Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[insidethewrapper]

Phil: I appreciate the list. Your a true hobby man. Sharing data is so unselfish. Thanks.

[Hankphenom]

Not to nitpick, but I disagree with the Walter Johnson listing of the Weiser cabinet as his "rookie card." To me, this is a mounted photograph, not a card. Not sure what his rookie card would be, maybe the American Caramel, I'll leave that to the card experts. I just don't see a one-of-a-kind photo of a baseball player as being a baseball card, that's all.

[dougscats]

Hi Phil.

I recently bought this Buck Leonard on Net54.
It was described as a "1960's Jim Rowe Postcard, wearing 1958 Durango uniform [autographed]."

May I take it that this is an artifact/that such postcards are not designated as cards?

Thanks.

Doug

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Not to nitpick, but I disagree with the Walter Johnson listing of the Weiser cabinet as his "rookie card." To me, this is a mounted photograph, not a card. Not sure what his rookie card would be, maybe the American Caramel, I'll leave that to the card experts. I just don't see a one-of-a-kind photo of a baseball player as being a baseball card, that's all.

I think that Johnson's Rose Co. Postcard is now considered his rookie card (if one includes postcards). It was definitely issued in 1908.

I think that both Johnson's Weiser Wonder cabinet and postcard are referred to as his "pre-rookie" cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Guys, don't I have the Rose Comapny P/C listed as WaJo's rookie card in my first post of this thread?

I agree with Kevin S.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would treat that Buck Leonard postcard as a real photo postcard, unless it's part of a catalogued set, I would not use it as a rookie card. It's not the postcard designation itself, it's more the uniqueness as well as the lack of dates of issue and the fact that those were produced over many years. I would consider those Rowe postcards more like a collector's issue set, kind of like Broder's sets from the 70's and '80's.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Guys, don't I have the Rose Comapny P/C listed as WaJo's rookie card in my first post of this thread?

I agree with Kevin S.

Phil - you do. I was just responding to Hank's post concerning the Weiser PC and his asking about the E91 American Caramel issue.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Phil - you do. I was just responding to Hank's post concerning the Weiser PC and his asking about the E91 American Caramel issue.

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

Hi Joe - There is always going to be debate on what constitutes a baseball card.

Of course, it all comes down to personal preference and, in the end, we will all collect what does it for us.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hank/Kevin,

If T5 Cabinets (as well as other rare cabinets) are considered official cards, then the Weiser Wonder is likewise a card. However, as Kevin correctly noted, since the Weiser Wonder reflects Johnson as a pre-Major League pitcher, it is his inaugural "professional baseball" issue and NOT a true MLB rookie card (similar to cards like the Baltimore News Ruth, Zeenut DiMaggio, etc.). The Rose PC is, indeed, Johnsons true rookie card.

JoeT

I was talking about the mounted Weiser photo, Jimmy, not the "Weiser Wonder" PC, which in any case was probably issued in 1910. If you did mean to compare the Weiser mounted photo to the T5 Johnson, the former's a photo and the latter a card, IMO.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jason:

You can definitely make a good case for the Aaron postcard as a rookie card. My stance on it is yes to the Negro League part of the equation (although it pre-dates Aaron's time in Jacksonville, which would be considered pre-rookie time), yes to the postcard part of the equation but, in the end, no because it is a unique real photo postcard (only one known as far as I could tell). Since there are a few other Indy players issued in the same format, could be considered part of a "set" and thus could qualify for rookie card status.

This one could really go either way, I chose to stick with the 1954 Aaron issues as rookie cards....

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Guys, don't I have the Rose Comapny P/C listed as WaJo's rookie card in my first post of this thread?

I agree with Kevin S.

I was just responding to your post of the 13th. On the Weiser postcards, I don't believe any were issued until several years after he had left Weiser. If the Rose set was issued in 1908, that would certainly qualify as a rookie card since there wasn't time for any 1907 issues. Perhaps the American Caramel was also from 1908, but as I said I'm no expert on that.

[Leon]

It seems like rookie HOF status always goes back to definitions of a "card"....or how it was distributed, was it a part of a series etc.....

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I was just responding to your post of the 13th. On the Weiser postcards, I don't believe any were issued until several years after he had left Weiser. If the Rose set was issued in 1908, that would certainly qualify as a rookie card since there wasn't time for any 1907 issues. Perhaps the American Caramel was also from 1908, but as I said I'm no expert on that.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Leon

It seems like rookie HOF status always goes back to definitions of a "card"....or how it was distributed, was it a part of a series etc.....

There is that debate, certainly. To me, it's what they used to say about obscenity: "you know it when you see it." Just speaking personally, I don't think it needs to be part of a series, and I don't see why a postcard back should disqualify, but I also understand the arguments against those. In the case of a mounted photograph, to me that can only be categorized as a mounted photograph.