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

[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.

[Pat R]

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

Amazing that I’ve been in the “rookie” card game for this long and didn’t know that. I thought it stood for extreme, not extended. Bwahahaha!

[Peter_Spaeth]

That Palmer, and your Omaha Gibson, are true hen's teeth.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Here are some pretty basic parameters for determining Rookie Card eligibility for vintage baseball cards:

- No minor league or amateur baseball card issues (those qualify as pre-rookie cards)

- No team cards (maximum of 4 individuals on a card)

- No stamps, stickers, paper premiums, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

- Must be catalogued "CARD" (nothing bigger than cabinet card size)

- No team issued items, i.e. photo packs, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

These are the parameters that I used for publishing my 4-Sport Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Guide. I believe that following these rules takes much of the bias out of things while enabling one to make clearly defined choices for rookie card status.

[BobC]

Y

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Here are some pretty basic parameters for determining Rookie Card eligibility for vintage baseball cards:

- No minor league or amateur baseball card issues (those qualify as pre-rookie cards)

- No team cards (maximum of 4 individuals on a card)

- No stamps, stickers, paper premiums, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

- Must be catalogued "CARD" (nothing bigger than cabinet card size)

- No team issued items, i.e. photo packs, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

These are the parameters that I used for publishing my 4-Sport Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Guide. I believe that following these rules takes much of the bias out of things while enabling one to make clearly defined choices for rookie card status.

So you're saying '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards should count as rookies, correct? And does that mean W desginated strip cards count as well? After all, they are called strip "cards", so they would seem to fit within your parameters as well.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

IMO
85 McGwire Olympic is a rookie -- it's in a Topps Major League set.
86 West Palm Beach Randy Johnson is not a rookie -- it's in a minor league team set.
92 Rivera in street clothes is a rookie -- it's in a Bowman Major League set.

Here's one that has me stumped though. Why isn't 2016 Topps Now Aaron Judge -- issued after his ML debut and in a Yankees uniform -- his RC? I believe lots of Topps Nows have RC designations, why not this one?

[JLange]

I prefer the term “First Card.” To me this says what I need to know - that this is the first known card of a player. You could also add further qualifiers like First MLB Card to distinguish from minor league issues, or First Card with XYZ Team, or First Solo Card to differentiate from multiplayer cards, etc. Everything else that comes after that are not the first card. They may be key or mainstream or more desirable, but they are not the first. Even with my preference for a term like “First Card,” I am not opposed to clarifying or re-defining what is meant by “Rookie Card,” as right now it’s not an overly helpful hobby term.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Yes, Bob C., that is correct. Those are some of the easiest cards to classify as rookie cards, no doubters.

[darwinbulldog]

For those raising the issue of minor league players in major league sets, is there a standard cutoff about what number or % of players in the set (or what number or % of cards in the set) can depict minor leaguers before it's no longer considered a major league set?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Yes, Bob C., that is correct. Those are some of the easiest cards to classify as rookie cards, no doubters.

Thanks. And agree with you.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by JLange

I prefer the term “First Card.” To me this says what I need to know - that this is the first known card of a player. You could also add further qualifiers like First MLB Card to distinguish from minor league issues, or First Card with XYZ Team, or First Solo Card to differentiate from multiplayer cards, etc. Everything else that comes after that are not the first card. They may be key or mainstream or more desirable, but they are not the first. Even with my preference for a term like “First Card,” I am not opposed to clarifying or re-defining what is meant by “Rookie Card,” as right now it’s not an overly helpful hobby term.

I substituted "first" with the word "earliest"...but this is a great post. I have "earliest" photos that pre-date "earliest" cards. There's a lot of grey area out there, so why not allow people to collect what they like!

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

Impressive list, Derek! Majority of those items I didn't know existed.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I substituted "first" with the word "earliest"...but this is a great post. I have "earliest" photos that pre-date "earliest" cards. There's a lot of grey area out there, so why not allow people to collect what they like!

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

Great website Derek. Thanks so much for putting that together.

[JLange]

Your site is fantastic! Tremendous research into the earliest cards of these HOFers! Love it!

Originally Posted by h2oya311

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest