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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

He definitely is.

37 O Pee Chee yes. 37 Goudey Premium, yes. 36 WWG, please post one.

[Yoda]

Peter, you are absolutely right. I got my 30's Canuk sets mixed up. Joe D. and Lou G. appear in the WWG issue which was issued in 1936. I'll do better the next time.

[packs]

Would have been a sweet card.

[Seven]

I'll still call it, "overlooked" at least because of the fact you can still find one at a much cheaper price point, but Mantle's 1951 Bowman Issue, it's his technical RC as we all know, yet so many times the mystique of his 52 topps Issue, takes over the conversation.

Even though both have skyrocketed in price, you're still finding his true rookie to be a third of the price, his 52 topps is. Hell if were looking at release dates, and of course someone please correct me if I am wrong, Wouldn't his 52 topps technically be his 6th issue? In the following order it would be

51 Bowman
51 Wheaties
52 Berk Ross
52 Bowman
52 tip top Bread
52 topps

Just something to think about, in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

51 Wheaties is likely later and not a 51 issue.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

51 Wheaties is likely later and not a 51 issue.

thanks for pointing that out, Peter. Even eliminating that one, we're still looking at a handful of cards that came before his 52 topps, yet you still see the headlines of "Mickey Mantle Rookie Sells for X"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

thanks for pointing that out, Peter. Even eliminating that one, we're still looking at a handful of cards that came before his 52 topps, yet you still see the headlines of "Mickey Mantle Rookie Sells for X"

It is and always will be THE Mantle card, rational or not.

[h2oya311]

I think my whole collection is comprised of "overlooked" true rookies...at least by my definition, which includes minor league cards, regionals, postcards, etc. And while I love team and multi-player cards, I prefer individual shots/photos.

Here are a few major league cards that fit the bill (last names A-B) - '32/33 Appling, '48 Ashburn, '67 Bench, '47 Berra, '74 Brett, '55 Bunning:

[BobC]

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

you mean this one?



And since we are trying to stick to pre-war, I'll add that most forget about this one of Big Country:

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

The old SCD catalogs blindly followed Beckett in many cases. Even they listed '49 Bowman as Reese's rookie card. For the rcord, I consider both his '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards as his rookies.

[G1911]

It seems to me there are three reasonable standards, off the top of my head:

1) A "rookie card" is exactly literal, it means a players first (rookie) card. His first season is his rookie year, his first card is his rookie card. Thus, a 1960 Topps is Yaz's rookie, the 1947 Bonds Jackie's rookie, 1947 Tip Top is Berra's, and 2009 is Trout's. 1 of these guys probably has an earlier card I don't know about and I am wrong, but it illustrates the picture.


2) a "rookie card" means a card from the players first year, the rookie reference is not to the card itself (as it has nothing to do with whether it is his first card), but is a card from his rookie season (not his debut season, which is different) in the major leagues, a "card of a rookie". Thus Trout's Rookie is a 2012 because while he debuted in 2011, it was not his rookie year. If Trout's 2009 cards are not rookies because a rookie card has nothing to do with what card came first, but is based on being the card from his rookie year, then his 2011 isn't a real rookie either. Yaz's rookie is a 1961, Jackie's still a 1947 Bond Bread.


3) A "Rookie card" is a card from a players debut season, the term is a misnomer but it is too late to change its widespread use in the hobby to "debut card". And thus, Trout's real "rookie card" is a 2011, even though his rookie year was 2012, because he first appeared in a major league game in 2011. Yogi Berra just doesn't have a rookie card, since he debuted in 1946. Yaz's is his 1961 again.


2 and 3 both mean that many players simply do not have a rookie card, because no card was made in their rookie or debut season. 1 means many players rookie cards are obscurities or pictures them in a non-major league uniform (1985 McGwire, tons of modern guys in minor-league team sets).


Arbitrary standards that have been concocted for profit or to make collecting easier so that nothing but Topps cards and a handful of other sets counts don't seem reasonable to me (it also makes pre-war rookies non-existent except for maybe Goudey, arguably T205 and T206); it's adding completely arbitrary rules designed to be enforced selectively and to create the outcome that is desired. This isn't a rational methodology. I think one should pick 1 or 2 or 3 (or a fourth non-arbitrary standard that is not rooted in selectively picking the rules to create a pre-determined outcome if there is one) and follow the standard the same way for every player and card.


I personally lean towards the literal 1, the first card, no matter the uniform he is in, if it is ugly or beautiful, if it is a regional or a super-printed in the tens or hundreds of thousands Topps card. I think 2 is fully reasoned as well, 3 a bit less so but still reasonable. The standards chosen must be applied equally and the same across the board, or it is not a standard definition at all and simply cherry picking favorites (though "first card of this player I want in my collection" is a perfectly fine thing to collect if one so chooses). The standards should be chosen on reasonable grounds, without regard for whether or not it achieves the outcome one desires or is ones fiscal interest.


Any system in which the rules are different for different things it is applied too, or the selective rules are arbitrarily picked to determine what it was desired would be determined, is an inherently unreasonable and illogical system and should thus be dismissed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

[tedzan]

Reminiscing......I got back into this "glorious" hobby....circa 1977.

If I recall correctly back then, Rookie cards were not such a big thing. Much of this started as the result of the excitement generated in 1978,
when Pete Rose challenged Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Rose's hitting streak ended with 44 games. It was amazing, Rose's rookie
card went from $5 in 1979 to $50 by 1980. And by 1983....$250.

In 1980, Mantle's so-called "rookie" card (1952 TOPPS) sold for $3000 at a an Auction in Philadelphia. His actual rookie card (1951 BOWMAN)
was listed in Beckett for only $400 that year.

-----------



Anyhow, one of my first challenges, 40+ years ago, were to acquire the 1949 BOWMAN Satchel Paige card, in order to complete this 1949 set.
A tough Hi #, but quite available if you didn't mind at that time paying $400 for it. The price for this card was (relatively speaking) pretty high,
since it was considered his "rookie" card.





In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The Paige on the left with 'An Exhibit Card' is a 1949 issue as well and has picked up steam in the last year or two as a RC.

[JLange]

This is Larry Doby's “First Card" - a 1947 picture pack photo from the Cleveland Indians set that year. This was the first year in a string of picture packs for Cleveland going well into the 1960s. The Larry Doby card pre-dates his regular issue Leaf and Bowman cards by 2 years. This set is still found regularly on ebay and other venues, and is still very affordable. That may be changing though as graded picture pack cards of other HOFers are starting to get some real attention. I count this Larry Doby card as my earliest card or collectible of his.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by JLange

This is Larry Doby's first "card" - a 1947 picture pack photo from the Cleveland Indians set that year. This was the first year in a string of picture packs for Cleveland going well into the 1960s. The Larry Doby card pre-dates his regular issue Leaf and Bowman first cards by 2 years. This set is still found regularly on ebay and other venues, and is still very affordable. That may be changing though as graded picture pack cards of other HOFers are starting to get some real attention. I count this Larry Doby card as my earliest card or collectible of his.

Here are Paige and Larry Doby from my 1948 Indians Team pack. I have several different Team picture packs from the late 1940's. Your picture appears different than mine.
Also, Larry Doby’s first game with Cleveland was July 10, 1947.





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[seanofjapan]

Reading this makes me wonder why the hobby doesn't have a term that designates a player's best or most desirable card, regardless of whether it is a rookie card (by whatever definition) or not. Like their "Key Card" or something, (only to designate the player's most sought after card rather than the most sought after card in a given set).

Like obviously Mantle's 52 Topps card is his key card even though it isn't his rookie. But there are lots of other examples of players whose best cards (here we can use market value as a proxy for "best", though that is also a debatable usage) aren't their rookies. Everyone knows which ones they are, yet we don't have a commonly shared word to describe that. Which seems strange to me.

I raise this because most of this debate on what constitutes a true "rookie card" seems to focus on relatively arbitrary points (whether a guy had played an MLB game yet at the time the card came out, how widespread the set was distributed, etc) which don't really seem to affect the value of the card to collectors much. Does anybody care that Carl Yastrzemski hadn't played in MLB yet when his 1960 Topps card came out? No, or at least not enough to affect the desirability of that card.

Looking back on how Beckett used to develop various terms to describe things that weren't quite rookie cards back in the 80s, it always struck me that their main reason for doing so was to somehow recognize key cards which were problematic to describe as rookie cards, which illustrates the problem. Like when they used to put "FTC" after "First Topps cards" it was obvious they were just doing that to accomodate the 52 Mantle (and then having invented the term applied it to every other FTC that came along even though nobody really cared). Same with "XRC" for cards in the update sets, only their purpose there was to maintain the "RC" designation for the regular cards in the following year's sets.

[tedzan]

Adam

Do we have an exact 1949 timeline when the Satchel Paige exhibit card was issued ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.