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

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

I think a rookie card should be the players first PRO team. If he gets paid to play, then he is a PRO. There are many items that can be considered a players rookie card (item). I do not like Team cards or cards with other players on them to be considered rookies (1963 Rose/1906 Cobb W601/ 1982 Ripken). I Like the 1964 Rose, 1907 Cobb Postcard, and 1980 Ripken (minor league).

Now on Joe Dimaggio. Are you KIDDING me with a 1939 Playball?? In my eyes his 1934 Zeenut card is a PRO card of him. If you do not like that then the 1936 R312-313-314 series cards would all count. Then we can move on the Opeechee and World wide cards before we even make it down to 1939.

How do we define a card? Is it by size? Paper type? How it's distributed? What the print run was? How it was marketed? What was the purpose of receiving the card? I think many type collectors do NOT want to go down that road then.

There will always be a debate for what is a players true rookie. Many times there may be 2-10 items that would be considered his rookie card (item).

Yes I think Pins, Publications, Silks, Postcards, Gum cards, Caramel cards, Exhibits, Premiums, Bobble Heads, Pennants, Cabinets, Wire photos, etc.. Should all be considered for rookie items and anything that is on paper should be a CARD!

JC