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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Killibrew's rookie is his '55 Topps card, and he's also in the Topps '55 Doubleheader set as well. And once again, his ancillary Doubleheader card is never referred to as his rookie card.

Hector Lopez's rookie card is his '56 Topps card, and he's got a'56 Topps pin issued also that is never referred to as a rookie item.

Zoilo Versalles, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Bill Stafford, Jim Brewer, and Juan Marichal alll have '61 Topps rookie cards, and are also all included in the '61 Topps Stamps set issued. And of course the stamps are never referred to as a rookie issue or item.

Don Schwall has a '62 Topps rookie card, and is also included in both the '62 Topps Baseball Bucks and Topps Stamps set issues. Jack Baldschun, Tim McCarver, Joe Torre, John Edwards, and Bob Rodgers all have '62 Topps rookie cards as well, but are only included in the '62 Topps Stamp set. And once again, with no rookie designation for items in either of these ancillary sets.

I'm going to stop there, this should be more than enough to satisfy your question. Likely more players will have items issued in ancillary sets during their rookie years as well if I keep searching. How hard did you look? LOL

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

Yeah and parallel insert cards get the RC treatment too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

I agree. I mean you can still have a hierarchy, with the non-subset McCovey being the primary RC or whatever.

[bcbgcbrcb]

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

No reason that thinking can't evolve to be in line with today's designations though.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

Of course you mean it is your opinion, right? I have read many different opinions on this thread as to what a rookie card is and it seems like this will always be an individual choice at the end of the day.

[Exhibitman]

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit

Adam

My folks took us to the Jersey shore when we kids in the late 1940's. And many of the Arcades on the boardwalk had Exhibit vending machines.
I poured a lot of pennies into them getting Exhibit cards. Although, as you probably know, I was an avid Yankees fan. I would try to get most of
the Yankees. However, I was very impressed with Satchel Paige in 1948.
I've gone thru my Exhibit card collection from my youth, but can't find the Satchell Paige card. Perhaps some one will chime in here with a date.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.