Why don't more people collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards?

[David W]

I think a lot of people collect post WW2 rookie cards, but the pre WW2 cards are too expensive and/or rare so to get the majority of them is very difficult and/or expensive.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Valid point, David.

My question in response to that is:

Do many more people collect post-war because they are much more affordable, like you said, or is it really that those cards are defined with an "RC" designation in the card catalogues and it is easy to identify which card(s) to go after? My fear is that the answer to that question is much more often the latter. It was for this reason, that I spent so much time trying to come up with a definitive list for pre-war collectors.

The rarity aspect definitely comes into play, to me the greater the challenge, the more rewarding the accomplishment is in the end. To me, if it is too easy, it's kind of like the type-card collector who only collects mainstream issues, where would the challenge in that be?

[egbeachley]

When Rookie Card's became the "in-thing" in the 80's, it seemed like an obvious ploy to raise prices for the dealers. But then it turned out to lower interest in non-rookies.

For the most part, pre-war collectors don't fall for this artificial standard and just collect cards that they like and/or are rare in their own rights.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I don't really agree with the reason behind the rookie card pricing rise during the '80's. I feel that it was much more a case of the collectors hoarding these in large quantities similar to investing your money in as much stock of each company as you could afford, thus cutting down available supply in the market which drove up prices. I'm sure that the greedy dealers had their part in it as well, but I think it was the "collector as investor" philosophy that drove it, at least initially.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I remember hearing about that PSA registry set coming out, Gary. I have to say that I treated it like a joke, obviously, some not too knowledgable effort went into putting that together. I'm not sure why they could not come up with something better, they could have always asked people with more expertise in that area.

[botn]

I collect hall of fame rookie cards. One of the things I wrestle with for pre war is how to define "rookie card." Is it the first issue in which the player appeared? Can it be a minor league issue? Must it have been nationally distributed? Must the issue feature just the player or can it be a team shot? I am an advocate for professional grading so must the item be something recognized (able to receive a grade and be holdered) by PSA or SGC?

The other element, which poses a problem, is that sometimes the "rookie card" is far from the most pleasing of issues for the player.

By the way, Phil, your list is valuable and I refer to it often when considering my acquisitions. So thank you for providing that to the hobby.

[Exhibitman]

+1 on many of the above points, and would add that with the nature of prewar card issues it seems silly to discuss 'rookie' cards when so many players have minor league issues, postcards, regional issues, foreign cards, regional premiums and arcade cards that predate the supposed 'rookie' cards. Take the Zeenuts, which I as a west coast collector find especially interesting. I lost all interest in 'rookie' cards when some people touting rookie card collecting discounted the Zeenuts of DiMaggio, Cochrane, Heilmann, the Waners, Vance, etc. The whole idea of a rookie is supposed to the the guy's first card, right? Well, if there are several professional baseball player cards that predate the rookie card, doesn't the whole thing then seem a bit pointless? If you stop and think about it, half the country had no MLB before the war, so the whole MLB thing itself was really a regional thing until after WWII. And what about the black guys who were barred from playing but who had cards issued in Latin America and had local postcards? Where do you fit them in? Separately but equally? Hardly seems right. And if their cards are rookies, why not the aforementioned cards of the guys who got the MLB chance?

The other issue I have is that the people who are most into the debate over the 'rookie' card often seem to be more interested in touting their own holdings as the 'rookie' card than anything else. There's marketing and scholarship, and they aren't necessarily the same things. I wish I could tout an R315 O'Doul as his rookie but how can I when I'm holding a trio of earlier Zeenuts?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

Just curious, prior to your focus on boxing memorabilia (at least I believe that is your primary focus now but I'm not sure), did you not collect primarily baseball exhibit cards and particularly those that were Hall of Fame Rookie Cards? I seem to recall some very high prices paid on e-bay and other auction venues for things like '21 Jesse Haines, '26 Tony Lazzeri, etc. driving up the prices in that market tremendously. I think that you might have even bought a few from me at that time.

[Exhibitman]

Not exactly. I collect Exhibit cards, have for decades. It is one of the only things I collect as sets. I really don't care if they are rookie cards; if they are in the sets I need them and eventually want to own them. Except the 4 on 1's which I just don't like. I picked up a bunch of rookie cards in Exhibit sets when they were cheap not because they were rookies but because I needed them for the sets. I was more amused, then irritated, when the market caught onto them and prices rose. So, I retract my early position: Exhibits are NOT cards, they are NOT rookies, and everyone who bought a 1925 Gehrig as a rookie needs to send it to me stat.

[glchen]

The problem with the "pre-rookie" / minor league cards like the Zeenuts or even Baltimore News Ruth is that it's not limited to prewar. There are a lot of modern minor league cards floating around. I think there'd be an uproar if someone said Derek Jeter's true rookie card isn't his SP card, but is some vague minor league card of his.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Greg:

You really understand the challenges facing this type of collection. For what it's worth, I'll share my viewpoint on each of your questions even though they were probably meant to be rhetorical:

I would agree that the rookie card would be the first issue that the player appeared as a Major Leaguer.

I would categorize minor league issues separately, using the term, pre-rookie or prookie for short.

No requirment for a set to be nationally distributed to be a rookie card.

No team cards count as rookie cards, I typically set the limit at 4 players as Topps has done that traditionally with their rookie cards over the years. This should not be too controversial as there is rarely a card that falls between a full team card and a 4-player card.

I too strongly prefer a TPG (PSA, SGC or BGS) as they add additional legitimacy to the item, although grading detractors will tell you otherwise.

You're right, a particular rookie card may not be the most attractive card of a particular player (see 1920's strip cards for example) but it is what it is.


Lastly, thank you for the kind words.

[Runscott]

I can buy a whole lot of T206's with the money I would have spent on only a few HOF rookie cards.

[novakjr]

I really don't think any of the TPGs will ever be able to put together a registry flexible enough to truly cover the subject..And I'd think pins or whatever would have to be acceptable fill ins..

Maybe just a career contemporary list. with a +(#) for years removed from the decidedly acceptable rookie card year..

Take Feller for instance. Let's say 1937 is decided(with the goudey wide pen), and someone has the 1941 double play as his card. It would then count as having a card/item of him with a +4. Compile all the +numbers at the end on top of completion %. That way even without improving your completion%, you could still improve your set/collection.. Say you're at 87% completion, with a +85, simply improving the age on that 1 card, you'd move up to 87% completion, with a +81..

maybe even create a highest possible +(#) for a player. Again, I'll use Feller as an example..If it's decided that his acceptable rookie card year is '37, and the last year he played was '56, then his max +(#) would be 19. If you don't have a card of him, then you get a default +19 until you get a qualifying card.. Compile a highest possible default number(combining ALL players) at the start..And then just subtract from there when applicable cards/items are added.

Just estimating. 300 members, at an average of 15 default years apiece. Maybe everyone starts with a max number of 4500(whatever the actual number end up being) and working towards zero.. The near impossibility of some players would basically create their own weights. You could technically have ZERO Rookies, but possibly still have the highest rated set with a number of +300

And for players with no contemporary items, you could cap it at first reasonably attainable non-contemporary card/pin/whatever).. Or just discount them alltogether..

Just some random ideas..

[packs]

I feel like its less important. I'd like to have any Ty Cobb card. I don't really care if its his rookie card. Same goes for Ruth and Gehrig. For most post-war HOFers their rookie card is their only card of value, which is why it would be more widely collected.

[glchen]

I think most people don't collect prewar HOF RC's because it's too expensive and rare. Last year, someone tried to come up with a complete HOF rookie card set for the PSA Set Registry. However, many of the card are obviously not rookie cards (e.g., 1933 Goudey for Ruth). However, most of the post-war cards are the correct rookies. I think the creator was going by the Beckett guide for rookies using the "nationwide set" definition, and also trying to make the set more obtainable. The set composition is here: Link, and there are already 17 sets on the registry, so it's gained traction relatively quickly. That's why I think that there is some interest for this kind of set. There should be interest in a better list than this registry, but probably would just need to be published somewhere like the PSA, SGC, or Beckett registries to become more popular. For example, even the Top 250 Sportscards set on PSA (Link has some active collectors trying to complete the set even though there are some very expensive cards on that list such as the T206 Wagner, T210 Jackson, and Baltimore News Ruth. (Spence is at 98% completion for this set.)

[ullmandds]

Personally... Rookie card collecting Has never really interested me... Especially in regards to vintage For some of the reasons already stated. The cost is definitely prohibitive In many cases...as is the supply. Additionally... I don't like the idea of being bound To one card of a given player... I would much prefer the card That appeals to me the most on an aesthetic level. Also the whole prookie/rookie debate turns me off too!

To me it is like Leon's quest for a complete acc type set...an incredible Accomplishment... But beyond the means Of most.

[deadballfreaK]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Personally... Rookie card collecting Has never really interested me... Especially in regards to vintage For some of the reasons already stated. The cost is definitely prohibitive In many cases...as is the supply. Additionally... I don't like the idea of being bound To one card of a given player... I would much prefer the card That appeals to me the most on an aesthetic level. Also the whole prookie/rookie debate turns me off too!

To me it is like Leon's quest for a complete acc type set...an incredible Accomplishment... But beyond the means Of most.

+1 I have never gotten the rookie card thing.