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

[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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

[bcbgcbrcb]

That's correct, Gary, a minor league card of Jeter that pre-dates his SP rookie would be a pre-rookie card not a rookie card. A collector just has to decide if they would prefer pre-rookies included in their collection or Major League rookie cards only.

[jimivintage]

I figure I should chime in. I am in the middle of cooking dinner for the kids right now, so it'll have to be short, and I will write more later.

Right now, my focus is on postwar HOF RCs and obtaining a card that appeals to me for each prewar HOFer. My budget will not allow for RC prewar, but I'd like to think that with patience over time, I can come close as I inch my way closer to that lofty goal.

Minor league cards really don't have a place in my collection for post war stuff. Even a 1952 Parkhurst Alston would not count. I tend to collect mainstream RCs, but I do make exceptions like the 1975 SSPC Eckersley features him in an Indians uniform one year prior to the 1976 Topps card, so I consider that his RC. Some would disagree. Who cares though, right? Collect what you want!

I agree, team cards do not count. Nothing wrong with Topps RCs that have 3 or 4 RCs on it though like the '78T Molitor/Trammell RC also featuring two others on it. It was intended to be a RC after all. However, a 1978 Topps Brewers Team card with a small picture of Molitor on it would not count.

Then there are the unique copies of 19th century guys and Negro Leaguers. I simply just go for the earliest copy I can get. If it has to be the '74 Laughlin set, then so be it.

I do have an idea on how we can all come together as a unit on collecting HOF RCs, and helping each other....BUT, I have to go finish making dinner. More later, guys!

Happy collecting!

Jimi

[Kenny Cole]

I guess my take on it is a little different. I like to collect "first" cards of pre-war HOFers when I can, but I don't really worry about whether or not the card is a a "rookie" as I define the term.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but IMO, a true "rookie" card is a card that was issued the first year the player started playing in the majors -- when he was actually a rookie -- not X number of years before or X number of years after he started playing.

For example, IMO, Candy Cummings doesn't have a "rookie" card. The first single card of him was issued after he had been dead for about 15 years. By then he had been retired from baseball for 60 years. It doesnt' make sense to me that a card which is first issued after a player has been dead for years can accurately be called his "rookie." If you choose to call the 1876 CDV of him on the Hartford team his "first" card, that's fine with me but it can't be a "rookie" because he started pitching professionally well before 1876.

The debate about what constitutes a pre-war "rookie" card hurts my head and makes me tired. However, assuming that there is some general agreement about what a "card" is, I can usually figure out the "first" card of a given player. With respect to pre-war players, I'm content with that.

[cardaholic]

1. Cost is prohibitive even in low grade for some players - or the supply isn't there (the Just So Jesse Burkett, with 1 known example - and it has been rebuilt -is by far the worst in this regard).
2. There's no clear answer as to what counts as a rookie for many players, mainly due to arguments over whether postcards, minor league cards, Cuban cards, Exhibits, premiums, etc. (and don't get me started on Beckett's refusal to count tobacco cards and caramel cards) should count.
3. Most collectors don't feel the same emotional attachment to players from older eras.
4. Many people progress linearly while collecting - get the post-WWII HOF rookies, and then consider going back further.
5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

Knowledge is key. I mean Beckett still puts "RC" on a ton of 1948 Bowman cards and 1933 Goudey cards. Ridiculous! It's misleading to everyone!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

Your concept falls a few feet short of the plate. I'd try not to pay that much but if I am assembling a set and the card is in the set I will have to get it to make the set. I can't very well stick a 27 in a 26 set, can I? It has nothing to do with rookie cards, it is set building.

While we're on the subject, one of the things I do like to get are postally used PCs of players in their rookie years. I recently picked up a 1957 Drysdale PC signed and mailed from Brooklyn in 1957 and a 1954 Bob Turley Baltimore team issue PC. I suppose those don't make the RC cut for some collectors but they are issues of the players that are as early as the gum cards that are treated as RCs and indisputably originate in the rookie years by virtue of the postmarks. If they're not some sort of RC then the whole exercise starts to lose its explanatory value as the exceptions eat up the rules

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I just want to mention something along the lines of what Ken & David are saying, I too began my quest by buying the earliest card of each member that I could afford and constantly tried to upgrade by going back year(s) earlier. In this manner, I learned a lot about many different players and card issues over the years and it was certainly a lot of fun.

Strictly from a financial standpoint, however, I wish now that I would have had the patience to wait for the right card at the right price to purchase the true rookie card for each member. I believe that doing it the other way cost me tons of money over the years as many times my buy and subsequent sell due to an upgrade ending up costing me money and very rarely did I make money on the switch.

That being said, collect what you enjoy.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

Never said you were [as far as you know ]. The cost of the 'rookie' cards in some of the Exhibit sets is one reason why I haven't pursued the prewar sets with the same vigor as the postwar issues.

I consider the PCs to be rookies also but I know a lot of collectors who would disagree. To each his own...

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 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.

That would be entirely possible especially with Jeter. I think he's one reason for Becketts narrow view of what a rookie card is.

There's the little sun High school prospects set.....only 3000 made,
Or the one from front row
Or classic
Or the other classic

All from 92 And at one time all hyped as "rookie cards"

When Beckett went to the whole nationally distributed major set it pretty much ended some of that.

Personally I always felt it was a silly defenition since there were enough sets that didn't qualify but were major manufacturer and/or nationally distributed.
I always figured it should read as
"A rookie card is a card from around the players first year in the majors that was also printed in enough quantity that dealers can ensure a ready supply"

But then, I'm occasionally a bit cynical.

Steve B

[Leon]

When I first got back into collecting as an adult, some 17 yrs ago, I collected rookie HOF'ers. I remember getting an E102 Cobb from John Spencer. It was a great card. Then the year of the set changed. Then more of the "what is a rookie card" question set in. Since I always enjoyed variety I decided to stop doing the Rookie HOF collecting and focus on type cards. That being said here is a 1938 premium with T.Williams (tall guy in back row). I still enjoy prookie and hof rookie cards but don't go after them and they aren't my focus. Plus, if I stayed with them it's not like I could have ever, in my mind, completed the set.

[steve B]

A few have mentioned the rise in prices in the 80's.

Everything rose substantially during the 80's.

Rookie cards more than most.
There actually was a reason at one time.
Most collecting pre 1980 or so was done by kids
Most of them only collected for 3 years or so.
Few players made an imediate impact.

So when kids moved on to other interests and the cards were eventually thrown out sometimes they'd save one or two. But lets say it's late 55 and you're moving......what card gets saved if you only can hide 5 or 6 from mom?
Mantle for sure, but probably not that kid in Milwaukee, or the new guy in Pittsburgh(Aaron and Clemente)

So the first Topps/Bowman cards of most players were actually a bit harder to find than those of established players.

And the hobby as it developed in the late 70's-early 80's was driven by baby boomer nostalgia. By the late 80's it was more of an easy money thing, and devolved into more of a collectable lottery ticket. But it still held onto the once sensible traditions like the rookie card.

I like pretty much all cards and I'll collect them if I can afford them.


Steve B

[oldjudge]

Phil-you poses the question to begin this thread as to why more people were not collecting HOF rookie cards. Let me ask a different question, one which ties to my prior post:

Why should anyone collect rookie cards instead of collecting one's favorite card of each HOFer (assuming one wants a card of each HOFer--I don't)

[barrysloate]

Most of the reasons why people don't collect rookie cards have been stated, but the bottom line seems to be that it is impossible to do. One might get 90% or more of the known rookie cards with patience and a big checkbook, but finishing the set can't be done. And it would cost millions of dollars even if there was some way to do it. Plus, the lack of a consistent definition of a rookie card frustrates too many collectors. We've had numerous threads about rookie cards and there are always so many different opinions about what's what.

I like Jay's idea of collecting one card of choice of each Hall of Famer, difficult enough in its own right. In many cases a player's rookie card is unappealing so why spend big money on it?

Dan P.'s example of Cy Young is a good one. The Just So is unique, and the E107 is a five figure card. Why not simply get a nice portrait, such as a T206 or an E90-1, and call that your Cy Young example? I would rather buy a card that appeals to me aesthetically than one that is ugly but is a player's first. It kind of forces you to buy a card whether you find it attractive or not.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Phil-you poses the question to begin this thread as to why more people were not collecting HOF rookie cards. Let me ask a different question, one which ties to my prior post:

Why should anyone collect rookie cards instead of collecting one's favorite card of each HOFer (assuming one wants a card of each HOFer--I don't)

I don't collect this set yet (the HOF rookie run), however, it is on my list of the many things that I do want to collect. For me at least, I think, part of the appeal is that this is the first card of the player as a major leaguer, and this is the first step that he is taking to greatness in the major leagues. It's like this is how the person was before he became really famous. You can see the youth and the love for the game before that player truly became a "professional." Also, for most players, collecting the rookie card gives the set consistency. How do you determine the key card for that player when you compare it with your hobby friends? When you tell them that you got the rookie for Cal Ripken, they are much more likely to know what you are talking about, and you can share it w/ them. (Was it the Donruss, Topps, or Fleer version?) Your childhood hobby friends will typically say that's pretty cool, I always wanted one of those. They'll have a decent idea what the card image looks like. If you tell them you got the 1986 one because you liked the image, most of them won't even know what the image looked like even if they did collect cards as kids. This is not to show off. This is because you want to be able to speak a "common language" with the average collector rather than discussing really specific card images that no one cares about but you. Do you want the conversation to continue or just end w/ you? I hope this makes sense.

The prewar aspect is a little different as has already been discussed previously in this thread and others. There's ambiguity of what is the true rookie card, the cost, and the scarcity involved. This is probably a really bad analogy, but to me, it would be like collecting the Cracker Jacks. You can do the 1914, you can do the 1915, or you can do a mixture of both. Therefore, for prewar, for myself, I would probably try to approach it this way. I will take a look at the rookie card for that player. If the card is not obtainable or I like the image of another card (e.g., a key card) much better, I'll get that key card instead of the rookie. However, if I don't really have a big preference, I'll try for the rookie by default. For example, Chick Hafey is not a really important HOFer to me. I think I'll just try to get the rookie. However, for Ty Cobb, there are some key cards (like the CJ's) that I really like, so I think that I would like to get one of those instead of one of his true rookie cards. Same thing with Cy Young, as his rookie is practically unobtainable. I'll fill that slot with a key card with an image that I really like.