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

[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]

No worries, Phil, this is up to you, whatever you decide. I was just trying to give some ideas. PSA will not grade Overland Candy. I already tried and asked them, and they rejected it. I did send these to SGC, who did grade these wrappers/cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thank you, Gary, lots of good ideas to think about.

Going back to my orignal question and assumption, it does appear that the single biggest reason that more collectors don't take on this challenge is the lack of agreement on clearly defined items to collect. Now, I just need to find the best way to get them clearly defined.........

[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!