Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[bcbgcbrcb]

I appreciate everyone's input, especially Bob's detailed explanation with regards to identifying different eras of card collecting and comparing that to the different eras of the game itself. Lots of good points have been made and I agree with many of them.

In my efforts to stress the importance of identifying what is and is not considered a "card", I believe that I led many readers astray by focusing so much on that part of things. My end game here is to one day reach a consensus, player by player, as to which card(s) should be the one(s) collected by those looking to acquire rookie cards of BB HOFers. My purpose is not to define for the hobby what should and should not be considered a card, it's simply eliminating some items from rookie card consideration due to the various parameters that I mentioned in an effort to get to a bottom-line choice or choices. I believe that what is causing most of the difference in opinions here is simply that an item can certainly be considered a rookie collectible for a certain player while not qualifying as a rookie card for that player. It does not lose its relevancy because it isn't a card, it can still pre-date the rookie card, but if it is catalogued as a photo, supplement, sticker, stamp, etc. then by definition it cannot also be a card. This is where I don't really understand the difference in opinions. Let's take Max Carey as a hypothetical example (all of these items may not actually exist for Carey). If I give you the following 4 items and ask you to identify which is/are card(s):

Helmar Stamp
M101-2 Supplement
B18 Blanket
T207

Does anyone on the board feel that the correct answer might be all four, or the Helmar Stamp or M101-2 Supplement or B18 Blanket? I hope that everyone would go with the T207.

I believe that if we take each of the parameters that I mentioned and look at them as being part of the bigger picture, always keeping in mind our ultimate goal of identifying pre-war rookie cards. As Bob already mentioned, this has basically already been done for us during the Topps/Bowman era and carried on for decades thanks to Beckett, the Standard Catalogue, etc. If I ask you what the rookie cards are for each of these all-time greats: Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Pete Rose, Mickey Mantle, etc., I'll bet everyone on here can answer correctly within a matter of a few seconds. I would like that to be the case with pre-war rookies one day. Giving it an open mind, I think you would be surprised how many players we could get through where there is not much debate.

As far as "earliest collectible", lots of us have chosen to pursue that avenue of collecting rookies and how loosely you set your parameters is all totally up to the individual collector. When I was collecting these back in the 2000's-early 2010's, I started out with the traditional post-war rookie cards but slowly gravitated to the earliest collectible that I could find/afford for pre-war. I was accumulating foreign issues, newspaper supplements, stickers, team postcards, type I press photos, pinbacks, etc. This was the greatest collecting experience that I ever had as I was exposed to such a variety of different types of items, not to mention different issues and series, and learned so much from all of this experience. As everyone always recommends, collect what you like and you won't have any regrets.

For those that wish to stick with cards though, and there are certainly many, I would like to see it become possible to try and assemble a set of BB HOF RC's as I once set out to do and the first step along the way is to have a complete want list of what to go after. Hopefully, this explains things a little better and I apologize if this thread originally came across as one man's attempt to define what the card collecting hobby should and should not accept.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I appreciate everyone's input, especially Bob's detailed explanation with regards to identifying different eras of card collecting and comparing that to the different eras of the game itself. Lots of good points have been made and I agree with many of them.

In my efforts to stress the importance of identifying what is and is not considered a "card", I believe that I led many readers astray by focusing so much on that part of things. My end game here is to one day reach a consensus, player by player, as to which card(s) should be the one(s) collected by those looking to acquire rookie cards of BB HOFers. My purpose is not to define for the hobby what should and should not be considered a card, it's simply eliminating some items from rookie card consideration due to the various parameters that I mentioned in an effort to get to a bottom-line choice or choices. I believe that what is causing most of the difference in opinions here is simply that an item can certainly be considered a rookie collectible for a certain player while not qualifying as a rookie card for that player. It does not lose its relevancy because it isn't a card, it can still pre-date the rookie card, but if it is catalogued as a photo, supplement, sticker, stamp, etc. then by definition it cannot also be a card. This is where I don't really understand the difference in opinions. Let's take Max Carey as a hypothetical example (all of these items may not actually exist for Carey). If I give you the following 4 items and ask you to identify which is/are card(s):

Helmar Stamp
M101-2 Supplement
B18 Blanket
T207

Does anyone on the board feel that the correct answer might be all four, or the Helmar Stamp or M101-2 Supplement or B18 Blanket? I hope that everyone would go with the T207.

I believe that if we take each of the parameters that I mentioned and look at them as being part of the bigger picture, always keeping in mind our ultimate goal of identifying pre-war rookie cards. As Bob already mentioned, this has basically already been done for us during the Topps/Bowman era and carried on for decades thanks to Beckett, the Standard Catalogue, etc. If I ask you what the rookie cards are for each of these all-time greats: Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Pete Rose, Mickey Mantle, etc., I'll bet everyone on here can answer correctly within a matter of a few seconds. I would like that to be the case with pre-war rookies one day. Giving it an open mind, I think you would be surprised how many players we could get through where there is not much debate.

As far as "earliest collectible", lots of us have chosen to pursue that avenue of collecting rookies and how loosely you set your parameters is all totally up to the individual collector. When I was collecting these back in the 2000's-early 2010's, I started out with the traditional post-war rookie cards but slowly gravitated to the earliest collectible that I could find/afford for pre-war. I was accumulating foreign issues, newspaper supplements, stickers, team postcards, type I press photos, pinbacks, etc. This was the greatest collecting experience that I ever had as I was exposed to such a variety of different types of items, not to mention different issues and series, and learned so much from all of this experience. As everyone always recommends, collect what you like and you won't have any regrets.

For those that wish to stick with cards though, and there are certainly many, I would like to see it become possible to try and assemble a set of BB HOF RC's as I once set out to do and the first step along the way is to have a complete want list of what to go after. Hopefully, this explains things a little better and I apologize if this thread originally came across as one man's attempt to define what the card collecting hobby should and should not accept.

Great site and info Phil, as well as a great thread about what is a "card" and a "rookie card". I wasn't trying to take away any thunder from you with my earlier post, just pointing out how I thought we may have to look at defining a "card" and a "rookie card" based on the different eras in which cards and collectibles are/were issued. It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that 1947/48 is the obvious demarcation line to use when looking at what is and isn't a "card" or a "rookie card". The issuance of those first Leaf and Bowman sets in 1948/49, quickly followed by Topps just a couple years later, clearly defines and sets the standard for what we consider nationally recognized and distributed card sets for the past 74/75 years. Every year since 1948 there has been at least one annually released such set issued/distributed by a major card manufacturer.

Prior to that though, things in the cards/collectibles market were a lot different. If you look in the old SCD catalogs, with the exception of a few years in the 1860's, 1870's, and very early 1880's, they show at least one collectible/set was issued/available for every other single year through 1947. But all of those years did not include such widely distributed true "card" sets as we've seen every year since 1948. Thus the dilemma. Also, your site shows cards/collectibles for HOFers, but isn't the question(s) you're asking actually supposed to be true, or at least applicable then, for ALL major league players/participants throughout the history of baseball? By narrowing you definition of what is an actual "card" you may unintentionally be removing some more obscure, common players from ever having a true "rookie card" then. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but would bet there may be a few, or maybe even more, that would end up with no "rookie cards", or even any true "cards" under a more restricted definition. And that is why I was suggesting the rules before 1948 may need to be relaxed some.

The four examples (Helmar Stamp, M101-2 Supplement, B18 Blanket, and T207) you gave, asking what some of us would consider as true "cards", is a good one. Honestly, if asked which was a "true card", in the strictest sense of the word, I would of course say the T207s. But in terms of what may be a player's collectible/card, I would also say all four of them qualify. The problem as I stated earlier though is that there is a not a "true card" set that was issued every single year up through 1947. And because of those gaps that do exist, the only way you can properly fill them all is by easing the definition of a "card", and maybe make it more like the definition a "collectible", as opposed to just a basic card.

Now I agree that for "rookie card" status you do not include minor or amateur league items, and also do not include civilian or clearly non-baseball related pictures and such either. Also, team photos shouldn't count, and I like the idea of limiting multi-player cards to no more than four players to have it count as someone's "rookie card". Although I know there are some pre-1948 cards/collectibles that had more than four players on them (some R312 cards for example), though I don't think any would be considered as someone's "rookie card". But you never know unless you go researching it.

Now if you want to restrict these pre-1948 definitions of what are "cards" and "rookie cards" to just HOFers, I think you can more easily get away with some more restrictive definitions, such as only counting the T207 cards from your list of four examples as true "cards". But if these definitions are really supposed to be covering ALL major league players and participants (which includes executives, managers, and umpires as well), then I think you really have to have a more relaxed set of definitions as to what is a "card" and a person's "rookie card". In the more relaxed definition version, I can easily see all four examples you named as qualifying as "cards" and therefore as "rookie cards" as well.

The conundrums and possible additional issues and questions can seem almost limitless otherwise. For example, if a card has to be made of paper/cardboard, do Colgan's Chips qualify as a card? Normally people today just think of a modern card as being a rectangular shape only. But a Colgan's Chip card/disc was actually one of the first ever baseball collectibles ever specifically made, packaged, and sold with gum, which is what the post 1947 baseball card sets were all originally based on. Cards to sell gum to kids. How could they not qualify as "cards" then since they were made and distributed for exactly the same purpose of those early Leaf, Bowman, and Topps cards, just because of the shape or exact thickness of the Colgan's Chips cards themselves? And if you say they do/should qualify as "cards", then what about Sweet Caporal Domino Discs? They are even thicker than the Colgan's Chips cards, and much more like and closer to the thickness that makes up the modern cards starting in 1948, but they also are round, AND they came with a metal border/bracket around the outside circumference of the Domino Disc cards for added protection. So, would that thicker cardboard material make the Domino Discs qualify as a card because they were thicker than the Colgan's chips cards, but then they fail because of the protective metal border, or because they were also round and not rectangular? Or here's another example. S74 silks came in two distinct and separate issues. The S74-1 white silk version came with an advertising back attached to the silks, and the S74-2 colored version silks with no advertising backs attached. Under your more strict definition of what is a "card", I would assume the S74-2 colored silks would never qualify as a "card: because they are nothing but a satin cloth material, and have no paper/cardboard at all. But what about the S74-1 white version silks? They originally came with an advertising back attached, which is basically a rectangular card. So do the S74-1s qualify as a card, but the S74-2s don't. And before you say the S74-1s don't qualify as they are a satin material merely glued to a card, don't forget as someone else earlier said, the N172 Old Judge cards are actually photos simply glued to cardboard backings as well. So, what is really the difference between these two sets qualifying as "cards" then. Or take the BF2 Ferguson Bakery pennants. Granted, they are felt pennants, but they have actual photos/cards glued onto them that came from the M101-4 card set produced by Felix Mendelsohn. Just because they got glued onto a different type of backing, does that automatically exclude them from being considered a type of "card" as well then? These are just a few examples off the top of my head. Not always so easy and clear, is it. LOL

And I'll leave you with this. I already mentioned the M101-2 Sporting News Supplement that included HOF umpires Bill Klem and Billy Evans. If you truly want to stay with a stricter definition of what a "card" is, and therefore exclude M101-2 Sporting News Supplements as ever being "cards", Bill Klem at least has a 1935 Schutter-Johnson card. But for Billy Evans I think you're now talking about having to wait till his 1961 Fleer card came out for him to have a "rookie card" then. He retired from umpiring in 1927, 33/34 years before his Fleer "card" was released, and 5/6 years after he has passed away in 1956. That is even worse than saying Babe Ruth's rookie card was his 1933 Goudey cards. At least Ruth was still playing, and alive, when those were issued. LOL I'm not at all trying to give you any grief, I'm just saying it maybe isn't such an easy and straightforward question. And I do not have a definitive answer to it myself. Just throwing some things out there for others to think of, and maybe keep an open mind about. Absolutely great topic to discuss though.

I wonder if at the end of the day the best thing to do is not try to restrict the pre-1948 definitions of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card" to a strict, single definition. Maybe the best thing to do is actually have multiple listings for players. Say one column/listing for first ever appearance on a card/collectible (including minor and amateur leagues), another column/listing for their first true major league "rookie card" using the stricter "card" definition, and finally a third column/listing with their first major league "rookie card/collectible" using a more relaxed definition of what is a "card". Not too dissimilar to what you've already done on your site, but just break the listings into three columns instead of the one where you list the various cards/collectibles for each HOFer and separate the items between the column(s) they fall in. In some cases, you could have the same card/item in multiple columns, like when a player's 'rookie card" under the stricter "card" definition also turns out to be their first ever major league card/collectible issued under the relaxed definitions as well. That way a collector looking at the site wouldn't have to pick/follow one specific definition, they could pick and choose between what they felt comfortable with and how they like to collect. And you've already done most of the heavy lifting with all the cards/items you've already got listed. Would just need to add a couple columns, and then spread the already listed cards/collectible items among them where they belong. Food for thought!

[BobC]

Sorry, double posted on me.

[h2oya311]

Bob - Klem and Evans each have 1921 Exhibits as well. EDIT: should have written 1922 Exhibits, not 1921 (thanks Phil)!

And my vote on Max Carey would be his 1911 Helmar Stamp. It pre-dates those other items and is, at least, a catalogued collectible in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. To me, that is the “bible”. I can understand the logic of limiting “official” rookies to cards with a production run of some amount to make the goal/checklist achievable. But ignoring collectibles like stamps and premiums is silly in my opinion.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Bob - Klem and Evans each have 1921 Exhibits as well.

Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.

Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.

Derek,

It is just a fun discussion of a definition(s) that I don't think you can ever get 100% agreement on as to a single one being the sole answer for everybody. And that is a great McGowan postcard by the way. Way cool! But again, do you consider a postcard as a true "card" when determining if something is someone's rookie card? And that is why I also suggested that maybe the best thing to do is actually list multiple answers to the question(s) of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card", and then let each collector pick and choose what suits and makes the most sense to them.

My biggest point though is that I think you have to have different definitions for the pre-1948 years, before the Leaf, Bowman, and Topps sets started coming out every year thereafter, and then separate definitions for the post-1947 years, once Leaf, Bowman, and Topps took the hobby over.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Derek: I know that you meant 1922 Exhibits for Klem and Evans.

I consider Exhibits to be cards/rookie cards. They were sold individually in vending machines with the intent to try and assemble a set, are catalogued, made of thick card stock, have a strong collector base and include the ‘25 Gehrig, which has routinely sold for 6-figures in recent years, prices typically reserved for “cards” as opposed to other types of paper collectibles.

Only a decade ago, when the Gehrig was selling in the low 4-figures, I was strongly promoting this card as the definitive Gehrig RC (amidst the resistance of many who did not feel that a postcard-size item should even be considered as a card) as the year of issue can be pinpointed to 1925 specifically as opposed to the only other option, the W590, which was issued in more than one printing although the Gehrig card itself was initially released on a 1925 strip of 10 cards. Putting it out there on the OldCardboard site, including it in the OCB magazine article that I wrote on the subject as well as including it with the rookie card guides that I self-published during the mid-2010’s, I believe, may have played a significant role in enough collectors jumping on the Gehrig RC bandwagon to see values escalate 30X, 50X, even 100X in high grade.

This is why I believe that the more definitively we can identify some of these pre-war treasures as rookie cards, the more we can see values of those cards escalate, maybe not to the level of an all-time great like Gehrig, but certainly much higher than they are today, even after the recent card boom. I think we have started to see it with the Jimmy Foxx Exhibit RC already.

[BobC]

.