When Did RC Become Most Important?

[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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree! 1961 Mantle and Maris are top notch in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[D. Bergin]

I would say the introduction of Fleer and Donruss to the baseball card market in 1981 really started to escalate the RC phenomenon.

They also brought in the advent of the sought after "Error" card, though most of those have mostly been forgotten about or marginalized, except by the most hardcore variation collectors today (many of which reside on this very site. ).

It was a big deal that Fleer did NOT have a Tim Raines card, and that Donruss did NOT have a Fernando Valenzuela card.

Topps had them both on triple player cards, and then again by themselves in the Traded set...though at the time, the traded cards were in no way, shape or form, considered Rookie cards at the time.

I think the Joe Charboneau talk gets exaggerated a bit. Maybe his card got up to a buck briefly, but he was pretty much seen as a late bloomer, serious injury case, very early on. It was all about Raines and Valenzuela by the middle of 1981.

Then Ripken and a bunch of other prospects showed up in 1982 (Steve Sax, Mike Marshall, Kent Hrbek, Johnny Ray, etc. etc...), and it really started blowing up then, and collectors started to really go back in their collections and start pulling the Rookies of almost any promising player they could find.

I remember I had a particular fascination with Damaso Garcia of the Blue Jays, for a time. Thought I discovered an up and coming player that everybody else overlooked.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I think the Joe Charboneau talk gets exaggerated a bit. Maybe his card got up to a buck briefly, but he was pretty much seen as a late bloomer, serious injury case, very early on. It was all about Raines and Valenzuela by the middle of 1981.

T

It was, but considering what you could get for $1 in 1981 and what even some "bigger" cards went for that was a pretty crazy price for a card straight out of a pack.

[jchcollins]

Not much before the early 1980's. Hobby publications from the 70's have a lot of stuff about error cards, which for a time were all the rage. But like in 1978, a Nolan Ryan rookie or something was not worth more than the Mantle or the Mays from the same set. Ryan then was not the legend he is now, but he was a superstar pitcher in the prime of his career with 4 no-hitters and a single season K record under his belt.

I started buying packs at age 9 in 1986, and by then of course rookies were all the rage. The obtainable one for my friends and I was the '84 Topps Don Mattingly. The most famous vintage rookie card then was probably the '63 Pete Rose, or the '52 Mantle - yes, people were referring to it as a RC even then - though we know the "First Topps" card designation is more accurate.

I too would agree that cards from an MVP or best season, or even a last season card to include the few that capture all career stats - should have some type of premium placed on them. As a kid who did not have the luxury of owning many vintage rookie cards, I would shoot for when the player was in his prime, or often just throw that out the window in favor of an "older is better" mantra. To my child's eye, a '51 Bowman Duke Snider was going to be more valuable than his '56 Topps - simply because it was older. Does that make any sense? It seemed to a lot more back then as compared to now.

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

Not to forget Joe Charboneau.... as that the first big rookie speculation bust?

[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 G1911

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

The various forms of the Beckett organization - over their considerable history in the hobby at this point, has done more than a few questionable things here and there.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The various forms of the Beckett organization - over their considerable history in the hobby at this point, has done more than a few questionable things here and there.

To put it mildly . But a jest is very different from a stupid proclamation. Beckett didn’t misprint one catalogue or have an April fools day jest. They kept it there for years, it was serious.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

To put it mildly . But a jest is very different from a stupid proclamation. Beckett didn’t misprint one catalogue or have an April fools day jest. They kept it there for years, it was serious.

Just being honest, I don't remember that. Not saying it wasn't there. I'm guessing this was in the yearly guides later in the 90's and not in BBCM - where indeed, they did not list values for prewar cards. I would agree it's a stupid proclamation.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Just being honest, I don't remember that. Not saying it wasn't there. I'm guessing this was in the yearly guides later in the 90's and not in BBCM - where indeed, they did not list values for prewar cards. I would agree it's a stupid proclamation.

I have a 2010 Beckett price guide (see photo above) in which the 4 Ruths and almost every other card in the '33 Goudey set are designated as RC, so it has been at least that recently that the stupid proclamation has been propagated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

+1. Not a good moment for them on that one. It made a lot of inexperienced collectors have the wrong information, and then tout it!
.

[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.