Questionable HOF RC's

[Bicem]

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

[packs]

Can't be one. Too many 60s and on HOFers are featured on cards with two, three, or four players. The whole "Rookie Stars" era of Topps.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Why 4? Seems like an arbitrary number. Why not 2? Or 5? Or just one?

Good question, I knew someone would ask that. I guess because the players are clearly noticeable on the Exhibit 4-1 cards. Are there any cards with 5 or 6 players that may be questionable RC's? If so, I'd probably be OK with that as long as I didn't have to study the card for a half an hour or stop by CVS for some eye drops to find the player.

I guess its more that I can't imagine anyone getting a Boston Red Sox team card in a 1975 topps pack and telling someone they have Jim Rice and Fred Lynn's RC. It sounds ridiculous to me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Over the years, Topps went with a max of 4 on their rookie star cards, that's the primary reason. Would anyone consider 1964 Pete Rose's RC because he appeared with 3 others on the 1963 card? I think not......Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

[packs]

I could be mistaken but wasn't there a league leader card that pictured someone before they had an actual "card"?

[nolemmings]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Topps ever pictured 5 or more players on one of their rookie star cards.

1962 had several with five players.