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

[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
.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


.

Take your pick...

[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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Glenn:

You are correct, sets that consist of predominantly Major League cards but also include some Minor League/Amateur players would qualify for rookie card status. Examples of these would include N172's, '85 Topps McGwire, etc. From around 2000 on, the card companies started defining what constitutes a player's rookie card so once you get modern/ultra-modern cards into the conversation, things change dramatically. That's why my parameters are designed strictly for vintage cards.

[darwinbulldog]

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

[packs]

What about a set like Cracker Jacks or some of the Coupon sets that feature a heavy Federal League presence? Are those considered major league cards?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

What about a set like Cracker Jacks or some of the Coupon sets that feature a heavy Federal League presence? Are those considered major league cards?

Yes, Federal League was considered a major league in its day and records are incorporated into players stats.

[packs]

Can you discuss your perception of the Federal League a little more? I brought it up to talk about perception. The Federal League was actually founded in 1913 but only the 1914 and 1915 seasons are “counted” as major league.

Personally I see the Federal League as a mirror of other “major” leagues that are not THE major leagues. Like the Japanese League and how an earlier discussion of Ichiro differentiated between Japanese rookie and MLB. Federal League players had cards issued among major league sets but I don’t think it can be said they were MLB cards if the MLB existed and they weren’t playing in it.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

Yes.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

There are certainly several "rookie" cards of HOF players that were not yet in the majors.

For instance, Kid Nichols' 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Omaha of the Western Association (minor leagues). Similarly, Clark Griffith's 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Milwaukee of the Western Association.