Pre-War "Rookie Cards"

[oldschool73]

Hello-
I'm just starting to explore pre-war cards. There seems to be various opinions on what constitute a "rookie-card". For example- I've seen the 1948 Bowman Feller listed as his rookie...even though he had been playing for ~10yrs prior. I've looked at what oldCardboard.com defines as an RC...and this card does not even make the 5 they have listed.

Is there a "universally" accepted definition of rookie card for pre-war? ..or is this as variable and subjective as grading?

Thanks-
os73

[BioCRN]

What constitutes a RC in the world of pre-war will get you 5-10 different answers and some of them total absolutists about their definition.

Some people count the first anything. Some people only count the first national release (not regional). Some people won't count postcards, felts, leathers, over-sized, game cards, etc where others absolutely count them. There's many more things where people draw lines.

It's a free for all out here for stuff that isn't blatantly evident.

[4815162342]

A Net54 member literally wrote the book on this subject. I imagine he will chime in.

[shagrotn77]

This compilation is a little outdated, but it should still be super helpful as it provides all of the options for you to decide what you feel is the best option:

https://oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/RookiesList.asp

[bcbgcbrcb]

This Net54 thread might be helpful:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...e+rookie+cards

[BioCRN]

A lot of grey area in defining someone's RC is wrapped up in defining what a card actually is... That's a huge amount of the hangup before even considering things like regional vs national...came in random packs vs came in the mail...and all kinds points and counterpoints.

Just to pick on one that's low hanging fruit...the Bruce Sutter RC from the Old Cardboard list. His RC, a newspaper clipping.

There is precedence in the hobby to recognize newspaper clippings as cards, such as the 1927 RinkyDink Stamps and the Spots Stamps cards from the 1930s...and more.

The debate over whether these are even cards is probably more controversial than if someone's RC can be one of these cards.

If technically correct is the best kind of correct, enjoy your newspaper clipping baseball card.

That said, first is first and this hobby respects first even if it's not always the most valuable or popular option for a player.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

A lot of grey area in defining someone's RC is wrapped up in defining what a card actually is... That's a huge amount of the hangup before even considering things like regional vs national...came in random packs vs came in the mail...and all kinds points and counterpoints.

Just to pick on one that's low hanging fruit...the Bruce Sutter RC from the Old Cardboard list. His RC, a newspaper clipping.

There is precedence in the hobby to recognize newspaper clippings as cards, such as the 1927 RinkyDink Stamps and the Spots Stamps cards from the 1930s...and more.

The debate over whether these are even cards is probably more controversial than if someone's RC can be one of these cards.

If technically correct is the best kind of correct, enjoy your newspaper clipping baseball card.

That said, first is first and this hobby respects first even if it's not always the most valuable or popular option for a player.

If you click on the player's name, you'll get a list of (pretty much) all of the rookie issue possibilities.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

If you click on the player's name, you'll get a list of (pretty much) all of the rookie issue possibilities.

Oh yeah, the site and it's list is awesome for digging down into the "first" someone may consider for their collection.

The resource is useful, I was just using it as a reference someone could quickly check that shows Sutter's first "card" is a newspaper clipping if going by absolute firsts. Out of all the stuff that jumps out on that list of HOF'rs, it's just easy to pick on because of how controversial newspaper clipping cards in the "Are they really cards, though?" arguments.

[bcbgcbrcb]

These threads regarding the identification of pre-war rookie cards (HOF’ers or non) always go this same route, that’s why the hobby does not have a clearly defined answer for each player and, thus, pre-war rookie cards do not command the same premium as post-war rookie cards when compared to the player’s subsequent cards. My previous post here explains all of the parameters that I use, which is just as important as the ultimate answer as to which pre-war card(s) is/are the rookie cards. To me, it’s quite simple when keeping three things in mind:

1. Go into this endeavor looking for the correct answer, not with the preconceived notion that everyone is never going to be in agreement on this subject.
2. An item can be a “Rookie” without being a “Rookie Card” in the cases where the item does not meet the definition of a card.
3. An item can be a “Pre-Rookie” without being a “Rookie Card” when that item pre-dates the players Major League experience.

Thus, what you have left over after taking all three of these things into consideration is that player’s “Rookie Card(s)”. I will leave off here with one final note, once you stray away from the categories of players and managers and delve into other areas such as Negro Leaguers, Executives/Pioneers and even Umpires, a lot of grey areas begin to arise as baseball cards were traditionally designed to portray players and managers, not necessarily those other areas of our National Pastime. There are “Rookie Card” answers for those other individuals as well but parameters may be oftentimes “stretched” in order to come up with them.

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Oh yeah, the site and it's list is awesome for digging down into the "first" someone may consider for their collection.

The resource is useful, I was just using it as a reference someone could quickly check that shows Sutter's first "card" is a newspaper clipping if going by absolute firsts. Out of all the stuff that jumps out on that list of HOF'rs, it's just easy to pick on because of how controversial newspaper clipping cards in the "Are they really cards, though?" arguments.

I wonder if anyone at Old Cardboard sees the irony of designating random newspaper clippings as baseball cards. Given their Sutter “rookie card,” it’s hard to imagine that any boundaries remain on what they view as a “card.”

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

That said, first is first and this hobby respects first even if it's not always the most valuable or popular option for a player.

Or, in the case of a certain Topps card, the hobby respects second.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Or, in the case of a certain Topps card, the hobby respects second.

From a personal collector point of view, I would rather have a 51 Bowman Mantle 10 times out of 10.

From a realistic point of view, I would rather have the 52 Topps Mantle...so I can sell it, use the money to buy a 51 Bowman, and spread the rest of the cash out elsewhere.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I wonder if anyone at Old Cardboard sees the irony of designating random newspaper clippings as baseball cards. Given their Sutter “rookie card,” it’s hard to imagine that any boundaries remain on what they view as a “card.”

They probably go by the price guides. I doubt they are making that assessment themselves. (hi Lyman)....
.
and a rookie card (from the BST years ago)