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

[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....


...

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

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


...

Mike

Gil did not play with the Dodgers in 1946. He played for their farm team, Newport News (129 games, BA = .278 with 8 HR's). He joined the Dodgers in the Spring of 1947.

Although I was a NY Yankees fan in my youth, I really loved watching Gil play. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. SEVEN consecutive years driving in 100+ RBI (1949-55).
If anyone in BB deserves to be in the HOF, it certainly is Gil Hodges.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Need some pictures.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

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.

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

Correct as well. That was in place even before Topps came onto the scene.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

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.

No need to ding the 52 Mantle since the 51 Bowman was his rookie.

[packs]

My Ichiro rookie (maybe?):

[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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

I think you guys were referring to this one. Agreed on SSPC set being issued in 1976, not 1975.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

How tough of a find is Eck's 1975 postcard?

[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.