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

[MVSNYC]

I actually like his 51 Bowman card, a lot...but, here's my analysis.

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

But...

His more desirable, more iconic, better looking, better investment card? The 52 Topps. The most important card, in the most important post-war set.

Look at some of the greatest players in history, and their "rookie" cards versus their "best" cards...not always the same, actually often different...

Cobb- T206, Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson- T210, Cracker Jack
Etc.

To me, "rookie" cards started mattering more in the 60's & 70's (and beyond), whereas 50's and pre-war, it's a more complicated formula, which leans towards rarity & beauty, which equates to desirability, and ultimately value.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Sure, on land.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.


Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Hey Mike

SGC pop reports have approx. the same difference (factor of 1.25)

1951 Bowman = 565

1952 Topps = 470


Take care, good buddy

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[drcy]

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many feel these are RCs?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many feel these are RCs?

I disagree with everyone who responded "no" to this question. These are all "rookie" cards in my book! The flawed logic of having to be a nationally distributed set is why Beckett lists the 1933 Goudey Ruth as his rookie card despite the 1916 M101-5 set being WIDELY distributed and the more obvious choice for even the "purists".

And to me a rookie card can be issued many years after a rookie season. In other words, it's the card that's the rookie, not the player. Perhaps there should just be a new name used for all the "rookie card" crazy people out there.

Cards should be called the "earliest" or "earliest professional" or "earliest major league" or "earliest nationally distributed" card, not "rookie" card. It is clearly confusing for everyone, me included!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by drcy

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

I am not sure what back in the day means, but going back to at least 1959 Topps included players with no MLB experience in their sets. Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

I agree that Topps, Bowman or Fleer don't hold a monopoly, but it must be a national set, where the majority of collectors could obtain the card. So, if Post had made a card of Willie Stargell in 1963, it would be a rookie. IDL is not. It also must be a major league set.

Also, the point of a player not having a rookie card is a valid one. It certainly doesn't need to be released by his rookie season, but if it occurs several years after, is it a rookie card? Then does the player not have a rookie or do we find a card that doesn't meet the definition, a "first card" for people to chase?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rats60

Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

Just FYI, it is more than likely that Topps made his '55 card before his major league debut. The card was part of the low number series and Koufax didn't make his MLB debut until June 24th, 1955. However, Koufax was on the Dodgers roster for two years before his debut.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Just FYI, it is more than likely that Topps made his '55 card before his major league debut. The card was part of the low number series and Koufax didn't make his MLB debut until June 24th, 1955. However, Koufax was on the Dodgers roster for two years before his debut.

That would be something since Koufax was in high school in 1953 and he played for the University of Cincinnati in 1954. The Dodgers signed him on December 14, 1954 and placed him on the major league roster so he wouldn't be drafted by another team in the rule 5 draft, like happened with Roberto Clemente a few weeks earlier.

[tedzan]

After reading 94 posts here, all I can say is this "rookie" discussion is approaching the ridiculous. As, ridiculous as those votes in the poll that claim the 1952 Topps Mantle
card is the "rookie".

Anyhow, I collected these two Jackie Robinson cards as a young kid in 1947 - 1948. And, some on this forum would say that these 2 cards do not qualify as JRobby's real
ROOKIE cards (since they were not in a nationally distributed set).

...................... 1947 Bond Bread .............................................. 1948 R346 (Blue Tint)




Well then, shall we consider Yogi's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card his true "rookie" ? Hey guys....this set was nationally distributed.

.




Furthermore, I'll include these 5 additional cards into this "rookie" debate. As they obviously precede their 1948 (or 1949) BOWMAN cards, or their 1949 LEAF cards.




I hope you guys get what I'm driving at ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.