Joe DiMaggio's Rookie Card?

[PolarBear]

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

I'm with you on 1 an 2. Definitely not on 3 and 4. By the way, 1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan....NOT his rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

My personal definition of "card sized" would fit into a standard PSA/SGC slab, so yes T206 etc. are cards. I never really thought about it before but I think they need to be square/rectangle. I personally wouldn't consider E254's "cards" by that definition.

Of course there are Canadian baseball cards. I just wouldn't consider them a true "rookie". How far do we want to go beyond that? It's easy to include Canada since they have a baseball tradition and the cards are in English. What if Japan issued a "rookie"? Most people wouldn't count it. As I said, these are the lines I draw, which I expect most people will disagree.

I'd consider cards with a single named player, who is the main subject, to be cards of that player. Plenty of modern action shot cards are obviously meant to be for that player even though others may be in the shot. (1973 Topps is pretty bad about this though and sometimes you can't tell what player they were trying to shoot)

For what it's worth, I don't buy into all the "rookie" hype or "most desirable" hype anyway. Like I said up thread, if I wanted a DiMaggio, I'd get one of the Play Ball issues instead of anything from 36-38. I just don't care about "rookie" cards.

[rhettyeakley]

I don’t understand why a Canadian card would not be considered a card. The reality is that it was more likely a kid in New York City would have access to a Canadian card made in Ontario than they would a Zeenut card made and distributed in California. Maybe it is because I grew up in Maine and Had daily interactions with Canadians but I have never thought of Canada as a “foreign country” in the same way do other places like England or Australia.

Also the definition of a rookie card in the modern card market is very different than it was when most of us collected as kids. Today the definition is a card from the season you make your debut in the Major Leagues (preferably pictured with the big league club). Mike Trout’s “rookie” is considered to be the 2011 Topps Update and sets made at that time but he was pictured on cards dating back to 2009 but those aren’t considered his rookie but merely his first cards and many are worth far less than his Toops Update card, even though they are earlier. Some players today are featured on cards MANY years before they make their debut (I was looking at a player the other day That had their first card in 2010 but didn’t make the majors until 2016).

Many of the rookies we collected back in the day wouldn’t be collected as rookies now, chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, etc. I have never seen someone really selling a 2003 Miguel Cabrera as a rookie even though that was his debut year.

[Exhibitman]

What about Mark McGwire: 1985 Topps when he was on USA Baseball as a college athlete or 1987 on his first MLB cards?

The one thing this thread shows is that the whole 'rookie card' thing is a construct that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in less organized periods of collecting history. When you fold international cards into the mix, it really goes off the rails. Like, what do you do with the Negro League greats who had Cuban or Venezuelan cards that predated (by decades) any American cards? What about Ichiro? Anyone want to argue that a 2001 SP Authentic is a rookie instead of a 1993 BBM?

[samosa4u]

The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

The poll just finished. Thank you to the 159 people who voted.

The 1936 World Wide Gum is now Joe DiMaggio's official rookie card.

It's just amazing how things have changed. I remember, I was around eighteen or nineteen years old and I purchased Joe "Neverrrrrrr Get Cheated" Orlando's new book titled The Top 200 Sportscards in the Hobby. On page 102 - I still have this book - he calls the 1938 Goudey DiMaggio's official rookie card, and back then it probably was. I believe that, for a long time, in order for any card to be called a rookie, it had to be made by a major American manufacturer. However, today collectors just want the first card of their favorite athlete regardless of where it is from. It could be a 1986 Panini Mike Tyson (from Italy) or a 1958 Alifabolaget Pele (from Sweden) or a 1936 World Wide Gum DiMaggio (from Canada). Collectors have become more open minded and this has made the hobby more fun.

~The End~

Amen brother. "Rookie" should be synonymous with "first". The whole notion of pre-RC and XRC is silly.