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

[orly57]

Well done Aaron. Damn well done.

[darwinbulldog]

The poll is comparable to one asking people to vote on how many sides they think a triangle has. What's more interesting to me, than just asking people if they know the correct answer in this one particular case (Mantle), is to force people to operationalize their terms.

If a player has a card issued in 1909 but doesn't appear in a major league game until 1910, do you consider his 1909 card a rookie card?

If you say yes, then what you what you mean by rookie card is merely earliest card, and the M101-5 Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.

If you say no, then what you mean by rookie card is a card issued during the player's rookie year (and then we can further quibble about players who didn't exceed the rookie limits during their debut seasons or who didn't have any cards issued during their rookie seasons), and the Baltimore News Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1993 SP Jeter.

I'm fine with people using either definition, but there's not much benefit in using either of them if you aren't going to be consistent about it. That is, either you're in the pre-MLB-cards-count camp (i.e., the Baltimore News Ruth and the 1993 Jeter are rookie cards) OR you're in the nothing-prior-to-MLB-debut-counts camp (i.e., the M01-5 Ruth and the 1995 Topps Jeter are rookie cards).

In neither case does it makes any sense to call a 1952 Topps Mantle a rookie card.

[Buythatcard]

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

[Touch'EmAll]

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

[ALR-bishop]

For us set collectors the poll results matter not. And if you collect variations with such sets, that means one 51 and two of the 52s, rookie or not

[h2oya311]

I'm the "rookie" card guy, and even I'm confused

"earliest card" or "first card" or "rookie/pre-rookie" all work for me. Personally, I'd rather have one of Jeter's 1992 minor league cards over his '93/'95 Topps "rookies". Or for the daring, try going for his 1982 Oakwood Little League Team Photo! Haha! Yes, it's all a game to jack up the price. I am paying that price.

To me, it's all about researching interesting and esoteric sets that no one else knows or cares about. I prefer the oddball to the standard Topps/Bowman issues. For instance, I just "discovered" Joe Torre's earliest card (or what I believe to be his earliest card). I always assumed it was the '62 Topps. But lo and behold, I was searching eBay and found a postcard from 1961 produced by LL Cook Co. that was postmarked in 1961! Hallelujah and eureka!! I don't plan on re-writing the books, but it's fun for me to have a checklist that no one else is pursuing - even all those "rookie" card collectors out there!

Great thread, BTW. Would love to learn more about when "rookie" cards became mainstream.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

I think RCs are here to stay. Certainly for post-WWII and pre-shiny insert era the RC is usually going to be the most valuable card. Other than 52T Mantle and the non-HOF 71T Munson I can't think of any exceptions. I'm the opposite of the above, if I don't have a player yet I need a very good reason to buy a card other than the RC or an earlier oddball card.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

In 2006, Beckett published "The Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia", with some pretty silly criteria for what counts as a "rookie card" for pre-WWII players. Among other things, this led them to designate the 1933 Goudey Babe Ruths as his "rookie" cards, and I believe the same was true of the other players in 1933 Goudey. It looks like they must still be using those criteria on Beckett.com, even though nobody takes that seriously any more. Here is a thread about that book from three years ago, including a mea culpa post from Rich Klein, who worked on the book when he was at Beckett. I'm not sure if Rich has anything more to say about it now.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=181414