M101 Sporting News Issues - New Twist

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Lawrie

Jeff,

Hi. Neither Jay Miller nor I collect "rookie" cards the way Andy Baran does, so our own definitions are probably not as clearly delineated as Andy's. I know that Andy defines "rookies" not only in terms of year, but also whether there were cards issued of other players, etc. (which would exclude the Reccius Wagner in his book - and I agree). But I think the point that both Jay and I were making is that for vintage cards (especially 19th century), normally the first professional card (minor or major league) of a player is the most significant from a hobby and from a pricing perspective, as opposed to an artificial "rookie card" definition which really doesn't apply to a lot of players. Nichols is an obvious example of this, as discussed above.

Who cares? I do as a collector just because a lot of times dealers or sellers will try to jack up the price or interest in a card by claiming that something is a "rookie" and thus should command a premium price.

But back to Beckley. Is the 1888 Pittsburgh card a rookie because it says Pittsburgh? Or does he have to be pictured on Pittsburgh for it to actually count (remember that the uniform is still the Whites.)? And if so, what is his "rookie?" A 1902 Sporting Life Cabinet? A 1903 E103? I just think that the term "rookie" and the premium that the term brings should be restricted to post-1920 cards, maybe even post-1930 when sets were issued much more regularly. Before that, "first card" or "first professional card" is probably a better term.

And if none of that sways you, and you still think of rookie in terms of major league rookie, then you probably have to define a point past which a player can no longer be considered a rookie. Maybe use the major league definition, whereby a player can't have accumulated more than 130 at bats, 50 innings pitched, or 45 days on any major league roster in any previous season before September 1st. So if a player's first "major league" card comes out after that, then it wouldn't be a rookie, but only a "first major league card."

Just my opinion,
Tom