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

[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?

[tedzan]

Hey Guys

A little too much "verbiage" going on here Time for some more card displays. Lefty O'Doul is one of my favorites. Personally, I think he should be in the
Hall of Fame. His rookie year was 1919 with the NY Yankees. I'm not sure which card is his rookie card, he is featured in the 1918 ZEENUT series (but it is
a PCL card). Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


.








TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Peter:

You are right on the money for all three of those cards.

Again, take a look at the five simple parameters that I use, if a card fits all of those guidelines, then it qualifies as a potential rookie card, if no other qualified rookie cards of that player pre-date it.

Also important to note that all qualified rookie cards from the same year are true rookie cards, whether one was issued earlier or later in the year than another does not make it the only true rookie card. It could be considered the first rookie card produced and may sometimes be accompanied by a premium because of that but not necessarily so.

[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.

[G1911]

The Federal League is counted as a major league by MLB, also by Baseball-Reference and basically every other compiler of statistics readily available. I'm not sure that it SHOULD be but it is universally recognized as a major league. Further, I'm not aware of any significant players whose rookie card is a federal league card, or of federal league cards from 1913, so I'm not sure this is relevant anyways.

[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