Let's really "re-hash" the ROOKIE debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Let's review the "ROOKIE" card phenomena. In the early to mid-1970's, BB card collectors were not
really caught up in the rookie card "craze". As I recall it, it started with the "hype" on this card in
1979 - 1980 time period in this hobby. Funny, I never understood at the time why his real 1st card,
the 1951 BOWMAN....was ignored.



About the same time, this rookie craze was compounded by Pete Rose running a 44-game hitting
streak challenge to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game record. And, Rose's 1963 Topps card jumped overnite
from $5 to $50....and, kept climbing to $500 during the mid 1980's.




And just as we thought the hobby had classified most of the Rookie, or 1st cards, then controversy
raised it's ugly head with advent of the Grading Co. in the mid '90s. Was the "1948" LEAF (actually 1949)
Jackie Robinson his real rookie card ?
But, what about his 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread card ? Although, this is not considered a major BB
card issue, it did have a widespread distribution. Ditto, for Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, and several other
players' 1st cards in this set.

And, then we have the never ending debates on the Rookie cards of Leroy "Satchell" Paige (Leaf vs
Bowman). And, Ty Cobb....Postcard vs E90-1 card vs T206 card.


1949 LEAF


1949 BOWMAN

1907 Dietsche Postcard


1908 E90-1 card

I have a moderate collection of what I consider are 1st cards (I include PCL cards as valid rookies);
but, I don't really get carried away with these cards in my type set. So, let's "re-hash" the Rookie
or 1st card debate....or if your "take", on this topic is different than mine (as stated)....let's hear it ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: jorge

Nice cards!....Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

I think that it boils down to what any two people first and foremost consider a "card." For instance, I consider Exhibit cards to be cards in my world, many do not. Without general acceptance on what we usher in under the umbrella of cardom the debate will go on and on. Then having said that, did the "card" have to have national distribution? What about minor league cards. My POV of view is that Minor League cards are not rookie cards but for those who are Zeenut enthusiasts, this does not hold water. Does not make either of us right. I guess the real question is, "Why must there be a rookie card for everyone?" If that is your particular bent then you have to have a definition that you are comfortable with and defines your particular collection.

I enjoy the debate but also realize that a definitive answer is not forthcoming unless of course we default to the Beckett definition. But if the 1933 Goudey is to be Babe Ruth's rookie then I don't think that is likely to happpen. I guess it is a symptom of us wanting to have an answer to each and every question. In my world and only mine (perhaps) it is not really that important. I collect prewar HOFers and select sets.

Great discussion however and amazingly it's about the CARDS!

Edited for POOR spelling!

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

The oldest card is the rookie card regardless of league or distribution or rarity. Of course, the next question is what's a card? Are exhibits and cabinets cards? If so, or if not, that changes a lot of rookie designations. Really, we will never ever never have agreement on either of these questions. We'd have to be rounded up and zapped with a mind control probe to get any kind of consensus. It would be just as fun to try to determine the best card of every HOFer and just as futile. (Just a thought, but maybe once a week we could have a thread on a HOFer just to get an idea of which card is sort of maybe considered the most desirable by a small plurality of vintage collectors. It'd be fun to watch the Mathewson and Cobb threads at the very least.)

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Paul S. must have jedi mind-trick powers. Prior to yesterday, I've never read anyone suggest that minor league cards are rookie cards. In fact, this forum had coined a word to describe desireable minor league cards such as the Balt News Ruth - "prookies" (short for pre-rookies).

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

generally speaking, i take "rookie" to mean the first season a ball player plays in the big leagues.

so if a "card" is issued BEFORE the player's first big-league appearance, then i'd say no its not his rookie. however, if the "card" is issued at the time of (or after) the player's first big-league appearance, then yes its their rookie (even if they are wearing a non-big league jersey).

For example, I think some of the 1989 Topps "#1 Draft Picks" had players depicted in their college jerseys (like robin ventura, steve avery, etc), but they played major-league ball in 1989 (same year the card was issued) so i'd say its their rookie card.

like has been mentioned, whether the "card" was nationally distributed doesn't matter much nowadays cuz of the internet. but of course the definition of "card" is another topic.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Chad and Jeff, you hit the nail on the head. Beyond the determination as to whether or not a minor league card or a card not nationally distributed can be viewed as a first card, the question on what is simply a 'card' remains. As an example, the Cobb 'first card' debate: while I have all the postcards and cards that are generally thought of as possible 'rookie' cards (so I have no financial horse in this race), I believe a card is a card is a card and a postcard is a postcard, period. As for exhibits -- which were intended to be depictions of the player and not created to be mailed, I believe that they should count as 'cards.' Just my two cents on the issue of 'what is a card.'

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

"Rookie" to me is the first card of a player after or at the time he became a major league player. Minor league depictions are not "rookie". Ideally the card should depict the player in a major league uniform.

Players depicted, singly, on a postcard are cards. Team postcards are not. So, PC796 Sepia would be a card. Pinkertons are cards. W601 Sporting Life is not a card. Supplements, whether single player or not, are not a card.

A more satisfactory way for me to collect, if I were so inclined, would be "first" card rather than "rookie" cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Justin

I think the rookie debate is primarily relevant in regards to post WW2 cards when major sets began to be released yearly. With that any player who played a significant amount in the bigs would have the chance to be on a card.

Due to the sporadic(and often regional) nature of pre 1948 releases, the emphasis on rookie cards has to be taken a bit less seriously. Many players either don't have contemporary issues, or have cards that don't reflect their playing career very well. Josh Gibson has a posthumous rookie, Jesse Burkett's only accessible card depicts him as a manager of a minor league club.

Ultimately it comes down to preference, and what each individual collector is willing to settle for. Given unlimited resources I would definitely collect vintage rookie cards, but at this point I am willing to compromise. The T206 and 1933 Goudey are a godsend in this case. I can get key contemporary cards of hall of famers, that are also fairly accessible on a modest budget.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

I have never understood the fascination with rookie cards. Sure the 'first' card of a player, or one that depicts them looking young and fresh during their rookie season, is kind of cool, but why should it command such a huge price multiple over other cards of that player? Sometimes the rookie card of a player is rather unaesthetic, such as the 1963 Topps of Pete Rose, which Pete has to share with three other players.

I think the rookie card phenomenon arose in the 1980's partly out of a speculation game: you buy cards of a player when they first arrive in the big leagues, and then later reap the benefits of your foresight and talent recognition skills when the player goes on to have a great career. I remember back then people even tried to buy hundreds of copies of a single card; maybe they still do. The problem is that the supply of modern cards is essentially infinite (plenty of unopened cases probably still stashed away), so the price levels that these cards can ultimately reach is limited.

Talking about 'rookie cards' of pre-war players like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth seems ridiculous to me. As has been pointed out, it depends on what you even consider to be a 'card'. If you have to debate what the 'real' rookie card even is, how desirable can it really be? But then again, since I have never placed much value on the rookie card concept to begin with, these debates are essentially meaningless to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I feel the same way about the subject now as I did when I first saw people asking big prices for Rose rookies in the late 70s. Why in the world does it matter if a particular issue is someone's rookie card? It was a marketing ploy then, and it's marketing ploy now. I'm just surprised so many folks buy into it. I'm also puzzled by the insistence of rookie cards being limited to "major issues." To me, the "minor issues," like Bond Bread cards and 1941 Double Plays (a lot of rookies are in this set!) are just as valid as any "major issue." Baseball cards were not invented by Topps. And, by the way, so many so-called rookie cards are pre-dated by the ultimate red-headed stepchild of the hobby (and one of my personal favorites), Exhibit cards, which certainly qualify as a major issue ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Postcards are cards.

Especially those series type... such as the Dietsche cards.

I don't think the tobacco industry, bubble gum or candy industry, or any other industry cards can be annointed "real" over another commercial distribution (such as postcards).

Actually - the postcards may be more like the current business model for baseball cards -- as the card itself was the intended item of sale (instead of a freebie tagalong item for some other product).


Admittedly, I am definitely biased when it comes to postcards , but thats how I see it.


As far as rookie status. First major league team card. No minor league cards (sorry Baltimore News).



edit to say:
Steve - while I think team cards (postcard or other) should not count as any individual player's rookie. They are cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Rule of thumb: First baseball card depicting the player as a Major Leaguer (or where he is a major leaguer).

In common baseball terminology, 'rookie' means first year as a Major League player, not Minor Leaguer, college or high school player.

Mark McGwire's 1984 Topps Olympic card is not his rookie card, as he is not depicted as a Major Leaguer and had not yet played in the Major Leagues. Similarly, the Baltimore News Babe Ruth is not Ruth's rookie card.

The definition of rookie is not a definition or value, rarity, desirability. Rookies are often sought after due to their rookie-ness. However, that Mantle's 1952 Topps is more valuable than his rookie card, illustrates that the rookie card is not always the 'best.'

Collect what you want. If you think the Baltimore News is Ruth's best card, that's great. If you think defining a card as a 'rookie card' is dumb, that's fine.

If you want to define a rookie card as the one from the player's rookie year (first year as a MLB player), that is a fair definition. However, many players would not have a rookie card. Many HOFer football players would have no rookie card. I don't believe Roger Staubach or Joe Montana would have rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

1914 Baltimore News Ruth card...

is a VERY expensive and much-desired "PROOKIE" card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

I guess people should consider changing the terminology to FIRST CARD. That would eliminate having to distinguish between a MAJOR or minor league card. I wonder if A-Rods parents had any of those little league cards made when he was a kid? I guess that would be considered his first card. As for Stengel, it would be T210. Oh yeah, what's a card? T206 are small, the traditional size card of 1957 (and later) Topps. I guess the opinion of a ROOKIE card depends upon what it is you have in your collection. The definitions are really mind boggling here... Are cut outs from boxes considered cards? Look at W555 or Orange borders? Are they cards or cut outs? Blah....

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

correct. A team postcard is a "card". A player depicted on the "card" would not however be considered either his "rookie" or "first" card.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Ted,

Look at what you did, the more we define it the murkier it gets.

I like David's definition above, but I disagree on one major point. The designation of a card as a rookie card does effect the desirability of card. At least it does for the half of the hobbyists that follow Beckett's.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Here we go, a numerical scoring system for determining the "best" rookie card of a player, when the choice isn't clear:

http://www.mastronet.com/delgado.cfm

This to me is a classic example of convincing oneself that something is meaningful, and then analyzing it to death. Can you imagine deciding what painting you like best based on some set of weighted numerical attributes?

Above all, will someone please explain to me why rookie cards (given that we can figure out which ones they are) are so desirable in the first place?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

There's no question that a rookie card is considered special (1968 Nolan Ryan, 1954T Hank Aaron). I was just pointing out that the rookie card is not always the player's most expensive card: 52T Mantle, Cal Ripken RC, etc.

When I say I don't think such-and-such card is a rookie card, some card owners act as if I've assaulted their religion or, even worse, the card's market value. That's why I qualified that my definition of rookie card is just a definition of rookie card.

Rookie card designation effects financial value. But financial value shouldn't effect rookie card designation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JEFF

I think this is a 1st.....I am disagreeing with you. In my opinion, a qualifying "artifact" to be
considered a "ROOKIE"....CARD....is any paper/cardboard product with a BB player's image.
I'll give you a good example of this....the 1939 PlayBall Joe DiMaggio has, by many, has been
considered his 1st Major League card. But, more advanced collectors would argue that the
1936 R312 paper issue of Joe D. is his true 1st card....and, I agree with that it's the R312.

Do I understand you.....to be in the school of thought that Cobb's 1907 p/c should not be
considered his 1st BB card ? OK, then that leaves us to decide between the E90-1 or the
T206 cards ?
My research has indicated that the 1st series of the E90-1 set was issued as early as 1908.
Others may differ with my findings. And, if so, then is the 1909 T206 (150 series) cards of
Cobb (green or bat on) his real Rookie cards ?
And, if you favor the T206's.....then a further dilemna presents itself.....is his very 1st card
the Piedmont version, or the Sweet Caporal, or the Sovereign ?
My theory says the Piedmont's were first....again, others may differ.

My point here is where does this "dilemna" end....when it comes to declaring a specific card of
a BB player his true Rookie card.



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

I have never understood the fascination with rookie cards. Everyone recalls the rediculous fascination with Nolan Ryans rookie. It's his ugliest card. And then there was the insanity surrounding the 84 Donruss Don Mattingly. I remember when that card was considered somewhat rare. I guess it is rare if you compare it to the grains of sand in Maui. And the Pete Rose. Also his ugliest card. The way I define rookie cards, they do fit the definition. But to pay more for them because they happen to come off of the presses first is ludicrous. You are a true collector if you recall the dumbest rookie card of them all. Do you recall when people were actually hording the 1989 Star Co. Bob "The Hammer" Hamelin? He was the next Ruth. I have never thought of a players first card as anything special. If it fits my perameters, then I go after it. Otherwise it's just another card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think we should accept the fact that this is an open ended debate, and that there will be differences of opinion as to what constitutes a rookie card. In some cases a minor league card can be a rookie if it was issued in a major, nationally distributed set. Again, Kid Nichols is my poster child for this.

I think a rookie can be issued in a regionally issued set, such as the Just So of Cy Young.

In the case of Cal Ripken, however, I would vote for either his 1982 Topps Update or his 1983 regular issue, because his minor league Rochester cards are not universally recognized as real anything. I don't know who made them, and I have no idea if they were reprinted after he got famous.

I say look at each card individually, because there will never be a universal agreement among all collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- in your Joe DiMaggio example, why choose the 1939 Play Ball when he appeared in 1938 Goudey? Why is that any less of a baseball card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BINGO......you let the cat out of the bag......that's precisely why I posted this Thread.
In order to generate some thought-provoking exchanges on this highly controversial topic.

Just read my post to Jeff regarding Ty Cobb's "1st card" and you see where I'm coming from.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Mike,

That's great why don't we make the waters murkier by trying to figure out the the rookie card the real collector would go after.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I chose the 1939 PB Joe D. because for many years, it bugged me that this card was advertised
as his Rookie card. Despite the fact that there are two Joe D. cards in the 1938 Goudey set, and
the R312 Joe D. that I noted.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

it seems we are in agreement about team postcards / cards being "cards" (I think I misunderstood your first post).

Hal -
I love the term PROOKIE. Great term (yes, new to me - or I just don't pay attention much).
And, I believe would prefer the PROOKIE Baltimore News Ruth over the actual rookie --- its jus a very cool looking card.
But that is on a card by card or player by player basis.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, no question that the Cobb Dietsche postcards preceded his true 'baseball cards' - and I don't disagree that the postcard has the 'look' of a large baseball card. I suppose that what has influenced my thinking is that the Dietsche and HM Taylor cards were designed first to be postcards, to be mailed, and secondarily as 'baseball cards.' And the E95, 90-1, T206, E 102, 101, etc. were designed strictly to be baseball cards (though I don't disagree that they were throw-ins in packages designed to sell tobacco and candy products). I suppose the size of the postcards also influences my feeling. It's just a gut thing. I can't say that I could ever imagine a bunch of kids flipping the postcards, you know?

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Ted,

Great scan of that p/c Cobby.

Still my favorite and what i consider to be his rookie. And no thats not for value related purposes. As someone else alluded and i agree. When it comes to the pre Goudey stuff i don't think there can ever be anything definitive regarding dates.(As Ted brought up with the t206's)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Cobb is on a 1906 W601 Sporting Life postcard.....would that be his rookie? (I had to get in here somehow)


ps..one other point....a rookie card is a first card if rookie means first....all you have to do is determine whether you want a rookie card or a rookie big league card....that could define what is a rookie card?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

How about Frookie, Prookie sounds too much like nookie and it's too early in the day to start thinking about that.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

it's whatever PSA says it is via the SMR


Why yes, I DO have a dollar, and I would LOVE to buy a bridge! - Did my brother-in-law tell you I was in the market?

Honestly:
1) No minor League cards (MLB uni's only)
2) Widespread distribution (national not required)
3) Team cards don't count

This means that my 48 Bowman Mize is certainly NOT his rookie; however, I would like to invoke the top-secret Rule#3, which is that the collector may at any time, as conveniently dictated by his current holdings, decide to make the RC rules less stringent as appropriate to add value to his collection!

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

Why do people consider that postcard to be Ty Cobbs "rookie card" ? Its not a baseball card, its a postcard, not a baseball card...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Back in the day, I never "went after" the silly cards I mentioned. Actually I still have my Ryan rookie that I bought as a kid. It means more to me in that mode, than if I bought it as an investment. I just used them as examples of the craziness of the recent rookie craze. The reason I digressed into the recent craze, I guess was out of frustration over the entire subject. To me, calling Ruth's 33 Goudey, his rookie card, is just plain dumb. But that's just me. And it has been previously stated, we can all agree to disagree. I didn't intend to murky anything. The whole subject gives mea headache.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Leon's point is well-taken: when using the term "rookie card" one is not suggesting that it is the card reflecting the player's rookie year in baseball; instead, "rookie card" means literally that: a first card of the player, even if it's a year or two or ten past the player's entry into the major leagues. And Leon, of course you had to remind me of the one Cobb postcard I don't own!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jason,

Actually I liked the last part of your definition the most. So I have now started a niche collection of cards that are "arguably rookie cards."

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

Why would Beckett be so determined (if they are) to "solve" the issue by making the 1933 Goudey a rookie card? Does it answer the question, solve the debate, bring clarity to the situation? Answer: No. To me it makes them and their guide seem ludicrous (or Ludacris if you like). Is the percentage of "collectors" who collect based on rookie card status a significant enough amount of the collecting population to make this an issue that needs resolution? I guess maybe they are the backbone of the hobby so to speak, but more than likely a niche now and forever.

As a poster mentioned earlier even if you collect "rookies" your own definition of the term will more than likely evolve as your collecting tastes/habits evolve over time. As I stated earlier I am interested in the debate for debates sake and because it raises some interesting perspectives to be evaluated.

Besides, I have now learned that I own a Ruth rookie. Thatalone was worth getting up today and logging on for!

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Because it gives card issues an order. If there were no sense of the order (by year of manufacture) in which card issues were released, and that this somehow held meaning of some sort, then all issues would be considered equally interesting and value purely a reckoning of surviving examples and perhaps aesthetics.
And obviously, that's a pretty hard thing to judge these days so many years after creation, as we all would agree that numbers graded is no reflection of actual numbers surviving, and aesthetics a very personal opinion. So how would we determine the cost of a card, as trading is no longer a feasable way to collect? Would cards made well past a player's career be equally valuable, and if not why not? I'm not saying rookie cards set all this in stone, and in fact alot of factors play off eachother to create a sense of desirability for an issue, but the initial layering of rookie year helps establish a perspective for many collectors.

I personally love the concept of rookie, prookie too, and first card to boot. All give me a sense of space and time for a player's career and life and help but not bind my collecting perameters.

And postcards don't make it as baseball cards for me, as their primary use was commercial - not collecting - though no doubt many people started collecting because of the artistic merits of the designs.
Exhibits are cards, as they were undoubtedly created for the sole purpose of collecting.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

Maybe designating something a rookie gives someone a sense of order. But the card is the same, from the same year and has the same player on it whether you call it a rookie or not. I see it as a primarily value driven assignation that is late to the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Thanks Daniel, well articulated.

I noticed when I take my son to the card shop in Denver, that if he has to choose one card of Rockies Todd Helton, Matt Holliday, etc., he wants to get the rookie card. I think it's partly market hype, but there must be something inherently desirable about that first card. I just hate paying the price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

While some folks may not like it...

there IS a perfectly logical explanation for
why "rookie" or "first" cards of players are
more valuable than cards issued later in the
player's career.

It all stems from the fact that NOBODY knew
who "George Ruth" was in 1915... so nobody
"hoarded" up his cards in large boxes. You
could have traded 100 Ruth cards for ONE card
of whoever the star was in those days.

As Ruth started breaking records and becoming
famous, however, people started craving and
saving his cards. Thus, the percentage of cards
from his later years that still exist is MUCH
higher than from 1915.

How many people in 1954 were out running down
Henry Aaron cards? You could have given them
away for peanuts... or traded 100 of them for
ONE Yogi Berra card.

How about Lou Gehrig in 1925? Think anyone was
breaking in line to get a shot at grabbing one
of his cards from the Exhibit Card machine? No.
Heck, you were probably LAUGHED at if you drew
Gehrig out of the machine instead of Sisler or
Speaker.

1933 Goudey card of Dizzy Dean? You can have it.
The guy's a bum and will never win.

It's all about supply and demand. There is a big
demand for those early cards... and a small supply.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

All good points Hal and I agree. The demand party outweighs the supply because of the demand caused by designating these rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

For the 2nd time today, I have to disagree with you. In the summers of the 1950's we would
come back from Asbury Park (NJ) after a great day at the shore with stacks of Exhibit cards
that we got for our pennies from the vending machines on the boardwalk.

The next day in the schoolyard we would trade....and FLIP them for other BB players we did
not have.

Let's face it guys and gals, the term ROOKIE was first applied to post-WWII cards. The
1952 Topps Mantle card (mistakedly) was the card that started it all. And, once this "rookie
fever" caught on, it was contagious and permeated throughout the BB card hobby. The
classification of post-WWII cards is well understood. However, Rookie or 1st cards of the
pre-War era, in many instances, are not so easily identified since accurate dating on many
issues has not been clearly defined.

For example, there are E-type sets that the Grading Industry have incorrectly dated on their
labels. Many of these sets are labelled 1908, when players in these sets where traded to
their (identified) teams in 1909. And therefore, these sets were actually issued in 1909 or 1910.
Yet many collectors of graded cards do not realize that they are being misled.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Todd

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to be a "rookie" card, wouldn't it have to be issued
when the player was...a rookie? Otherwise, it's just a "first card."

(Of course, then you could end up with the Lou Piniella situation, where he was on Topps Rookie Stars cards in four separate years, with four different teams--including two he never actually played for.)

Bill (not the one from Cape Cod)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You make a great point with your example of Ruth cards......but, my contention is that
1st cards were not really sought after till the late 1970's. Most collectors I knew before then
were primarily interested in completeing sets or acquiring as many BB cards of their favorite
player or team.

Excuse, my repetition of using the 52T Mantle card, but in the Fall of '52 when the Hi# series
was available this card was highly sought after. The media (and NY) hype on Mantle in 1951
was enormous. And indeed, Topps anticipated this by Double-Printing Mantle (along with
Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson).

So, although your point is well-taken....it does not apply to what is probably known as...."the
most popular Rookie card" in the hobby.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

I know some of you guys hate it when PSA statistics get quoted (yes I know they can be misleading because more valuable cards are more likely to get slabbed and so on), but:

1963 Topps Pete Rose in NM 7: population 564, SMR value 725 (rookie)
1964 Topps Pete Rose in NM 7: population 340, SMR value 200 (second card)

1954 Topps Hank Aaron in NM 7: population 286, SMR value 1250 (rookie)
1955 Topps Hank Aaron in NM 7: population 371, SMR value 350 (second card)

I don't think scarcity is driving the price premium on those rookie cards.

In Rose's case, the second year 1964 card is much more desirable aesthetically IMO (it has a nice portrait of him instead of the tiny little head that appears with the other three players on the 1963) and it even says "All-Star Rookie" on it. Still, the rookie card commands more than 3 and a half times the price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I just wanted to say...

that in my prime - I could not be beat at flipping cards.

Windy days / still days / rain or shine... I was the flip-master of the school yard!


Ah... the glory days.



I must be rusty now.... but I wonder how good I would be flipping the slabs

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

I never understood the great fascination with rookie cards myself. I can remember as a kid being more interested in the cards of players that had long major league records and stats (I needed a microscope for the 1977 McCovey) than the 4-in-1 rookie cards with no minor league stats. Between the hype of every player from Rose and Ryan to Dale Murphy and Joe Charboneau (How do you spell that?), and the further production of all those minor league sets that became "pre-rookies" of everyone from Neil Allen to Bob Zupcic, I feel like it became farcical.
At least with the vintage market, I feel like it never caught on due to so many other factors- set popularity, rarity, and a general sense of calling shenanigans on the whole concept.


Joe-- Lets bring a stack of 1990 topps to the New York Dinner II or III or II 1/2. May the best flipper win...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

I don't consider Exhibit's "cards", when taking about "Rookie Cards"!

I'd classify Exhibit's the same category with Postcards.
My I wrong to think this way

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I also associate exhibits with postcards and do not put them in the rookie card equation. It could be because while not all of them do, some exhibits have postcard backs.