Pros vs. Cons of Collecting Pre-War Baseball Rookies

[novakjr]

Phil, I've gotta agree with Rob. Cons 1-3 aren't cons for a HOF rookie card collection...However, I do agree that they can at some point become one..

The loose definitions that some people have of both "rookie" and "card", plus the lack of any definitive resourse, actlually gives some leway to the beginning collector, and might encourage one to take on the task.

Basically, If I were starting out, and knew for sure that I had to have the Just So Young and Burkett or Baltimore News Ruth amongst other specific cards, there's no way that I even bother... The lack of these specific designation, give me a chance to set my own parameters at the start. And then as we all know, our opinions change over time, and we all eventually move closer to the "true rookies"..

Take a player like Al Lopez for example. Currently, I'm ok with pursuing the '34 Batter Up, but eventually, I will end up upgrading to the Baguer. In this case though, the loose option of the Batter Up helps keep the interest as a "filler"... Same for Joe Medwick. I'm ok with one of the '34 issues, but will ultimately eventually move on to the '33 Worch Cigars.

Also, using the loose definitions, a person might ultimately end up going the earliest photographic image route, as you did, and include woodcuts and such.. Or kind of a mix-match of the two, using both "rookie cards" and/or images that pre-date said "rookie card".

It's an evolving project..

[bcbgcbrcb]

David:

I like your insight and follow your train of thought, especially with regards to your collection plans changing as you get further along into it. This has happened to me several times over the years. I started out doing strictly traditional cards only, then gradually added a couple of postcards, then a couple of W600's and ultimately, it has become a "free for all" as I have almost every type of paper baseball collectible under the sun in my collection.

One thing that I will mention, as I can speak on this after tons of experience, is that if you ultimately hope to pick up a true "Rookie Card" such as the Baguer Lopez or Worch Medwick (not so much so with the very few impossibilities such as the Just So Young or Alpha Jennings, McGraw or Kelley) you might want to consider simply leaving the spot open in your collection until you find the card that you really want. For years, I have done what you said and settled for the "next best thing" and ultimately found the card that I really wanted but almost always wound up selling the "filler" at a loss. I'm not advocating that this collection must be based on profitability but over the course of time and many "upgrades" later, I have lost a good amount of money doing this type of thing.

[Touch'EmAll]

One could make arguement "rookie" cards are worth it. To me they are not worth it. Who ever made up the rule that the rookie card is worth the significant added price premium? A lot of collectors, however, subscribe to that thought. Pre-War rookie cards won't get my money. And post War rookie cards won't get my money.

I have a gorgeous run of Aaron cards, minus the rookie. I will never pay the price for the 1954 rookie. For just about every other Aaron card, the Mays card is prices pretty much equivalent. But the 1954 Aaron is 4 times what the Mays is for the 1954 card ??? The pop numbers do not show the Aaron is that more rare than the Mays - its TOTALLY "Rookie Hype" with the herd mentality. For my $4,000.00 plus, I would rather have a T206 Cobb PSA 6 or similar.

Let the other guy shell out $4.+ grand for the rookie, not I.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

David:

I like your insight and follow your train of thought, especially with regards to your collection plans changing as you get further along into it. This has happened to me several times over the years. I started out doing strictly traditional cards only, then gradually added a couple of postcards, then a couple of W600's and ultimately, it has become a "free for all" as I have almost every type of paper baseball collectible under the sun in my collection.

One thing that I will mention, as I can speak on this after tons of experience, is that if you ultimately hope to pick up a true "Rookie Card" such as the Baguer Lopez or Worch Medwick (not so much so with the very few impossibilities such as the Just So Young or Alpha Jennings, McGraw or Kelley) you might want to consider simply leaving the spot open in your collection until you find the card that you really want. For years, I have done what you said and settled for the "next best thing" and ultimately found the card that I really wanted but almost always wound up selling the "filler" at a loss. I'm not advocating that this collection must be based on profitability but over the course of time and many "upgrades" later, I have lost a good amount of money doing this type of thing.

Well, that's the one thing with my collection. Aside from a few focuses, overall it's rather unfocused. And my HOF collection is really just career contempory(when possible)with an emphasis on rookie cards. Again it's still evolving.. I've never sold anything, other than some doubles from Topps sets I was working on. I did flip a "lot" of Collins-McCarthys once, because I only wanted the Wally Pipp and Fred Merkle out of it.. I guess I'm a hoarder. Maybe settling and filler weren't the best choice of words in regards to describing the evolution of my collection. I do focus on HOFers and Rookies, but outside of that, it's whatever I can get on the cheap. Basically, if a card ultimately ends up not fitting into my HOF Rookie collection, it just gets absorbed into my general collection. I only buy things when I feel confident that if the need arises, that I could sell it for more than I paid. Many times this leads me to search for mis-listed items, taking chances on new sellers, and worst case going for the "beater of all beaters". Rarely, am I on the lookout for a specific card...

[zljones]

I once considered a pre war HOF rookie card collection. I got as far as a few 30s cards then realized it was way too expensive and some cards were way too rare. I also realized that prewar is way too cool of cards to spend my money on the "rookie" cards when there are non rookie cards that are better looking.
I actually collected every single post war era HOF rookie card except for 49 Leaf Satchel Paige because of how expensive and rare. I collected them all following these criteria:

1. The cards had to be from a main line set (Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc.....)
2. It had to be a rookie card of a rookie player this excluded Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Warren Sphann, Ralph Kiner, Stan Musial, etc.... In my definition a rookie card is a card of a player in his first or second season. If the card was made during his third full season or later, then I do not consider it a "rookie" card.
3. If a player came to the pros and played for a partial season then went back to the minors for a few years, then came back and a card was released within a year after the return, I would consider that a rookie card. An example is Hank Greenberg, Carlton Fisk, and George Brett.
4. If the card was made during their third season but their first season was a half season or less, than I will consider that a rookie card. An example is Bill Herman or Yogi Berra.

Using these criteria for my consideration of a rookie card, I found that my list for HOF prewar cards was very short because of my criteria. But I couldn't bring myself to cross al prewar off my list so instead I collect HOF rookies postwar era only, and prewar I decided to just collect HOF cards I like, rookie card or not. I discovered that rookie cards make up some of the coolest post war era cards out there, but the rookie cards from prewar are not as neat many of times.

[Bridwell]

I've always thought the rookie-card craze was silly. I just couldn't justify paying 5 times more money for a "1st card" of somebody. I'd rather buy the best looking card of a player, instead of buying an ugly card just because it's the first.

It's also silly that people would advertise a T206 of Cy Young as his "rookie card" even though he was 40 years old at the time. I've seen the same on Vic Willis about his T206. Just because the dealer hasn't seen the tougher early issues they assume the T206 is the "rookie".