When Did RC Become Most Important?

[RCMcKenzie]

I don't know. I think it's in a 5000 count box with my original stuff. It was not in nice condition, so I know I never had it graded to sell. I know it would be a better story if I could say, "Yes, I have it here on my desk, here's a scan.", like an Orson Welles movie. I do have a 1960 Fleer Wagner on my desk that I bought at a show in the 80's.

[scgaynor]

Early 1980's. There was a monthly price guide that competed with Beckett (until Beckett sued them) that was really promoting rookie cards and hyping them by putting a "RC" after the players name. There was not really that much real time market information available back then, so the kind of made up the prices, but it really advanced the rookie card market by bringing in the investors. Pretty much any card with an "RC" would bring a premium. SCD was filled with ads of dealers selling the rookie card in lots of 25, 50, 100 for the investors.

[Kidnapped18]

Sometime in the 1980's would be my best guess.

Beckett had those price guides that had the RC and XRC designation on cards.

[BobC]

Yup, like others are saying, early 80's and being pushed by Beckett and those other early price guides. Also, a huge reason IMO that Goudey Ruth cards are so damn expensive. Those Beckett price guides listed '33 Goudeys as Ruth's rookie cards, despite 1933 being the 19th year of career. That is just insane given all the cards Ruth had issued in the years before.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yup, like others are saying, early 80's and being pushed by Beckett and those other early price guides. Also, a huge reason IMO that Goudey Ruth cards are so damn expensive. Those Beckett price guides listed '33 Goudeys as Ruth's rookie cards, despite 1933 being the 19th year of career. That is just insane given all the cards Ruth had issued in the years before.

... Did you know , some say , I've heard , that you can classify a card as a rookie card , just by thinking about it ?

..

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

... Did you know , some say , I've heard , that you can classify a card as a rookie card , just by thinking about it ?..

Has Q issued his (her, it's?) list of RCs?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

... Did you know , some say , I've heard , that you can classify a card as a rookie card , just by thinking about it ?

..

A lot of people call the 1952 T Mantle a RC, simply because they wish it to be so.

[Orioles1954]

My first rookie card memories were of Ron Kittle and Darryl Strawberry.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yup, like others are saying, early 80's and being pushed by Beckett and those other early price guides. Also, a huge reason IMO that Goudey Ruth cards are so damn expensive. Those Beckett price guides listed '33 Goudeys as Ruth's rookie cards, despite 1933 being the 19th year of career. That is just insane given all the cards Ruth had issued in the years before.

Is that when/how the 1933 Goudey Ruth cards became his rookie card? I truly do not understand that

[obcbobd]

I remember when Aaron was breaking the HR record that people started going crazy for his rookie card. I think the price was something like $5. I did not have $5 as I was only 12. :-(

[Jstottlemire1]

Great post.I love rcs but I think the cards from a players biggest season should be more coveted or be sought after as well and normalized however in collections along with the rookie. I.E. 21 or 27’ Ruth, 56 Mantle, huge individual years or long term career accolades/milestone breaking years. Just my humble opinion.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

I remember when Aaron was breaking the HR record that people started going crazy for his rookie card. I think the price was something like $5. I did not have $5 as I was only 12. :-(

This was the first RC to take off in 1974 and it was 25.00 after he broke the record. The 1977 Fidrych was the first hot rookie in the new set followed by the 1979 Horner and 1980 Henderson. The late 70s RCs started taking off. If you look at the first Beckett annual, the RC was already the player's card to have.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Is that when/how the 1933 Goudey Ruth cards became his rookie card? I truly do not understand that

Unlike with the 1952 Topps Mantle, this has never actually been a thing. Nobody ever considered that to be Ruth's RC. There were just some random ignorant people who have said it over the years and collectors find it so funny that they repeat it in jest. But nobody who has spent more than a week in this hobby actually considers it his RC. Whereas with the 52 Mantle, there are some who like to think of it as his RC primarily because it's his first Topps issue (yes, stupid), and is "close enough" to his rookie season.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Unlike with the 1952 Topps Mantle, this has never actually been a thing. Nobody ever considered that to be Ruth's RC. There were just some random ignorant people who have said it over the years and collectors find it so funny that they repeat it in jest. But nobody who has spent more than a week in this hobby actually considers it his RC. Whereas with the 52 Mantle, there are some who like to think of it as his RC primarily because it's his first Topps issue (yes, stupid), and is "close enough" to his rookie season.

Beckett claimed, in writing, that the Goudey was a rookie for years. It’s not a jest.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Unlike with the 1952 Topps Mantle, this has never actually been a thing. Nobody ever considered that to be Ruth's RC. There were just some random ignorant people who have said it over the years and collectors find it so funny that they repeat it in jest. But nobody who has spent more than a week in this hobby actually considers it his RC. Whereas with the 52 Mantle, there are some who like to think of it as his RC primarily because it's his first Topps issue (yes, stupid), and is "close enough" to his rookie season.

Agreed. It was begrudgingly granted that if a player did not have a card issued in his true rookie year, that one from the next year or sometime in the general timeframe was "the" rookie card. This is also likely at least initially how some people mistook the '52 Topps #311 for being something it was not. I'm not sure when some people started thinking that any mainstream "first" issue could be considered a RC, even if were years or decades after that player's first appearance in the majors. The '33 Goudey Ruths are clearly not considered rookie cards by anyone who collected rookies and understand how they were defined in the early to mid-1980's. Today - if people don't want to consider some of the rarer regional issues true rookie cards in cases like that - I'd rather just say the player doesn't have a rookie card.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yup, like others are saying, early 80's and being pushed by Beckett and those other early price guides. Also, a huge reason IMO that Goudey Ruth cards are so damn expensive. Those Beckett price guides listed '33 Goudeys as Ruth's rookie cards, despite 1933 being the 19th year of career. That is just insane given all the cards Ruth had issued in the years before.

FYI, the Beckett guides list EVERY card in the 1933 Goudey set as a rookie card, so Babe just gets swept up in the madness. See photo below. It is pretty silly, they seem to have arbitrarily decided that the set would mark the beginning of RC eligibility. This 2010 Beckett guide also includes T205, T206, and CJ '14 & '15 set lists. None of the those sets have a single 'RC' in them. For example, Eddie Collins appears in all of these sets and has a card listed in the guide under each. Yet his '33 Goudey card is listed as his RC, years after he retired. The RC designation has no basis in reality for pre-war and should be ignored.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by chadeast

FYI, the Beckett guides list EVERY card in the 1933 Goudey set as a rookie card, so Babe just gets swept up in the madness. See photo below. It is pretty silly, they seem to have arbitrarily decided that the set would mark the beginning of RC eligibility. This 2010 Beckett guide also includes T205, T206, and CJ '14 & '15 set lists. None of the those sets have a single 'RC' in them. For example, Eddie Collins appears in all of these sets and has a card listed in the guide under each. Yet his '33 Goudey card is listed as his RC, years after he retired. The RC designation has no basis in reality for pre-war and should be ignored.

Speaker and Lajoie are not RCs, but Collins shouldn't be either. I agree that RC should be ignored for early cards, but I would apply it to 1933 guys at the beginning of their career such as Arky Vaughan and cards after that such as 1934 G Greenberg or , 1939 PB Williams.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by rats60

Speaker and Lajoie are not RCs, but Collins shouldn't be either. I agree that RC should be ignored for early cards, but I would apply it to 1933 guys at the beginning of their career such as Arky Vaughan and cards after that such as 1934 G Greenberg or , 1939 PB Williams.

Sure, some of them are bound to actually be correct, in fact quite a few I'm sure, but my point was only that everyone who cares about such things should independently verify 'Rookie Card' status on their own and not rely on Beckett. This is, of course, news to almost no one here at net54, but I just wanted to let those who were wondering why these Ruth cards were falsely considered rookie cards by some how untrustworthy the source of that information is, not only for Ruth but for the entire set.

[BioCRN]

The RC designation has no basis in reality for pre-war and should be ignored.

One could draw so many lines here that it is true because people buy into different definitions/exclusions for their own collections.

Even though card sizes were not standardized, some people don't count post cards/exhibit/oversized cards as "real" cards or RCs.

Some people won't count regional-only issues.

Some people won't count small checklist issues regardless of distribution area because of the lack of representation of teams on whole.

Some people won't count cards that come from "WG" game sets...or mail-in redemption sets...etc.

Then we have the ambiguity of the actual years of some issues because it's believed to be a multi-year issue. A card may have been distributed in 1910-1911 even though it's considered part of a 1909 set.

There's gotta be even more than this. I consider most all of it valid given the lack of a cohesive hobby opinion and I don't really care if this opinion solidifies into a consensus.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

Early 1980's. There was a monthly price guide that competed with Beckett (until Beckett sued them) that was really promoting rookie cards and hyping them by putting a "RC" after the players name. There was not really that much real time market information available back then, so the kind of made up the prices, but it really advanced the rookie card market by bringing in the investors. Pretty much any card with an "RC" would bring a premium. SCD was filled with ads of dealers selling the rookie card in lots of 25, 50, 100 for the investors.

The bold part should have let all us collectors back them know there was so many around they would never be worth big money. I know back in the late 80s- early 90s bigger dealers could buy huge lots of specific players directly from the manufacturers. I don't remember the year anymore but I seen a large table covered in stacks of Don Mattingly cards fresh of the press that all went to one buyer. I was told this was very common for star players at the time. It also explains why sometimes when you opened a box of cards you got little or no star players in it.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The bold part should have let all us collectors back them know there was so many around they would never be worth big money. I know back in the late 80s- early 90s bigger dealers could buy huge lots of specific players directly from the manufacturers. I don't remember the year anymore but I seen a large table covered in stacks of Don Mattingly cards fresh of the press that all went to one buyer. I was told this was very common for star players at the time. It also explains why sometimes when you opened a box of cards you got little or no star players in it.

I never heard of dealers buying stacks of stars directly from the manufacturers. They did however bust open tons of Vending to sell big lots to player collectors and other dealers.

I had stacks and stacks of 1987 Topps Mike Greenwell Rookies I picked up early on from SCD dealers, for about a quarter a pop, just before his breakout season in 1988.

I lived in Red Sox country, so I was able to flip them regularly for a buck or two at shows before injuries and mediocrity caught up to him.

Also distinctly remember the 87 Donruss and Fleer Greenwells selling for double and triple the Topps versions, but being much harder to get in the quantity you could get the Topps cards in.

I think that's why I consider the 1987 Topps issue, to be the first real, honest to goodness junk wax release. They made a lot of cards in 1986....but I think 1987, with those wood grained borders was on a completely other level.

[Keith H. Thompson]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

Early 1980's. There was a monthly price guide that competed with Beckett (until Beckett sued them) that was really promoting rookie cards and hyping them by putting a "RC" after the players name. There was not really that much real time market information available back then, so the kind of made up the prices, but it really advanced the rookie card market by bringing in the investors. Pretty much any card with an "RC" would bring a premium. SCD was filled with ads of dealers selling the rookie card in lots of 25, 50, 100 for the investors.

Scott has it the closest, but my certain recollection is that the "Rookie Card" was uniquely the brain child of Mark Lewis, who with his brother-in-law operated a baseball card store on Highway 112 in Medford, NY. They published a price guide and introduced the notion that RC cards (as they defined them, of course) deserved a special premium, and their guide reflected this. Unfortunately, much of their price guide was an exact copy of Beckett's price guide, player by player, year by year. Beckett sued and won, and the Lewis Guide ceased publication. But the concept had been firmly planted that a Rookie Card was something special.

As an aside I will say that Mark ran a very good operation for collectors of then current material. Beginning in 1974 my two boys and I formed complete Topp's sets (x 2) by buying wax boxes and sorting until we were close and then traded with neighborhood boys with equal interest. Anyone who did this in the "old days" will remember that this scheme generaed hundreds and hundreds of duplicates that at the time had no value. Thus, Mark provided a valuable service. In the Spring every year he would buy cases of cards, hire a group of young kids, and they would sort into complete sets. I think he charged about 12 dollars for a set. He also bought anything that walked in the door and frequently had space fillers for those of us who collected sets. A wonderful, collector friendly store.

As many collectors have mentioned in this thread, about this time Fleer and Donruss entered the field and collecting was never the same again.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Keith H. Thompson

Scott has it the closest, but my certain recollection is that the "Rookie Card" was uniquely the brain child of Mark Lewis, who with his brother-in-law operated a baseball card store on Highway 112 in Medford, NY. They published a price guide and introduced the notion that RC cards (as they defined them, of course) deserved a special premium, and their guide reflected this. Unfortunately, much of their price guide was an exact copy of Beckett's price guide, player by player, year by year. Beckett sued and won, and the Lewis Guide ceased publication. But the concept had been firmly planted that a Rookie Card was something special.

As an aside I will say that Mark ran a very good operation for collectors of then current material. Beginning in 1974 my two boys and I formed complete Topp's sets (x 2) by buying wax boxes and sorting until we were close and then traded with neighborhood boys with equal interest. Anyone who did this in the "old days" will remember that this scheme generaed hundreds and hundreds of duplicates that at the time had no value. Thus, Mark provided a valuable service. In the Spring every year he would buy cases of cards, hire a group of young kids, and they would sort into complete sets. I think he charged about 12 dollars for a set. He also bought anything that walked in the door and frequently had space fillers for those of us who collected sets. A wonderful, collector friendly store.

As many collectors have mentioned in this thread, about this time Fleer and Donruss entered the field and collecting was never the same again.

I don't know if it was the same one, but I remember a widely distributed price guide that would mysteriously show up at shows in the Northeast, and dealers would scour it for arrows pointing ^ like so, to indicate a cards price was trending up...because collectors/investors would show up at shows and then clear your tables of all the ^ cards you had.

It became a sort of a game, to stay ahead of the price guide, or price a little bit above what the guide said, to predict for the next month. Do you sell all your stock, or do you wait for the price to rocket up again?

[scgaynor]

Yes, Mark Lewis, that was it. I think it was called CPU (card prices update?). It was actually my favorite price guide. If I remember correctly, Herman Kauffman sued him for Beckett because he used Beckett's checklist.