Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

So to be clear, if a Negro League player didn't have any earlier cards of him playing for one of the now recognized Negro ML teams in the U.S., but did have as his very first card say a Cuban issue of him playing for a Winter league Cuban team, and not a recognized Negro ML team, you would say the Cuban issued, Winter league team card is his major league professional rookie card?

There is no right or wrong answer, just checking on what you think and meant by what you were saying,

I believe I dodged that particular question. I'll give it some more thought. I presume in this case that the card was issued in a year that the player did play in the majors but that he appears on the card with a different team; is that what you mean?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Bob:

I have always considered foreign issues that are actually cards such as Cabanas, Punch, Tomas Gutierrez, Billiken, Nacionales, Baguer Chocolate, Propagandas Montiel, Toleteros, Denia, etc. to be candidates for rookie card status, particularly but not limited only to Negro League players as there was never a U.S. issued card for any of them up until the Jackie Robinson era. I am aware that Harrison Studios issued a few Grays postcards during the early 1930’s but most are single known examples although a few dupes do exist.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Please delete

[bcbgcbrcb]

Interesting point regarding the SP Jeter being a pre-rookie card. The way that I have always treated these situations is whether the set that the card appears in was designed to be an MLB set or minor league set. In this case, 1993 SP was clearly a Major League issue although several minor league prospects such as Johnny Damon, Dmitri Young, etc. were included. Thus, I consider this to be Jeter’s RC.

Similar situations have come up in the past regarding a few N172 Old Judges such as the just mentioned Kid Nichols. He does appear in a minor league uniform in this set but by and large, the set consists primarily of Major Leaguers. Yes, I know that several minor league teams were also included and if these were given their own set designation, I would not count them as rookie cards but that is not the case.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I believe I dodged that particular question. I'll give it some more thought. I presume in this case that the card was issued in a year that the player did play in the majors but that he appears on the card with a different team; is that what you mean?

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.

If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.

The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.

If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.

The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)

Great points Glenn, and it helps to further illustrate how different people can look at the rookie card parameters in a multitude of different ways. As I've said before, I don't think there is one single way to define what is a person's true rookie card, and there are no wrong answers. I also think it then makes sense to list the different options and such that can fulfill different people's definition of what they think of a rookie card. The listing from Phil's site is a perfect example. It doesn't list just one single card/collectible for each player, but multiple ones, including first ML cards, first professional league cards, and some collectibles that are not traditional "cards" as well. As I suggested, he could even create separate columns to make it even easier for people to see which cards/items relate to first ever appearance, first amateur/minor league card, first ML card appearance, and even the first traditional "card" appearance, and so on.

As others have noted, for some of the Negro League players their first really true "card" turns out to be a 1974 Laughlin card. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right to me, and obviously many others as well, as to being their "true" rookie card. For a card to be someone's rookie card, you would think/hope it had to have been issued at some point while they were still playing, and if nothing else, at least while they were still alive. But again, to each his own. There are no 100% right or wrong answers. Still great to discuss and think about though.

[BobC]

.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

.

Bob, this is by far the most succinct comment you've ever posted.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Bob, this is by far the most succinct comment you've ever posted.

I enjoy being made fun of because of a glitch in the forum that at times double posts something when I hit the submit button, so go back and edit it out. I'll just leave it as it was from now on!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Bob:

I am fine with all of the foreign issues that I mentioned being potential rookie cards, no difference what level the team was, as you stated, that cannot really be determined anyway. I was simply trying to point out that most all of the players pictured were on significant teams of the era, no intention to single out which teams/leagues were and were not significant, just trying to make a generalization.

[BobC]

Don't disagree at all Phil that many people will consider foreign issues as eligible for rookie card status. Especially when the player has no other ML cards. Just shows how different people can have different ideas and different thinking when it comes to rookie cards, especially before 1948 when the Leaf/Bowman/Topps era of card production took over.

And the 1993 SP card of Jeter is another great example of the ambiguities and questions that can arise. Same sort of thing with the 1985 Mark McGwire Team USA "rookie" card. When the major card manufacturing companies started including these prospect and minor league players in their regular annual card issues, it potentially changes once again how people think and look at ML rookie cards. It was well over what, 30 years that the Bowman/Topps companies started issuing their annual card sets with just major league players in them? Those years were what kind of set the "gold standard" then for what many collectors during the hobby boom and after considered a player's true rookie card then. Later card issues then adding minor league and prospect players just start to muddy up the waters and thinking even more. Makes the whole issue clear as mud! LOL

[bcbgcbrcb]

I would stick with all of the foreign issues that I listed previously being rookie card candidates. In mostly all cases, the teams that they appear on for those cards are “major league” for that particular country. Very few of us have enough expertise to determine those that are not “major league”. Besides that, the alternative would be that we count the 1974/1978 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards as rookies for just about every Negro Leaguer that had a card issued. This would make all of these rookie cards issued between 30-60 after the player retired. Not a whole lot of fun to collect those if you ask me. Sometimes common sense wins out over a technicality.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I would stick with all of the foreign issues that I listed previously being rookie card candidates. In mostly all cases, the teams that they appear on for those cards are “major league” for that particular country. Very few of us have enough expertise to determine those that are not “major league”. Besides that, the alternative would be that we count the 1974/1978 Laughlin Old Time Black Stars cards as rookies for just about every Negro Leaguer that had a card issued. This would make all of these rookie cards issued between 30-60 after the player retired. Not a whole lot of fun to collect those if you ask me. Sometimes common sense wins out over a technicality.

Well, that raises another interesting question, especially when talking about HOFers. Would Cooperstown ever allow. let alone consider, a player that only played in what you are terming as a foreign "major league level" league to be able to get into the Cooperstown HOF as an inductee then? I'm pretty sure the answer is a resounding - NO! And also, MLB and SABR and other US baseball related and affiliated organizations do not ever consider any such foreign leagues as "major league level" either, to my knowledge. Think about it, if they ever did, Ichiro would be the all-time hits leader in baseball history, and Sadaharu Oh would be up on the top of Mt. Rushmore for home run hitters, way ahead of everyone else. But neither of them is. So, if apparently no one or no organization part of or involved in any way with the hierarchy of U.S. major league baseball will ever consider such foreign leagues as on a "major league level", why would/should anyone else think that way for purposes of determining a player's "major league" rookie card? It kind of doesn't make any logical sense, does it?

But again, people can think what they want, and to me, there are no or right wrong answers. Just differing opinions.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Sorry, Bob, maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly with the foreign “major league” connotation. I did not mean that any of those foreign leagues were the equivalent of the US major league level. Instead, my point was that those pictured on cards from the pre-war era typically played on “major league” level teams based on the actual teams/countries that they played on in comparison to lower-level teams from those countries during that era. I was trying to compare US minor leagues/amateurs to the lower level teams.

Regarding players who exclusively played only in foreign countries, you are right, they would never be enshrined in Cooperstown as that is reserved for National (USA) Baseball Hall of Famers. Separately, there is a Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, etc.

[Exhibitman]

What I find interesting is the number of players whose rookie cards are the 1974 Laughlin set. That far removed from playing, does it really even matter?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Sorry, Bob, maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly with the foreign “major league” connotation. I did not mean that any of those foreign leagues were the equivalent of the US major league level. Instead, my point was that those pictured on cards from the pre-war era typically played on “major league” level teams based on the actual teams/countries that they played on in comparison to lower-level teams from those countries during that era. I was trying to compare US minor leagues/amateurs to the lower level teams.

Regarding players who exclusively played only in foreign countries, you are right, they would never be enshrined in Cooperstown as that is reserved for National (USA) Baseball Hall of Famers. Separately, there is a Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, etc.

No apologies necessary Phil, I just wasn't sure what you were getting at when you mentioned a foreign league team being a major league level team. I can definitely see such a foreign team as comparable to a minor league team, but then you make another somewhat confusing statement. You say that such ML level players here in the U.S. who then played on other foreign teams during the offseason typically played on "major league" level teams for the foreign country. And that the lower level foreign teams were then comparable to minor/amateur league teams we have her in the U.S. I get that, but then how do you know if a player is truly on a "major league" level foreign team? I'm not aware of any U.S. group or organization that makes such a distinction when it came to a foreign country and league, and which teams/leagues are then considered major or minor/amateur league level. Simply saying that such players typically played on the "major league level" foreign teams just seems to be getting a bit too arbitrary to me in deciding what is or isn't a major or minor/amateur league foreign team.

And even after you do make such a determination as to whether a foreign team is a major or minor/amateur league team in that other country, exactly what difference does that then make on whether you consider that foreign card of a player, on that foreign team, as potentially being considered as that player's rookie card? And if you say it doesn't really make a difference, then why make the distinction to begin with? Are you trying to say that if the guy played on a "major league level" foreign team that his foreign card gets different treatment/consideration as a rookie card than if he played on what is considered as a minor or amateur league foreign card, because that is what it sounds like you're saying/implying? I've heard of people making distinctions between U.S. issued cards/items and foreign issued ones, but never someone then making further distinctions based on which foreign country league they then played in. That is an entirely new concept to me, and I'm guessing many, many others.

[bcbgcbrcb]

At this point, I would like to see if we can move forward with trying to establish an initial listing of "pre-war" baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards. Let's begin with those that would be considered "no-brainers" as just about everyone will agree with these choices. For purposes of this list, I would like to define "pre-war" as everything prior to the modern era of baseball cards beginning with Bowman/Topps/Leaf starting in 1948. I realize that WWII ended a couple of years earlier but as Bob C has explained, this makes an excellent breaking point of the two different eras.

Please feel free to jump in and post your most obvious choices for rookie card designation through the 1947 season, keeping in mind that a traditionally accepted RC from Bowman/Leaf might actually have a better choice from 1947 or earlier, i.e.-Bond Bread, etc. Once we have accumulated a good number of choices, I will begin to checklist them in alphabetical order. My hope is that maybe we can get halfway through the HOF'ers with little to no controversy and then hammer out the tougher ones later.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

At this point, I would like to see if we can move forward with trying to establish an initial listing of "pre-war" baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards. Let's begin with those that would be considered "no-brainers" as just about everyone will agree with these choices. For purposes of this list, I would like to define "pre-war" as everything prior to the modern era of baseball cards beginning with Bowman/Topps/Leaf starting in 1948. I realize that WWII ended a couple of years earlier but as Bob C has explained, this makes an excellent breaking point of the two different eras.

Please feel free to jump in and post your most obvious choices for rookie card designation through the 1947 season, keeping in mind that a traditionally accepted RC from Bowman/Leaf might actually have a better choice from 1947 or earlier, i.e.-Bond Bread, etc. Once we have accumulated a good number of choices, I will begin to checklist them in alphabetical order. My hope is that maybe we can get halfway through the HOF'ers with little to no controversy and then hammer out the tougher ones later.

I'd be surprised if we get more than 10% of the way through before we run into disagreements. The only consensus here is that we can't agree on the definition of a rookie card. But hope springs eternal I suppose.

Carl Hubbell: R315

[Republicaninmass]

How can any card as a "composite" be a rookie card or one with Street clothes? That being said, I guess a type one "family with baby" photo should be a rookie card?

[Schlesinj]

Recent Dr. Beckett Podcast about rookie designation.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000601096928

[bcbgcbrcb]

I copied and pasted the below from my original post in this thread. These discussions always go down the same path and end the same way, collectors will agree to disagree on what does or does not constitute a rookie card. Due to this perceived "controversy", the hobby never accepts a universal answer to the question, what is the true rookie card for XXXX. This lack of a clearly defined answer prevents the mainstream hobby from making this segment of collecting BB HOF RC's an important part of vintage card collecting. There is such great potential here but it all ends up never being realized at the end of the day because some individuals are more intent on proving that a definitive answer is not possible. Let's work toward the solution for the betterment of everyone that chooses to pursue this type of collection.


"I strongly believe that the first step in identifying rookie cards, especially pre-war, is to have a consensus where the vast majority of collectors agree on what constitutes a card and what does not. Working towards that goal will make it possible one day to have that definitive rookie card list available as opposed to those trying to find fault with the system and arguing every parameter that is trying to be established by the majority of us collectors. I believe that if you break down the parameters that I have previously identified one by one, you will find that each and every one makes sense and there might not be a better alternative. If there is a better one though, then we all should try and champion the cause to follow that through.

The first parameter that I created for identifying rookie cards is that neither minor league nor amateur cards be included. My reasoning for this is that they have their own clearly defined designation as being pre-rookie cards. This includes things such as Zee-nuts, PCL Exhibits, etc. This in no way deters the value of these kinds of items as many are more highly sought after than their MLB counterparts, it is simply something that does not meet the definition of what we are trying to define as a rookie card.

Secondly, no team cards are considered to be rookie cards as each individual player image can be so small as to possibly not even be discernable. Since Topps, the leading card manufacturer for over 70 years now, used this definition over the years limiting rookie cards to a maximum of 4 players on a card, I have done the same for rookie card qualification.

Next, I have chosen not to include 1-of-a-kind items for the obvious reason that this entire endeavor is being done to grow the interest in pursuing pre-war rookie cards and an impossible task as searching for only one item in existence is only going to frustrate the collector. Instead, I move on to the next possible option going in chronological order. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to own the "true" rookie for that player, kudos to you but then no one else can.

The next item that I address is the exclusion of stickers, stamps, paper premiums, etc. as the various item names indicate, they are not cards and whether or not they are encapsulated by a TPG company does not change that.

Another requirement for my rookie card qualification is that the card must be catalogued. Typically, the old Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards is the go to source for this. Unfortunately it's been a number of years since the most recent update to this previously annual issue. Now that Bob Lemke is no longer around RIP, I guess Krause never found anyone to pick up the editing duties.

Finally, I do not include team issued items as being considered for rookie card status. Most of these have been paper photos over the years and are not cards. Some did issue postcards which makes them more of a gray area but since they are not part of any kind of advertising or regionally/nationally distributed set, I choose not to count them. This is probably the one parameter that could be argued either way but mostly comes into play with post-war rookies and the main focus of this entire endeavor is to identify pre-war rookie cards."