeks ago, that went for $200. I DID have some interest... but not THAT much interest!! Since I only care that the card was issued during the HOFer's active period, I figured my "photo card" was adequate, haha!

Edited to add: If someone here bought that Royals Picture Pack photo, no offense intended. Definitely Schuerholz's rookie "card."

[Leon]

It is a friendly discussion. I think it is politically correct to call a Picture Pack a collectible more than a card. I still have some pic packs laying around. They are neat and mostly inexpensive ways to collect some neat collectibles.

Originally Posted by triwak

LOL, Derek!! Funny that you ask. There was an autographed version of that Royals Picture Pack photo on ebay a couple of weeks ago, that went for $200. I DID have some interest... but not THAT much interest!! Since I only care that the card was issued during the HOFer's active period, I figured my "photo card" was adequate, haha!

Edited to add: If someone here bought that Royals Picture Pack photo, no offense intended. Definitely Schuerholz's rookie "card."