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

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Gotta disagree with you Hal.

First, the Ruth is a bad example for a couple of reasons; 1) he was not a nobody in 1916, when his m101 cards came out; rather he was coming off a 18-8 season in 1915, was in the middle of a twenty win World Series bound season, and was regarded as an up and comer; and 2)the way the m101s were distributed, there was no way you were going to trade a hundred or any meaningful number of one player for the next. You got twenty at a time, at least through TSN, and you had the ability to back order whoever you wanted, so trades along the lines you suggest almost certainly didn't happen.

Second, I don't believe the superstar/lack of superstar dichotomy is nearly as pronounced as you suggest. Many or most kids were set collectors and team collectors. I'm sure everyone wanted a Ted Williams and maybe a Jackie Robinson in 1954, perhaps Mays too, but after that second tier stars were probably no more important than cards from your favorite team. It's before my time, but I'd bet a Braves fan was more into a Hank Aaron card than Yogi Berra, even if he was a rookie, just because he helped complete the team set. So too would set collectors seek an Aaron to fill the Topps set, even in 1954, more than they would Richie Ashburn, Red Schoendienst, etc., even Yogi Berra, if they needed the card, at least those kids outside of New York.

Third, I can't see the supply of rookie cards being adversely affected because a guy was a nobody. To me that implies that cards of lesser players somehow got thrown out, while just the stars or more worthy ones survived. I know of no kids from my youth who threw away cards of anyone--if mom threw out the whole bunch, that's different, but nobody said geez I guess I don't have enough room for all of these, let me sort through them and throw out the players I don't recognize. Frankly, it seems to me that more high conditioned examples of Aaron and the like should have survived, as they are not the ones who would have been handled and shown off as much like Mantle, etc. In sum, unless they were short printed, cards of guys like Aaron in 1954 should have been more plentiful down the road than many others.

Fourth, whatever the notion that rookie cards were scarfed up towards the end of a player's career, after it was learned how great he was, the fact is at least a generation has passed, and in Ruth's case several generations, so these cards should have made their way back into the hobby. So if Ruth's early cards first became popular in the late 30's and Aaron's in the late 60's, those collectors should have died and recirculated many of those cards by now, making them available and refuting any notion that supply has dried up.

Finally, whatever the notions about players 90 or 50 years ago, even today rookie cards are pricier, when supply is not an issue at all. Rather it is demand, fueled by marketing and speculation, that drives these prices.