Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[G1911]

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I thought that Trout is not considered a RC because it was a minor league card in that he hadn't yet appeared in a ML uniform/made a ML roster. Appearing in a ML uniform is a contractual requirement for an official RC logo, no? I don't think it had anything to do with quantity. Lots of short prints have RC logos. Lots of what they now call super short prints do too.

[packs]

Here's Jackie's true rookie. This card should be infinitely more iconic than it is, considering it was the first time in history an African American player ever appeared in a major league uniform on a baseball card:

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by packs

Here's Jackie's true rookie. This card should be infinitely more iconic than it is, considering it was the first time in history an African American player ever appeared in a major league uniform on a baseball card:

Packs

Do we know which Jackie Robinson card was issued first....the regular issue 1947 BOND BREAD card shown here, or his special series of 13 cards (example, your scan) ?

I remember pulling the regular issue cards from BOND Bread packages in the Fall of 1947.

The special series cards of Jackie were never available in our neighborhood in Hillside, NJ.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[packs]

This article from Beckett features an image of a Bond Bread advertisement with the portrait card featured prominently in an issue of a Baltimore newspaper. The date is August 17, 1947. I don't know when your Bond Bread set officially came out but the portrait card was available at least as early as August of 1947.

https://www.beckett.com/news/1947-ja...on-bond-bread/

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by packs

This article from Beckett features an image of a Bond Bread advertisement with the portrait card featured prominently in an issue of a Baltimore newspaper. The date is August 17, 1947. I don't know when your Bond Bread set officially came out but the portrait card was available at least as early as August of 1947.

https://www.beckett.com/news/1947-ja...on-bond-bread/

Thanks Packs.... for that dateline.

I am not certain of when in 1947 the regular issue (48 cards) were available. I do remember that I was trading them with my schoolmates in the Fall of 1947.

The Joe Gordon card has him in a Yankees uniform. Joe was traded to the Indians on Oct 11, 1946. This fact appears to suggest that the regular set of BOND
BREAD cards were more likely issued early in 1947 (possibly coinciding with the start of the BB season).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[CharleyBrown]

Away from my research atm, but 1st card (facsimile) in set of 13 was issued first. June/July of 1947. When I'm at my computer, I can provide the exact month.

That said, I'd still classify both the set of 48 and first in set of 13 to be his RC.

Old Gold Kneeling first distributed Sept 1947

Originally Posted by tedzan

Packs

Do we know which Jackie Robinson card was issued first....the regular issue 1947 BOND BREAD card shown here, or his special series of 13 cards (example, your scan) ?

I remember pulling the regular issue cards from BOND Bread packages in the Fall of 1947.

The special series cards of Jackie were never available in our neighborhood in Hillside, NJ.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[MikeGarcia]

...if you didn't want to wait until 1947....


...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that Trout is not considered a RC because it was a minor league card in that he hadn't yet appeared in a ML uniform/made a ML roster. Appearing in a ML uniform is a contractual requirement for an official RC logo, no? I don't think it had anything to do with quantity. Lots of short prints have RC logos. Lots of what they now call super short prints do too.

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Fact? Honestly you are the only person on this thread who thinks Puckett's rookie is 85 not 84. Perhaps we should take a poll?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fact? Honestly you are the only person on this thread who thinks Puckett's rookie is 85 not 84. Perhaps we should take a poll?

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are about a trillion 1986 Barry Bonds cards out there between Topps Traded, Fleer Update, and Donruss Rookies. Does anyone except James Beckett seriously maintain that 1987s are his rookie cards?

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by G1911

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

So it is then a contrived rule to add value to Puckett's second year cards from 1985.

Puckett clearly had a baseball card that came out in 1984. His rookie card. Forcing a contrived money making rule down the throats of buyers isn't exactly a compelling argument to decree his 1985 cards his rookie cards when he clearly had a baseball card in 1984.

I think more and more people are seeing well beyond the illogical and thinking for themselves now...and realize that the 1984 Fleer card is his first card.

In the end, the 1984 Fleer Update is a better card and more scarce, and that is really what matters anyway, rookie card or not.

PS. It doesn't bother me a bit though when 1985 cards are considered his rookie cards too. In reality, they are his first cards that fit the typical contrived definition, while the 1984 Fleer Update fits in the logical more compelling definition. They can both be classified as rookie cards that way.

Then when it is all said and done, let the buyer decide. If more buyers knew about those 1946 Minoso rookie cards above, those would certainly draw more interest, and buyers would have a more rounded education of what is really out there in the baseball card collecting world. If they still wanted to call Minoso's 1952 Topps his rookie card, so be it....but I'd rather have the 1946 card. It is more interesting, older, and far more scarce. I'd rather own that one.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Then when it is all said and done, let the buyer decide. If more buyers knew about those 1946 Minoso rookie cards above, those would certainly draw more interest, and buyers would have a more rounded education of what is really out there in the baseball card collecting world. If they still wanted to call Minoso's 1952 Topps his rookie card, so be it....but I'd rather have the 1946 card. It is more interesting, older, and far more scarce. I'd rather own that one.

Agreed. I should mention that the 1946 Minoso cards aren't in MLB uniform. Nonetheless I have always found them more interesting (although I do like 52T Minoso a lot...it's a great looking card!). AND since MLB recognizes Negro League careers/statistics now, I see a good argument that these Cuban and other cards of NL players could be considered major league cards....

[Peter_Spaeth]

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

But by your own definition, once traded sets were more widely distributed, they WERE rookie cards. So kids could never buy a pack with a Pedro Martinez rookie, a Nomar rookie, a Mike Piazza rookie, I could keep going. So what? They chased other stuff including chase cards.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

Go along with rats, it has a lot to do about the money. Dealers want there to be enough rookie cards so they can sell them as rookies and charge more to make more. If an earlier issue like Tip Top Bread would have ended up being recognized from day one as a player's rookie card, instead of a later Bowman card, those Bowman "rookies" wouldn't be worth anywhere near what they are today. And since Tip Top cards are a lot scarcer than Bowman cards, there would have been far fewer "rookie" cards for dealers to sell at an elevated price.

Seem to remember this debate from way back when the Beckett price guides used to list Ruth's Goudeys as his rookie cards if I remember correctly. Haven't looked in a Beckett price guide for 15-20 years, do they still claim a '33 Goudey as his rookie? For cryin' out loud, he came up in 1915 with the Red Sox, was in an unbelievable number of sets over the ensuing years, but doesn't have a rookie card till his 19th season in the majors?!?!?! Give me a break!!! Always felt that was a major reason the Goudey Ruths have always been so expensive. It's not like '33 Goudey Ruths are particularly scarce and hard to find either. I've always felt they are significantly overpriced as a residual effect coming from this misapplication of what the definition of a "rookie" card is. Take a look at any other ballplayer, especially ones from the modern Bowman-Topps era, and compare the value of their 1st and 2nd year cards with those of their 19th season, and tell me how they differ. I know it is not a perfect comparison, and we are talking about Ruth and the very popular Goudey set, but the Goudey Ruths still seem disproportionately high to me. And I believe that still has a lot to do with the old definition of what was a "rookie" card from back when the Beckett guides were fueling the card collecting popularity as it was taking off.

Plus, don't know if this was a factor or not, but Beckett sold an awful lot of those monthly price guide magazines back in the day. Well, they only had a limited number of pages to work with and list their price guide info on. So when it came to the earlier years, they wouldn't want to take the time and trouble (and cost) to list all the sets and issues we are aware of nowadays thanks to things like the internet, the SCD catalogs, and overall increased collector interest in the more obscure/regional sets over time. So when Beckett would just list a few of the old sets (like T206 and '33 Goudey) in those price guides, I often wondered if they didn't push their definition of what a "rookie" card was so they could make the few vintage sets they selected for their price guide magazines look more important and valuable with more "rookie" cards in them. And that would also be more helpful to dealers when they would just show a potential customer at a card show/shop the page in the price guide and say, "See, it's worth more because it's his rookie."

[Lorewalker]

Designation of some rookie cards seems to be determined by each individual's definition and is a moving target. In both of Ted's examples I would consider them to be rookie cards but most traditional collectors would not. I have a broad definition of what is considered a "rookie card."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I agree the definition was to "grow the hobby". By escalating prices and increasing demand, and it worked. As I specifically said. We don't seem to be saying a different thing here, I just don't think it's good and you do.

Usually, a "card to have" is not the easiest card to get in other areas of the hobby. Wagner is the "card to have" in T206 because it is so rare and a super star. Lajoie is the "card to have" in 1933 Goudey because it is so rare (relatively) and a super star. I don't see why a rookie card is different or why it must be available to everyone, especially for cards issued when not a single person cared about rookie cards because they were not a thing that had been invented, from a collector perspective. I am fully aware it is great from an investor/dealer/business perspective because if it is limited to major Topps cards and the like, it is easier to profit from and drive up if this is so. Which is also why the definition is not very consistently applied.

I wasn't the one who said it was antiquated. I am fully aware that readily available easy to get rookies with hundreds listed at a time on eBay are one of the reasons of "growth of the hobby", by which we seem to mean value increases. I completely understand it from a business side, I don't understand it form a collector side, why I should pay exponentially more for some card that is often not a players first because it's his 'first card some in the general hobby has arbitrarily decided matters'. It's great for dealers, it's great for investors, I personally don't see the appeal as a collector.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree the definition was to "grow the hobby". By escalating prices and increasing demand, and it worked. As I specifically said. We don't seem to be saying a different thing here, I just don't think it's good and you do.

Usually, a "card to have" is not the easiest card to get in other areas of the hobby. Wagner is the "card to have" in T206 because it is so rare and a super star. Lajoie is the "card to have" in 1933 Goudey because it is so rare (relatively) and a super star. I don't see why a rookie card is different or why it must be available to everyone, especially for cards issued when not a single person cared about rookie cards because they were not a thing that had been invented, from a collector perspective. I am fully aware it is great from an investor/dealer/business perspective because if it is limited to major Topps cards and the like, it is easier to profit from and drive up if this is so. Which is also why the definition is not very consistently applied.

I wasn't the one who said it was antiquated. I am fully aware that readily available easy to get rookies with hundreds listed at a time on eBay are one of the reasons of "growth of the hobby", by which we seem to mean value increases. I completely understand it from a business side, I don't understand it form a collector side, why I should pay exponentially more for some card that is often not a players first because it's his 'first card some in the general hobby has arbitrarily decided matters'. It's great for dealers, it's great for investors, I personally don't see the appeal as a collector.

Agree with what you're saying. But to possibly explain this from the collectors side, the surge and growth in the hobby really started and took off in the 80's, fueled by the baby boomers who started collecting as kids about the same time as Bowman and Topps began. So they all had this sunconscious thinking that all normal sets with rookie cards should be just like those early Topps and Bowman sets. Thing is, before Topps and Bowman started up, no card manufacturer/distributor ever really produced cards in an annual and easily identifiable set format, with new and unique images every year, and kept producing new sets covering basically the entire major league, year after year after year. The '33 and '34 Goudey sets are very similar to what Topps and Bowman were doing, especially if they had continued making Goudey sets like those for many more years. Feel that is a big part of why those Goudey sets are so popular today.

So those baby boomer collectors may have subconsciously been defining what sets constituted appropriate ones from which rookie cards could come, based on the Topps and Bowman sets they grew up collecting as kids. And that could be a big part of explaining why so many collectors only considered sets like those Goudey sets to be eligible to have player's rookie card in them.