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

[Archive]

Posted By: jeffdrum

I think that it boils down to what any two people first and foremost consider a "card." For instance, I consider Exhibit cards to be cards in my world, many do not. Without general acceptance on what we usher in under the umbrella of cardom the debate will go on and on. Then having said that, did the "card" have to have national distribution? What about minor league cards. My POV of view is that Minor League cards are not rookie cards but for those who are Zeenut enthusiasts, this does not hold water. Does not make either of us right. I guess the real question is, "Why must there be a rookie card for everyone?" If that is your particular bent then you have to have a definition that you are comfortable with and defines your particular collection.

I enjoy the debate but also realize that a definitive answer is not forthcoming unless of course we default to the Beckett definition. But if the 1933 Goudey is to be Babe Ruth's rookie then I don't think that is likely to happpen. I guess it is a symptom of us wanting to have an answer to each and every question. In my world and only mine (perhaps) it is not really that important. I collect prewar HOFers and select sets.

Great discussion however and amazingly it's about the CARDS!

Edited for POOR spelling!