True Pre-War Rookie Cards

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by botn

To me a rookie "card" is pretty simple. It is the first time a player appears on an item that has any intended or actual distribution to the public. Does not matter about the size, whether or not it has advertising, whether it was issued nationally or locally or if it features that player in the minor leagues.

I pretty much agree with the definition above. My definition is the first cardboard collectible that was commercially distributed to the public either nationally or regionally. The only other caveat that that I have is that a minor league card would be a pre-rookie.

[barrysloate]

Sometimes a collector has to make a practical choice when deciding which rookie card to add to his collection.

Take the Just So Cy Young, for example. To my knowledge the card is unique, and the collector who owns it will not sell it in his lifetime. So if you are looking for an example of Cy Young, you will have to go with something other than Just So.

Added to the dilemma is that Just So's were distributed in the Cleveland area only, so one could argue it's a regional issue and therefore doesn't qualify.

At the end of the day, each collector has to make some decisions.

[Bicem]

Also agree that a card needs to be cardboard and intended for more than private use.

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Or, to play the devil's advocate, the 1951 Wheaties premium (yes, it is a card, with a dot pattern, and not an actual photo), but that's opening up another can of worms! The only certainty is that the '52 is most emphatically NOT his rookie.

Best wishes,

Larry

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Or, to play the devil's advocate, the 1951 Wheaties premium (yes, it is a card, with a dot pattern, and not an actual photo), but that's opening up another can of worms! The only certainty is that the '52 is most emphatically NOT his rookie.

Best wishes,

Larry

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, I'd take this Campy "rookie" over any Bowman card any day...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

and all the tpgs got that one wrong too...fwiw, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, i'd take this campy "rookie" over any bowman card any day...

+100000

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that ['51 Wheaties] premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

Some hold that opinion, and they're welcome to it, but not everyone does. Just be aware that it is in fact only an opinion. I've seen the so-called "proof," and am not impressed (if you wanted a photo of Mantle in his home, pinstriped uniform, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to obtain one in ways other than air-brushing out the road uniform characteristics from the photo taken during the '52 World Series with Brooklyn and putting the pinstripes in so that they were just right--sounds like a true pain in the a__, most likely because it would be--plus, look closely--the shadows are distinctly different on the bat and by his chin in their depth. Why in the world would you go to the additional trouble of changing them? Mantle would have taken exactly the same stance from the right side every time he assumed it--that's called habit, built out of playing and practicing since he was three years old or so). I recall reading that they came out when a Wheaties exec retired (don't think they were seen before the late '80's at the earliest), and he reportedly told Bob Lemke that they were created in 1951. Plus, the other photo premiums from the set were the basis of drawings issued with Wheaties in 1951. I personally believe that it will remain labeled a 1951 long after we all are gone, but as I stated, to each his own.

Highest regards,

Larry

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Agreed, and they are wrong each time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

Even SGC does that on its flips, which is really lame.