Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[tedzan]

I'm starting this discussion with these 2 examples. Yogi Berra and Joe Garagiola grew up neighbors on the same street in St. Louis. Their Major League careers both
started in 1946, after their Military service during WWII.

I find it interesting that Berra's 1948 BOWMAN card; and, Garagiola's 1951 BOWMAN card have been identified as their "Rookie" cards. But, not these 1947 TIP TOP
Bread cards. And in Berra's case, he is also featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD set. So, I don't understand why these 1947 cards are not considered their real Rookie
cards. Perhaps, some of you on this forum can explain what is going on here ?
Incidentally, the 1947 TIP TOP Bread cards were issued from the East coast to St. Louis. It is indeed a major set.

Furthermore, there are a number of Pre-war (and early Post-war) cards in the hobby, where the first Major League card of a player is not considered his Rookie card.
I leave it up to you to identify them. Also, post them, if you have them


. .


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This Feller card predates his 38 Goudey but I don't think it's generally recognized as a RC (or the other 37 issues).

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't have one but the 1946 Propagandas Musial is not generally considered a RC.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This Feller card predates his 38 Goudey but I don't think it's generally recognized as a RC (or the other 37 issues).

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

If he is in that issue it's news to me.

[Yoda]

He definitely is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

He definitely is.

37 O Pee Chee yes. 37 Goudey Premium, yes. 36 WWG, please post one.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I find it interesting that Berra's 1948 BOWMAN card; and, Garagiola's 1951 BOWMAN card have been identified as their "Rookie" cards. But, not these 1947 TIP TOP
Bread cards. And in Berra's case, he is also featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD set. So, I don't understand why these 1947 cards are not considered their real Rookie
cards. Perhaps, some of you on this forum can explain what is going on here ?
Incidentally, the 1947 TIP TOP Bread cards were issued from the East coast to St. Louis. It is indeed a major set.

It sounds like we just disagree on the definition of a major set. I may be remembering it wrong, but weren't these cards regional issues? They may have been issued from the East Coast to St Louis, but I seem to recall that each region got its own team cards, not the entire set.

The Propagandas set is, similarly, not a major set...though I collect it and, in fact, have the Musial card, which serves for his RC in my collection.

In either case, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the collecting community to anoint the cards as THE official RCs. But I think they are awesome and would be happy to have them....

As for other cards, the 1946-47 Caramelo Deportivo Minnie Minoso. The earliest Minoso I have, but there might be other small issues.

[dougscats]

Here's Phil Garry's list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603

It needs to be updated, but it's always been my favorite for HoF'ers.

He agrees with you, Ted, on Yogi. and with Peter on Feller.

The thread also contains info on how/why some self-appointed authorities have different standards for RC's.

[drcy]

The "major national set" rule was when most people collected Topps. It's an out of date rule. There's no reason "other" cards can't be considered "real" rookie cards, other than antiquated convention.

[G1911]

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I thought that Trout is not considered a RC because it was a minor league card in that he hadn't yet appeared in a ML uniform/made a ML roster. Appearing in a ML uniform is a contractual requirement for an official RC logo, no? I don't think it had anything to do with quantity. Lots of short prints have RC logos. Lots of what they now call super short prints do too.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

Go along with rats, it has a lot to do about the money. Dealers want there to be enough rookie cards so they can sell them as rookies and charge more to make more. If an earlier issue like Tip Top Bread would have ended up being recognized from day one as a player's rookie card, instead of a later Bowman card, those Bowman "rookies" wouldn't be worth anywhere near what they are today. And since Tip Top cards are a lot scarcer than Bowman cards, there would have been far fewer "rookie" cards for dealers to sell at an elevated price.

Seem to remember this debate from way back when the Beckett price guides used to list Ruth's Goudeys as his rookie cards if I remember correctly. Haven't looked in a Beckett price guide for 15-20 years, do they still claim a '33 Goudey as his rookie? For cryin' out loud, he came up in 1915 with the Red Sox, was in an unbelievable number of sets over the ensuing years, but doesn't have a rookie card till his 19th season in the majors?!?!?! Give me a break!!! Always felt that was a major reason the Goudey Ruths have always been so expensive. It's not like '33 Goudey Ruths are particularly scarce and hard to find either. I've always felt they are significantly overpriced as a residual effect coming from this misapplication of what the definition of a "rookie" card is. Take a look at any other ballplayer, especially ones from the modern Bowman-Topps era, and compare the value of their 1st and 2nd year cards with those of their 19th season, and tell me how they differ. I know it is not a perfect comparison, and we are talking about Ruth and the very popular Goudey set, but the Goudey Ruths still seem disproportionately high to me. And I believe that still has a lot to do with the old definition of what was a "rookie" card from back when the Beckett guides were fueling the card collecting popularity as it was taking off.

Plus, don't know if this was a factor or not, but Beckett sold an awful lot of those monthly price guide magazines back in the day. Well, they only had a limited number of pages to work with and list their price guide info on. So when it came to the earlier years, they wouldn't want to take the time and trouble (and cost) to list all the sets and issues we are aware of nowadays thanks to things like the internet, the SCD catalogs, and overall increased collector interest in the more obscure/regional sets over time. So when Beckett would just list a few of the old sets (like T206 and '33 Goudey) in those price guides, I often wondered if they didn't push their definition of what a "rookie" card was so they could make the few vintage sets they selected for their price guide magazines look more important and valuable with more "rookie" cards in them. And that would also be more helpful to dealers when they would just show a potential customer at a card show/shop the page in the price guide and say, "See, it's worth more because it's his rookie."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I agree the definition was to "grow the hobby". By escalating prices and increasing demand, and it worked. As I specifically said. We don't seem to be saying a different thing here, I just don't think it's good and you do.

Usually, a "card to have" is not the easiest card to get in other areas of the hobby. Wagner is the "card to have" in T206 because it is so rare and a super star. Lajoie is the "card to have" in 1933 Goudey because it is so rare (relatively) and a super star. I don't see why a rookie card is different or why it must be available to everyone, especially for cards issued when not a single person cared about rookie cards because they were not a thing that had been invented, from a collector perspective. I am fully aware it is great from an investor/dealer/business perspective because if it is limited to major Topps cards and the like, it is easier to profit from and drive up if this is so. Which is also why the definition is not very consistently applied.

I wasn't the one who said it was antiquated. I am fully aware that readily available easy to get rookies with hundreds listed at a time on eBay are one of the reasons of "growth of the hobby", by which we seem to mean value increases. I completely understand it from a business side, I don't understand it form a collector side, why I should pay exponentially more for some card that is often not a players first because it's his 'first card some in the general hobby has arbitrarily decided matters'. It's great for dealers, it's great for investors, I personally don't see the appeal as a collector.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by drcy

The "major national set" rule was when most people collected Topps. It's an out of date rule. There's no reason "other" cards can't be considered "real" rookie cards, other than antiquated convention.

I agree. Beckett made the rule, whether or not some collectors helped contribute to the rule is unknown, but ultimately Beckett made that determination.

The reasoning of "it must be in a national issued set so more people could sell it/collect it", doesn't really mean anything or add any value to it. It seems more like applying artificial importance, adding a contrived value.

Paying more for a card simply because Beckett proclaimed it his true rookie seems rather silly.

It does make sense to pay more for a card because it is more rare than the 'Beckett decreed Rookie'. Hence why 1984 fleer updates sell for more than any of his 1985 rookies(which Beckett decress as the true rookie).

Ultimately, everyone has a shot at any card anyway, regardless if it is regional issue or not. The internet pretty much made regional issues irrelevant anyway. They are ALL available to anyone....just have to pony up the money.

In the end, buy the better card. Cards can have many appealing attributes that can contribute to the desire to own one, with scarcity being one of them. Just because the collecting community is unaware of these cards that pre-date the 'Beckett rookies', doesn't make them non rookies. It makes them diamonds in the rough ...diamonds made before the 'Beckett Rookies'.

So if someone wants to call the 1985 Donruss Roger Clemens his true rookie card....who cares, it doesn't mean you have to listen to them. If thats what they want to call it, so be it. You are just as welcome to call the 1984 Fleer update his true rookie card.

Learning about new rookie cards existence should be a delight to collectors who have only listened to the 'maintstream' explanation. That grows the hobby too, and is far more appealing to many who have only known the stuff that is common to find.

[brianp-beme]

This W514 card of Ross Youngs for many years flew under the radar because of its player identification on the card as 'Pep Young'.

Brian

[Casey2296]

Fun discussion, let’s talk Mel Ott, is his rookie card the Goblin Merrymints OH Melville card?, only one example known and a great story, but the jury is out on an exact date, 29 Kashin?, IMO that’s his rook until proof that the Goblin was a 1927-28 issue. The hobby considers his rookie the 33 Goudey, which makes no sense to me.