Rookie Cards on Vintage Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

I am disappointed that vintage cards collectors are concerned about finding the "rookie" cards of pre-war players. It was the main reason I was turned off by the shiny crap of the late 70's and early 80's when I was still young (although that turned out to be a good thing) and turned my attention to vintage baseball and eventually vintage non-sports.

It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now. Hell, it probably was a contributing factor that killed the hobby of new sets when everyone was expanding quantity to add players nobody ever heard of to get the player out first. I still can't fathom how a 1963 Rose rookie where he is on 1/4 the card is better than a 1964 or 1965(all other items such as scarcity being equal). I though we (you?) were better than that.

Comments?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Eric,

I know where your coming from when you say that the Pete Rose rookie is overemphasized. However, it has become a historically significant card because it has the normal high number scarcity coupled with the fact it was one of the first rookie cards that took a big jump because Pete was chasing the hits record.

But don't assume that everybody makes money with rookie cards. It really depends on when you buy them. For about 7 or 8 years the Pete Rose was stuck at $800 and it's only recently jumped up to a $1,000. So if you bought it 7 or 8 years ago, then a 20% jump isn't that much.

If you had taken the same amount of money 7 or 8 years ago and had put it into T-206 commons, you have doubled or tripled your money.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

I totally agree eric. Peter based on many of your comments I cannot help but feel that you are more concerned with money that baseball history.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Eric,

My sentiments exactly. That stuff really turned me off in the 80s.

I guess it could be fun or interesting to own the "first" published card of a player, but when it comes to pre-war cards all I want is to have a certain player's card and it doesn't really matter to me whether it's the "first" or not.

Every once in a while there will be threads that debate which is a players first/rookie card then there will be other threads that will define "what is a card" and that a certain piece of material is not a CARD for some reason or other therefore raising the ire of the owner of said "material that is not the players first/rookie card". I guess it's all good though because a lot of interesting thoughts and information comes from those threads.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Darren,

There are two kinds of history, there is baseball history and then there is baseball card history. The Pete Rose card is significant to both. A T-206 Walter Johnson Portrait is significant to baseball history, but it is not significant to baseball card history except that he is a Hall of Famer in the first major baseball card issue.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Peter,
no lessons needed.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think there is a significant difference between modern and vintage rookie cards. Modern cards are not scarce and have no intrinsic value. The rookie cards of modern players are mostly hyped and usually plummet when a player falls out of popularity.

The rookie card of a pre-war player is often in high demand whether it is a rookie card or not. The E90-1 Joe Jackson is a rookie card, but sells for a huge premium anyway because it is perceived as a classic, and is likewise somewhat scarce. Same with an N300 Kid Nichols, N167 Tim Keefe, and many, many others. These are rare and valuable cards despite their rookie status.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Peter,

They call T206 "The Monster". Have you forgotten about N172? That thing could have the nicknames:

"The Impossible"
"The Beast"
"The Widow Maker"

In baseball card history I would probably call N172 to first offering of cards to include a huge number of players.

It beat out T206 by over 20 years! It has so many different poses, portrait cards, multiplayer cards, ROOKIE cards, Champions cards....

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

Only I could have picked such a bad example. How about this. My 1972 high number Steve Garvey's got overshadowed by the common 1971 Rookie card.

But i was really concerned with it occurring to vintage cards. First the shiny stuff, then pre-war baseball, then non-sports. Do I need to be concerned that my rare N476 Celebrity of Mrs Cleveland would be surpassed by the more common N353 Ladies of the White House?



Edited to add a picture to show I wasn't kidding. Plus she was quite the hottie in her time.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Rookie cards are a relatively recent fad, who knows over time it may change into something else. Game used and serial numbered cards have all had their time in the sun.

But it's also interesting to see how other hobbies have impacted baseball cards. The coin hobbyists had grading and registries long before baseball cards.

Collecting of errors on stamps gained prominence way before it became prominent to baseball card collectors.

It all runs in cycles. For a while there the last card of a hall of famer became important. For a Mantle collector there is nothing like obtaining the '69 Topps White Letter Mantle.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

It really depends on what you collect. For example, a large portion of my collection includes baseball record holders. For those with lifetime records, one way to portray that is to display his first big league card and one from his last season.

To me then, the rookie card is no more significant than a player's last career card, but it often costs way more. I wonder why.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Gil,

You brought up an interesting point. Sometimes it depends on the numerous ways a card can fit into a collection. Look at a popular card like the '52 Mantle. You need the card if you collect '52 Topps. You need the card if you collect New York Yankees. You need the card if you collect Hall of Famers. You need the card if you collect guys with significant World Series records (holder of most home runs in World Series). You need the card if you collect 500 home run hitters...on and on.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well one way to look at it would be that to have Pete only only a fourth of the card is better than having him on all of a card. Having him not on the card at all would be best.

The way to make money with rookie cards (not something I attempt, but evidently some folks deem it a desirable pursuit), is to buy the rookie cards early and cheaply, then sell while the player is hot. Preferably before he gets traded, and before he becomes a has-been. I had McGuire rookie card. Bought 2 more for about $5 and $20, I think. Sold the $20 one for $50, with the guy tickled to get him, and sold the $5 one for $10 with the buyer so happy because really nice ones were selling for $100. So I'm money ahead, the buyers were happy with their deals... then McGuire's cards nosedived. You can't make money on rookie cards if you hold them. Only if you sell for more than you paid. But this is a hobby, so no big deal if money isn't made... right?

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Judge Dred, I couldn't agree more, try collecting Old Judge cards, I have 18 Detroit Players, that's all I collect Detroit, have not found one in the last 6 months.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

If a collector wants to collect pre-war rookies in Major League uniforms, I see absolutely nothing worng with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

I dont even pay attention to whether a card is a players rc until we get into the 1940's era or later. And its still just a novelty