Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[BobC]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Bob - Klem and Evans each have 1921 Exhibits as well.

Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, but I don't think under Phil's stricter definition of what constitutes a "card" that those may be included, at least I wouldn't include them. Thus, the question of what is, or isn't a "card". I would include Exhibits under a more relaxed "card" definition myself, but if you're talking a strict definition of what is a "card" then I think you're talking 1935 Schutter-Johnson and 1961 Fleer as the first true "cards" for the pair of HOFers, respectively. But if you have a different definition yourself, which is perfectly fine, then you are also right.

Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Then that definition sucks. No offense. To me, if it’s catalogued, then it can be a rookie. Whether that’s the Standard Catalog or by one of the TPGs doesn’t matter to me. But my personal enjoyment is finding those one-of-a-kind diamonds in the rough. Like of this one of HOF umpire Bill McGowan (postmarked in 1915), we’ll before his “rookie” cards from 1948.

Derek,

It is just a fun discussion of a definition(s) that I don't think you can ever get 100% agreement on as to a single one being the sole answer for everybody. And that is a great McGowan postcard by the way. Way cool! But again, do you consider a postcard as a true "card" when determining if something is someone's rookie card? And that is why I also suggested that maybe the best thing to do is actually list multiple answers to the question(s) of what is a "card" and what is a "rookie card", and then let each collector pick and choose what suits and makes the most sense to them.

My biggest point though is that I think you have to have different definitions for the pre-1948 years, before the Leaf, Bowman, and Topps sets started coming out every year thereafter, and then separate definitions for the post-1947 years, once Leaf, Bowman, and Topps took the hobby over.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Derek: I know that you meant 1922 Exhibits for Klem and Evans.

I consider Exhibits to be cards/rookie cards. They were sold individually in vending machines with the intent to try and assemble a set, are catalogued, made of thick card stock, have a strong collector base and include the ‘25 Gehrig, which has routinely sold for 6-figures in recent years, prices typically reserved for “cards” as opposed to other types of paper collectibles.

Only a decade ago, when the Gehrig was selling in the low 4-figures, I was strongly promoting this card as the definitive Gehrig RC (amidst the resistance of many who did not feel that a postcard-size item should even be considered as a card) as the year of issue can be pinpointed to 1925 specifically as opposed to the only other option, the W590, which was issued in more than one printing although the Gehrig card itself was initially released on a 1925 strip of 10 cards. Putting it out there on the OldCardboard site, including it in the OCB magazine article that I wrote on the subject as well as including it with the rookie card guides that I self-published during the mid-2010’s, I believe, may have played a significant role in enough collectors jumping on the Gehrig RC bandwagon to see values escalate 30X, 50X, even 100X in high grade.

This is why I believe that the more definitively we can identify some of these pre-war treasures as rookie cards, the more we can see values of those cards escalate, maybe not to the level of an all-time great like Gehrig, but certainly much higher than they are today, even after the recent card boom. I think we have started to see it with the Jimmy Foxx Exhibit RC already.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Derek: I know that you meant 1922 Exhibits for Klem and Evans.

I consider Exhibits to be cards/rookie cards. They were sold individually in vending machines with the intent to try and assemble a set, are catalogued, made of thick card stock, have a strong collector base and include the ‘25 Gehrig, which has routinely sold for 6-figures in recent years, prices typically reserved for “cards” as opposed to other types of paper collectibles.

Only a decade ago, when the Gehrig was selling in the low 4-figures, I was strongly promoting this card as the definitive Gehrig RC (amidst the resistance of many who did not feel that a postcard-size item should even be considered as a card) as the year of issue can be pinpointed to 1925 specifically as opposed to the only other option, the W590, which was issued in more than one printing although the Gehrig card itself was initially released on a 1925 strip of 10 cards. Putting it out there on the OldCardboard site, including it in the OCB magazine article that I wrote on the subject as well as including it with the rookie card guides that I self-published during the mid-2010’s, I believe, may have played a significant role in enough collectors jumping on the Gehrig RC bandwagon to see values escalate 30X, 50X, even 100X in high grade.

This is why I believe that the more definitively we can identify some of these pre-war treasures as rookie cards, the more we can see values of those cards escalate, maybe not to the level of an all-time great like Gehrig, but certainly much higher than they are today, even after the recent card boom. I think we have started to see it with the Jimmy Foxx Exhibit RC already.

Not that I'm anti-exhibit, but I think the main issue with the exhibit's in my opinion is that they aren't the prototypical card like you stated. They're the size of a post card. Regardless of how they were sold.

It's fascinating to me that the early 1900's through the the 1910's, we had many mediums for cards, but most of them coming through cigarettes, and cracker jacks at a later date. I wonder why the shift happened, for cards to stop being included in cigarettes? I'm sure some of the Tobacco card historians on the forum could answer my question.

[Mungo Hungo]

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

Interesting question. So, what do you do with someone like Frank Robinson, who was a player, player/manager, and then a manager? Do you then consider him to have two rookie cards, one as a player and a second as a manager? His '57 Topps card is obviously his player rookie card, but then do you consider his '75 Topps card as his managerial rookie card, even though he was also a player, or do you wait until his '77 Topps card when he quit playing and was just a Manager for the Indians as his rookie managerial card? For all the credit Jackie Robinson got as the first black player in MBL history, the importance of Robinson's accomplishment as the first black manager in MLB history shouldn't be overlooked and just dismissed so easily. Had Robinson not been an obvious HOF caliber player, it is quite possible he would/should have deserved HOF status for being the first black manager in the majors anyway. I figured I'd throw that out there before someone says it should only matter for something a person deserves HOF recognition for.

If you're going to separate and consider a not so great player who later on went into the HOF for his managerial accomplishments instead, and determine and recognize he has a separate managerial rookie card, I would think that concept has to go both ways. So, someone that went into the HOF as a player, but also later on managed, should have separate managerial rookie card as well. And you really can't/shouldn't just limit such thinking to only HOFers, I would think it should be across the board for all players and managers then, and you recognize separate rookie playing and managerial cards for everyone, or you only recognize one rookie card for everyone based on when they first started playing.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

I don't have a dog in the fight, but does it not strike anyone else as odd that "rookie" cards of HOF managers are designated in these lists as their first cards as players? I scan some of these items, and it's hard for me to go any further than Sparky Anderson, whose rookie card is said to be 1959 (or even earlier). To me, it makes no sense. He played one year in the majors and hit .218, so why is his player card the "rookie"? Should it not be his first manager card?

Great observation but consistent with my views on what a rookie card is for a pre-war player, I would want the managers first appearance on a collectible even if it was as a player and even if he was not accomplished as a player. In the case of Tommy Lasorda I would much prefer a card of his from the 1950s as a player than as a coach or manager in the 1970s.