OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by kvnkvnkvn

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

[samosa4u]

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

[g_vezina_c55]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

i am in canada and your are 100% corect in your affirmation. people here chase only first card. the 54 howe topps is the most underrated card here in canada i think. its the best howe looking card but here in canada not many people have interest. everyone want the 51 ugly parkie howe because its the rookie.

i also think the 51 bowman is the rookie but i prefer way more the topps... the design and the size the color etc.... probably one of the best looking sport cards ever.


last week i bought a V145-2 howie morenz card 1924 his second year card. the rookie for morenz is the v145-1. the image and design of the card is the same at 95%. people said to me bahh its not the rookie its only the second years blablabla .... the v145-2 is more rare than the v145-1 ...
in hockey you also have the c55 vezina VS the c57 vezina. the c57 is way more rare and better looking than the c55 but people want the c55 because its the rc

but a lot of people in canada in hockey don t see that

[Fred]

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Bottom line is that you're right, collect what you like. If you have to have the "rookie" card then good for you, however if you like the '54 Howe more, then by all means, GET IT and bully for you!

[g_vezina_c55]

Originally Posted by Fred

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Bottom line is that you're right, collect what you like. If you have to have the "rookie" card then good for you, however if you like the '54 Howe more, then by all means, GET IT and bully for you!

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

[smallpaul2002]

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

Stay here and post as much as you want, I can clearly understand what you are posting, As a fellow Canadian, I've got your back!!

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Fred

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Fred, how old are you? 11? Considering English is not Nelson's first language, I think he writes really well.

Nelson, you provide excellent points. The Howe RC is indeed a very ugly card that has very little color, poor registration and a blank back. And despite this, Canadians go absolutely nuts over it.

[Fred]

Sheesh, this is why lots of people stop commenting for the most part -

Looky here, another Canuck coming to the rescue of Nelson.... really? Oh shit, now beat me down for using the C-word....

Cripes, I was only alluding to Nelson's use of Hockey cards when referencing rookie cards. This is a baseball card forum and the reference to speaking "Canadian" was for the reference to Hockey cards (a "Canadian" thing, for the most part) .... sheesh..

No, I'm not 11, however you're not far off depending upon how relative age is to what ever you feel like referencing. Get a grip dude... look, I capitalized Hockey, do I get redemption points for that?

To all the Canadians that post here and are offended by my use of the C-word, my apologies except for that Canuck from Toronto....

[g_vezina_c55]

Im in quebec like many know and i try do to my best to write in english.
Try to write corectly in french my friend amd we will laught together hehe
When i goes to show in boston back then i tried also my best to speak and i can say 99.9% of us people are absolutely cool with me and my poor language.

[WWG]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

I consider Joe D's rookie to be the 1936 World Wide Gum (I don't care if it's Canadian) which is also his rookie season. What I don't understand is that many consider his rookie to be the 1938 Goudey which makes no sense to me.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by WWG

I consider Joe D's rookie to be the 1936 World Wide Gum (I don't care if it's Canadian) which is also his rookie season. What I don't understand is that many consider his rookie to be the 1938 Goudey which makes no sense to me.

What about his 1936 R312?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card.

[Fred]

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey????

[CW]

Originally Posted by Fred

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey????

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by CW

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

[Fred]

Jay, you beat me to it.... yup no "rookie" cards way back then.

Here's something to ponder... Topps first year for BB cards was 1951. Could you imagine if Mantle was on a blue back Topps in 1951, let's also say it was an SP to boot. I wonder which card would be more desirable, the Topps or the Bowman?

Thank goodness Joplin didn't put out a minor league card of the Mick in 1950.... where would we be then?

[Bigdaddy]

William Edward White, Moses Fleetwood Walker or Jackie Roosevelt Robinson - who was the first African American major league ball player???

I would say that most of us recognize Jackie as the first, but I'm sure some baseball nerds will point to one of the other two gentlemen.

And so just like the above example, I would assume that most people outside our group of baseball nerds would say Mick's 52 Topps is his RC, and we'll all jump up and down and and be technically right that it was his 51 Bowman.

So, Jackie or Moses or William White???? 51 Bowman or 52 Topps??

BTW, I voted for the 52 Topps and Jackie is my choice.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

+1
It's a hobby invention.

Dilly dilly!

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I AGREE, the term "rookie card" is useless. Why should it be worth anymore than a second year card if the sets were produced equally? This term began being bounced around in about 1980 when the monthly Beckett guides starting coming out.

Strictly a sales pitch and many older collectors will remember there was hype around future Hall of Famer Bob Horner and his "rookie card." Ooops

















'rookie card
'