Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[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."