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

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Well, Jeff, we all agree that a '55 Topps Roberto Clemente is a rookie card, no? I don't think that anyone will dispute that.

I think the term is well defined enough in the hobby for collectors to know what it means, there will still be disagreements though.

Phil,
What % of HOFers is there near quasi-universal agreement on
what their RC card, not cards, is. That's hardly a representative
example IMO. It's like arguing about the greatest player ever,
makes for great banter but hardly a consensus. That's just my
POV, but the lack of consensus keeps it from being a more popular
niche IMO.

[paul]

Ted, if you ever want to dispose of those grey background 49 Bowmans ...

[bcbgcbrcb]

BTW nice stuff, Ted!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jimi:

I like your idea as an ongoing resource for those of us that enjoy this type of collecting and I would be all for it although I don't want to be the one in charge of setting it up and maintaining it. I would be a daily participant though. Right now, my primary focus is on a Negro Leagues project that I am working on.

As with the small group of Net 54 members that we put together last time, I think that the ultimate purpose of our efforts should be to get concensus rookie card designations listed in the Standard Catalogue and Beckett annual guides and hopefully, a little further down the road, grading company designations as such as well. As long as they refuse to accept that, there will continue to be disagreement amongst collectors and very few will pursue this endeavor.

[HRBAKER]

Phil,
One other thing, this is a tough place to ask the question. Most of us are
primarily prewar collectors and it's a murkier concept there.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jeff:

I think we can get a concensus on around 75% of the 300 HOF rookie cards, more than one per individual is okay (1983 Topps, Fleer & Donruss - Wade Boggs all work, right?). There will be some toughies but if we can get rookie card designations in the card catalogues for 75%, that would be a great start.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jeff:

I think we can get a concensus on around 75% of the 300 HOF rookie cards, more than one per individual is okay (1983 Topps, Fleer & Donruss - Wade Boggs all work, right?). There will be some toughies but if we can get rookie card designations in the card catalogues for 75%, that would be a great start.

Phil,
That would be a major accomplishment.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Phil,
What % of HOFers is there near quasi-universal agreement on
what their RC card, not cards, is. That hardly a representative
example IMO. It's like arguing about the greatest player ever,
makes for great banter but hardly a consensus. That's just my
POV, but the lack of consensus keeps it from being a more popular
niche IMO.

My opinion is that someone just needs to make an opinion and then just go with it. For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry. Once that was done, people just collected that one to fill their slot. This is just like at work when someone has to make the call. I think if someone got a real rookie registry past PSA, and got them to publish it in their Registry, and then the other major registries like SGC and Beckett followed with the same list, it would be done. That would be the definitive list, and people would just go with it. IMHO, most collectors are just followers, and once some group with some kind of authority like PSA or SCD or Beckett decide on a list, they'll just follow it and collect to the list. If someone has disagreements to the list, they can just get the list version, and then also get the one that they want, and publish that image to their slot also. For example, if the Ty Cobb rookie was decided to be the 1907 Wolverine News portrait, and you wanted the W600 Cobb instead as the rookie, you could first get the portrait card, upload that to your slot, and then also upload the image of your W600 Cobb to your slot also. If the TPG's decided that you could have multiple cards fulfill that slot for the player, that'd be fine too. So then in that example, you could have both the Wolverine News card or the W600, whichever you preferred.

[nolemmings]

For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry

Then they missed it by 10 years.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I like that idea, Gary. I tried to get SGC to use my list a few years ago, nothing ever came out of that as they were backed up with other registry stuff that would be much easier to sort out. If any board members have a connection with any of the 3 TPG's that would get this idea accomplished, I would be happy to supply the list and work with them to get it done.

This in itself would be a great accomplishment but I think it would still be far superior if the card catalogues would recognize the rookie card designations. Many more people utilize them as opposed to graded card registries, I believe.

[HRBAKER]

So we need the TPGs to decide what the RCs are and then everyone just falls in line?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So we need the TPGs to decide what the RCs are and then everyone just falls in line?

Lots of room for intellectual dishonesty there. Why would a Fleer card be the rookie, not the Topps and Donruss of the same year? I personally think that makes matters worse, not better. It is a terrible idea IMO.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by glchen

My opinion is that someone just needs to make an opinion and then just go with it. For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry

Assuming you meant '87. I for one don't play the XRC/RC game with the 80-current releases. For me it's the '86 Sportflics for Larkin. I do have all the '87 releases anyways though. Same for Puckett and Clemens(yeah I know he's not a HOFer). '85 doesn't quite cut it for me, with the '84 fleer updates out there. Which I don't have. I do have the '85's though, but won't count them as RC's..

postwar-79, there's a few exceptions where oddball or local releases may pre-date the traditional RC...I generally accept the hobby standard on those(with some exceptions, like '48 bowman Feller, that's not even close to a damn rookie)..

Pre-war things get even murkier, and I generally just play it by ear. Phil's RC list, combined with the "earliest collectible" list serve as a pretty solid reference.. I reference those lists more than I do anything else in this hobby..

As far as the PSA registry, their list is a joke.

I think a website devoted to them would be a good idea. Maybe some of Phil's(or other's) lists, discussions and photobucket/whatever links. Hell, compile it's own rankings based on completion %.

BTW, right now I'm really enjoying Derek's HOF rookie Image event page..

[glchen]

Oops, yep, I had a typo and meant 1987 Fleer Larkin.

In regards to the TPG deciding the rookie cards, I am just saying IMHO someone has to decide it. The rookie card discussion has been percolating for a few years. It has to move forward some time. If not the TPG's, then the standard guides should specify the rookie cards. Phil has his list, and it's on oldcardboard also, but it's not widely distributed in the hobby. It's basically just on this board who really know about it. If the hobby or the guides say this is the list, I think there will be a greater following for the list.

In regards to intellectual dishonesty, it is not truly that PSA (or another TPG) is creating the list. What happens is that some knowledgeable collector submits the list to PSA, and then they approve it. I think if Phil were to say to the board, this is the list that I am submitting to PSA for the All Time Hall of Fame Rookie list, people can comment on it like they already have for his other thread that gave a list already. If there are any disagreements, then Phil can make some small tweaks taking into account everyone's opinion. Then he can take that list, and publish it to the PSA, SGC, and Beckett boards, and again take feedback. After this is done, then he can submit that final list to the TPG's, and point to these threads and say that he compiled this list, and this is the work that went into it. He published the proposed list on these respected forums, and after taking the feedback, made the appropriate changes. Therefore, this list is as intellectually honest as any HOF Rookie list is going to be, and then hopefully, the TPG's can publish those lists into their registries. Hopefully, then SCD and the Beckett guides can follow and designate the rookies the same way. Again, not everyone collects rookies. Many people prefer key cards or other ways of collecting. However, for those who do, I think they would appreciate this comprehensive list to use.

Phil, I would think to be realistic, you would need to have a list that contains cards that all 3 TPG's grade. I think in general PSA is the most restrictive since they do not grade cards greater in size than 5x7, they don't grade wrappers (so Overland Candy won't make the list), and they wouldn't grade Real Photo postcards. I am not sure about certain cabinet cards either. So, if there are certain cards that you are unsure of, I would just check the PSA pop report, and see if they have graded it. The other thing you would need to decide is whether to "eliminate" certain rookie cards because they are simple too scarce. As someone already pointed out, there is the Just So Burkett. Do you really want a list that no one can really complete? That may be more honest, but not realistic for collectors. Again, since Phil's put the most work into this, I think Phil should decide on these points and make some executive decisions.

[HRBAKER]

So it's really just a list of RC that PSA will grade? So that criteria is essentially as important as any other that a list is vetted against.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So it's really just a list of RC that PSA will grade? So that criteria is essentially as important as any other that a list is vetted against.

This is just my opinion. Phil and the others on this board can comment, and make the final calls on this. It's possible that Phil can submit different lists to the different TPG's depending on the types of cards that they grade.

[bcbgcbrcb]

My first reaction was that Gary's idea might bring about the best chance of getting these cards identified to the mainstream collecting public. Reading his post further, I subsequently realized his point that these rookie cards need to coincide with what the TPG's will encapsulate, otherwise, they are not going to accept the idea for their registries.

If I am correct, PSA requires an item to be catalogued in order to grade it so some postcards will work as long as they are part of a catalogued set, not possibly unique ones. I assume that cabinet cards would be the same along with CDV's. I'm not sure what their position is on something like an Overland Candy, if you say that they won't do those, I'll accept that.

As far as gearing my list towards what issues the grading companies will or will not grade, I think that is probably too restrictive and will force items to be left out because PSA or SGC choose not to grade them or do not have a holder large enough or thick enough to encapsulate them.

Maybe using Gary's idea of gaining a concensus and presenting that to the card catalogue publishers would be the best way to go. I tried once with SCD though and that went nowhere. Maybe we could try to approach Beckett first and if they like and accept it, SCD will follow. Then, maybe the grading companies will jump in.

[glchen]

For the contact information for the 3 TPG's, I think Earl would be the contact at SGC. However, most likely, he will say that anything would need to wait until after their Registry overhaul is finished by Simple.

I think Mark is in charge of the Beckett Registry and is a board member here. Here's a link for a recent post on the Beckett Registry (Link), and he can probably comment on what process is needed to get a new set included there. They are also overhauling their registry also, so it is possible that any new sets may need to wait until they are finished.

To get a new set on PSA, you need to follow the instructions here: Link. PSA also would like a weighting for each of the cards on the list, in order to decide how tough they are to obtain. For example, on the T206 Master, a Honus Wagner would receive the maximum weight of 10, while a common would receive the lowest weight of 1. They will then take your suggested weightings and then make any changes. You may just need to take this list and email the Set Registry folks directly. (Their email is on that link.) Personally, I don't know how receptive PSA will be especially since they already published that other so-called HOF list last year. (That HOF Restricted set I pointed out earlier in the thread.) You may need to discuss it with them, and if it doesn't go well, you may even want to talk to Joe Orlando to see if you can get it by him. I know when I was trying to get some cards on the Ruth Master list, the Registry folks actually passed my comments to Joe for his decision. Here is the thread from the Collectors forum about how the HOF Restricted set got into the registry: Link and Link 2. You may be able to contact that submitter for tips on how he got the list by PSA. Not sure how receptive he may be either since this set may supersede the one he worked on.

On the scarcity issue, the T206 Master list does have the Wagner and Doyle variations, and I know other sets have cards with only a pop of 1. So again, you would have to decide just how scarce cards can be. Good luck whatever you decide!

[h2oya311]

Interesting feedback all.

I am happy with my spreadsheet (and website) that has all the cards I want/need to complete the HoF rookie / pre-rookie collection. I couldn't care less about whether someone or some TPG tells me what is or is not a player's "rookie" card.

I am okay with the lower demand for cards I'm interested in buying, so lets not over-hype rookie card collecting until I'm 90-95 % complete. Okay??

Anyway, interesting thread, ...to me at least!