Joe DiMaggio's Rookie Card?

[samosa4u]

I'm trying to figure this out: what is Joe DiMaggio's rookie card?

[Matthewevan]

I would have to say the 1936 WWG.

[samosa4u]

I added the poll just now. Please vote. It expires in 30 days. Thanks

[Peter_Spaeth]

Either of the 1936 issues.

[PolarBear]

Really interesting question. I guess it depends on how you define things.

I don't think issues like R312 are "cards" so so me personally, I wouldn't include them.

Also, Zeenut is a minor league card, so I personally wouldn't include that either.

Then it gets a little tougher to decide. Should foreign issues count? Is Canada "foreign"?

I'm not sure how I would answer that. If you're ok with a "foreign" card, then I think 1936WWG is the rookie. If not, then 38 Goudey.

But, the 38 Goudy is such a stupid looking card, I'd never buy one.

If I wanted a DiMaggio, what I'd personally get is one of the Play Ball issues.

[mantleman]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Really interesting question. I guess it depends on how you define things.

I don't think issues like R312 are "cards" so so me personally, I wouldn't include them.

Also, Zeenut is a minor league card, so I personally wouldn't include that either.

Then it gets a little tougher to decide. Should foreign issues count? Is Canada "foreign"?

I'm not sure how I would answer that. If you're ok with a "foreign" card, then I think 1936WWG is the rookie. If not, then 38 Goudey.

But, the 38 Goudy is such a stupid looking card, I'd never buy one.

If I wanted a DiMaggio, what I'd personally get is one of the Play Ball issues.

I'm following Don on this one. Agreed the 1938 is a mainstream issue but I consider the 1939 Playball as his rookie when I bought mine. This could spark a great debate, but ultimately in comes down to minor vs major league issue and what people consider mainstream issues cards.

[sycks22]

The weirdly zoomed in 36 WWG in my book.

[pokerplyr80]

I could see an argument for the 36 WWG or 38 Goudey. But as someone else mentioned I'm not a fan of the way the 38 looks and will probably pick up a 41 play ball when I add a Dimaggio to the collection.

[darwinbulldog]

It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.

[Leon]

Agreed but would probably add r312

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.

[packs]

What about the National Chicle? He's still wearing number 18 on that card. It must be the earliest image of him as a professional, no?

[triwak]

Or this. (Mine, so I'm biased lol)!

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by sycks22

The weirdly zoomed in 36 WWG in my book.

It does have a mug shot feel to it.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by triwak

Or this. (Mine, so I'm biased lol)!

..now it's a matter of which Gum maker sold their product in the stores first.

..

[Exhibitman]

R312 and R314 are in the American Card Catalog. They count. The WWG card is awesome (when unaltered) but is Canadian, so no dice, eh. The Zeenuts are my favorites but they are pre-rookies.

[Steve D]

For me, it's between the two 1936 issues, as the Zeenuts were PCL (minor League) cards.

The 1936 World-Wide Gum cards were issued in Canada. How were people in say, Virginia or Missouri supposed to get them at the time?

The 1936 R312 Issue was issued in the United States, but it is a "Premium" issue (not normal cards). Still, they were available to baseball fans in the US.

So, you have a quandary.

I vote for the R312 issue being Joe's RC, as it is a US issue, and was available for baseball fans in the US to purchase.

Steve

[yanksfan09]

I really like this one!

I would say any 1936 issue can be called a rookie card, with zeenuts being pre rookie/ minor league issues ( and awesome!)

[bcbgcbrcb]

Any of the 1936 issues that are "cards". The Zeenuts are pre-rookies as mentioned previously and anything after 1936 is too late. The R312 is the one most on the fence. Size-wise it's pretty close to the max as far as what I would consider for "rookie card" status, still a little bit smaller than a cabinet card size such as W600's so I could live with it as being a DiMaggio rookie card.

[Rhotchkiss]

I don’t own any DiMaggio cards. But if/when I do, it will be the Zeenut batting followed right behind by Zeenut throwing. Those are minor league cards, so by definition they cannot be rookie cards. But in my opinion, they are the cards to own

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not a rookie, but my favorite, and not often found.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I don’t own any DiMaggio cards. But if/when I do, it will be the Zeenut batting followed right behind by Zeenut throwing. Those are minor league cards, so by definition they cannot be rookie cards. But in my opinion, they are the cards to own

I agree. In some instances I prefer a pre-rookie to the first card in a major league uniform. Ryan, when you do go with DiMaggio, look into the 1935 Pebble Beach. I personally think that’s the best DiMaggio card out there. Super rare, great image, and they are all autographed!

[Orioles1954]

A player can have more than one rookie cards. The R312, WWG and National Chicles are all rookies! 1939 Play Ball a rookie? Not even close.

[Exhibitman]

One thing I also appreciate about the 1936 R cards is that they are affordable if you are not a condition freak, which is an anomalous thing for a prewar RC of a major HOFer

[samosa4u]

The World Wide Gum is leading the way, however, the Zeenut is putting up a big fight! It's pretty interesting because a lot of you folks like minor league cards.

Now regarding the Canadian issues, I want you guys to look at it this way: we all know that the 1951 Parkhurst Gordie Howe is his rookie (and it's a very ugly card too). However, this card was only available in Canada. The 52' and 53' Parkies were only sold in Canada too. Howe's first card sold in America was from the 54' Topps series, I believe. Now since the 51' Parkie Howe is a foreign issue, then can we argue that it's not his rookie? The same goes for all the other popular hockey rookies that were not sold in the States, such as the O-Pee-Chee Gretzky, Topps Bobby Orr, etc.

I also agree with many of you that the 38' Goudey DiMaggio is an ugly card. Now I'm not really bothered by the set design; what I can't stand looking at is DiMaggio's facial expression. It just looks like he is on a toilet seat.

I still have Joe Orlando's Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby book and on page 102 he calls the 38' Goudey DiMaggio his "official rookie card." However, this book came out long time ago and a lot has changed since then.

[bigfanNY]

DiMaggio had 1936 Wheaties as well. And that along with the WWG and his R312 etc. Are all his Rookie cards. I also agree that for a long time the 1938 Goudey was considered his Rookie. And I love his 1938 Goudey card especially the high series.
I dont think any of these cards carry the high multiple of some other big name rookies. Like the Ruth or Gehrig. The WWG and the 38 Goudey sell for the most but both are scarce

[Touch'EmAll]

That Orcajo Postcard is a beauty. I am not into the 4 in 1 Exhibits, however, the 1937 which features both Gehrig & Dimaggio strikes my fancy - am on the hunt for a nice one.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

It's the WWG. I don't care if it's from New York, Canada, Upper Volta, or the Crab Nebula. It's a baseball card. It's his rookie year. It's his rookie card. If you want to get the best-looking cards, go for it, but that doesn't impact on the determination of rookie card status.

I dare you to submit a card for grading and receive in return a Crab Nebula designation on the flip. Which TPG? Your choice. If successful, submit it to PWCC for sale and post the flowery description from their auction here.

Crab Nebula WWGs should be a separate option in this poll.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

The World Wide Gum is leading the way, however, the Zeenut is putting up a big fight! It's pretty interesting because a lot of you folks like minor league cards.

Now regarding the Canadian issues, I want you guys to look at it this way: we all know that the 1951 Parkhurst Gordie Howe is his rookie (and it's a very ugly card too). However, this card was only available in Canada. The 52' and 53' Parkies were only sold in Canada too. Howe's first card sold in America was from the 54' Topps series, I believe. Now since the 51' Parkie Howe is a foreign issue, then can we argue that it's not his rookie? The same goes for all the other popular hockey rookies that were not sold in the States, such as the O-Pee-Chee Gretzky, Topps Bobby Orr, etc.

I also agree with many of you that the 38' Goudey DiMaggio is an ugly card. Now I'm not really bothered by the set design; what I can't stand looking at is DiMaggio's facial expression. It just looks like he is on a toilet seat.

I still have Joe Orlando's Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby book and on page 102 he calls the 38' Goudey DiMaggio his "official rookie card." However, this book came out long time ago and a lot has changed since then.

Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!

[Paul S]

This is why people in Toronto go to Buffalo to do their shopping

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!

Haha true that. Whats next a Ty Cobb rookie debate?

[Exhibitman]

This will probably be a bridge too far for some but add this 1936 to the pile:



More info:

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-card-cutouts/

"Some of the stamps are intriguing early collectibles of players, too. For example, this series included Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio. 1936 was DiMaggio’s first year in the majors and, as a result, this is a legitimate rookie issue."

[Kenny Cole]

Yes, a bridge too far. Can't do newspaper cutouts. I will stick with the
WWG because I view that as a card as opposed to the premiums, which I do not feel similarly about.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Card or not, I would like to find a really nice EX or EXMT R312, had a 7 but for some reason sold it a while back.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Who cares where the card is produced?! A rookie is a rookie!

Yes, that’s the point I was trying to make (second paragraph.)

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Paul S

This is why people in Toronto go to Buffalo to do their shopping

I love Buffalo. Best beer selection I have ever seen.

[PhillyFan1883]

The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

Ha! Another good question.

I think people use "rookie" and "inaugural" interchangeably. I do think there should be a distinction but I doubt you'll ever get the industry to make that distinction. "Rookie" is too ingrained to change.

I was just reading an article the other day about the N172 set being filled with "rookie" cards. Um, ok. Perfect example where inaugural would fit much better.

[JoeDfan]

R311

Technically, probably too big, but I love it.

Although the National Chicle is a stunning action shot, so that is right up there too.

[PhillyFan1883]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

Great question and I tend to agree. The problem only really comes into play with these lets say pre 1940's players. I like the inaugural thought and it makes sense, but again with the earlier players it doesn't feel right not to attach the RC designation to one of the players cards. Tricky stuff lol. Then there is a guy like Shoeless Joe who really makes an interesting conversation with his 1909 E90-1 Pro rookie but then in 1910 the famous T210 minor league card.. Fun conversations for sure.

[PolarBear]

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

[JohnnyFinance7]

I just picked up and voted for the 1936 R312.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

I'm with you on 1 an 2. Definitely not on 3 and 4. By the way, 1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan....NOT his rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

My personal definition of "card sized" would fit into a standard PSA/SGC slab, so yes T206 etc. are cards. I never really thought about it before but I think they need to be square/rectangle. I personally wouldn't consider E254's "cards" by that definition.

Of course there are Canadian baseball cards. I just wouldn't consider them a true "rookie". How far do we want to go beyond that? It's easy to include Canada since they have a baseball tradition and the cards are in English. What if Japan issued a "rookie"? Most people wouldn't count it. As I said, these are the lines I draw, which I expect most people will disagree.

I'd consider cards with a single named player, who is the main subject, to be cards of that player. Plenty of modern action shot cards are obviously meant to be for that player even though others may be in the shot. (1973 Topps is pretty bad about this though and sometimes you can't tell what player they were trying to shoot)

For what it's worth, I don't buy into all the "rookie" hype or "most desirable" hype anyway. Like I said up thread, if I wanted a DiMaggio, I'd get one of the Play Ball issues instead of anything from 36-38. I just don't care about "rookie" cards.

[rhettyeakley]

I don’t understand why a Canadian card would not be considered a card. The reality is that it was more likely a kid in New York City would have access to a Canadian card made in Ontario than they would a Zeenut card made and distributed in California. Maybe it is because I grew up in Maine and Had daily interactions with Canadians but I have never thought of Canada as a “foreign country” in the same way do other places like England or Australia.

Also the definition of a rookie card in the modern card market is very different than it was when most of us collected as kids. Today the definition is a card from the season you make your debut in the Major Leagues (preferably pictured with the big league club). Mike Trout’s “rookie” is considered to be the 2011 Topps Update and sets made at that time but he was pictured on cards dating back to 2009 but those aren’t considered his rookie but merely his first cards and many are worth far less than his Toops Update card, even though they are earlier. Some players today are featured on cards MANY years before they make their debut (I was looking at a player the other day That had their first card in 2010 but didn’t make the majors until 2016).

Many of the rookies we collected back in the day wouldn’t be collected as rookies now, chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, etc. I have never seen someone really selling a 2003 Miguel Cabrera as a rookie even though that was his debut year.

[Exhibitman]

What about Mark McGwire: 1985 Topps when he was on USA Baseball as a college athlete or 1987 on his first MLB cards?

The one thing this thread shows is that the whole 'rookie card' thing is a construct that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in less organized periods of collecting history. When you fold international cards into the mix, it really goes off the rails. Like, what do you do with the Negro League greats who had Cuban or Venezuelan cards that predated (by decades) any American cards? What about Ichiro? Anyone want to argue that a 2001 SP Authentic is a rookie instead of a 1993 BBM?

[samosa4u]

The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~

Amen brother. "Rookie" should be synonymous with "first". The whole notion of pre-RC and XRC is silly.