Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

67 Topps Venezuela was mostly or overall a major league set I think, so why not Bobby Cox?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

Thanks for the explanation Phil, makes sense enough. I'm not trying to complete anything, nor do I worry about the definitions within my collection, but I do have fun picking up some of the earliest examples of HOFers I can. Thanks to the board, and in large part this list for opening my eyes to some cards I'd have otherwise never gone after--- R315 Hubbell, Chong Rickey Henderson, Dietsche Cobb, Bond Bread Robinsons, etc.

[JMANOS]

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by JMANOS

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...

Actually, there are at least four variations, but who's counting? Bulkeley also has some pretty cool campaign pins that pre-date the 1908 PCs.

[philhjr1]

Does anyone know of what card would be considered Jacob Ruppert's rookie card for PSA's registry purpose? The 1962 Topps card, does not count/qualify for Jacob Ruppert. I have been going back and forth with PSA for 2 weeks now, and they flat out refuse to allow it. They also offered up no other suggestions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[h2oya311]

I like this one for Ruppert - a 1901 Cabinet photo. No idea what PSA would consider to be his rookie, but it would likely be a HOF Plaque card or something of that nature.

[bcbgcbrcb]

For traditional cards, I would also go with the 1962 Topps. I understand the issue and PSA's position, the same goes for Tom Yawkey's rookie card appearing in the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set.

Derek's piece is far superior and is one of Ruppert's earliest, if not the earliest, but doesn't qualify as a rookie card.

It's been a long time since I researched this but I recall Ruppert's beer company putting out a premium picturing a couple/few Yankees along with Ruppert. I think it was sometime during the late 1930's, maybe early 1940's. Again, not a card, but a nice option as a career contemporary piece and not as impossible to find as Derek's.