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

[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.