Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agree, Glenn. R315 for Hubbell is a clear cut choice.

[Yoda]

It seems forever that any AH has offered up a N172 Anson in uniform. Cap's head and somebody else's body, I believe.

[Shankweather]

I’m so glad I found this thread, what a great read. Glad to know there are freaks scholars like me who really care about this stuff.

I'm in favor of a more restrictive definition of rookie cards, primarily for the sake of collectability. One corner of my collection is rookie cards for the Cubs Hall of Fame, from King Kelly to Mark Grace. When I really got into pre-war Cubs cards and tried to find the rookie cards of these ancient players, I found that going with the “first issue” was not always feasible. So I came up with four criteria for determining a pre-war set’s rookie card eligibility.

1. Looks like a baseball card. No postage stamps, photocards, or newspaper inserts. Reluctantly I’ll go up to postcard size for the sake of Exhibits. Colgan’s Chips are fine I guess. Leaning no on pins, silks.
2. Random distribution. A key component of baseball cards, since the very beginning, was buying something that had a card in it but you weren’t sure which one.
3. A representative checklist. 1876-1897 sets should have at least 24 players in the set. 1892-1901: 36. 1902-1960: 48.
4. Availability. We can’t really use the “nationally distributed” criteria for pre-war, but we can use pop reports to deduce the rarity. An average pop/player of 30 (roughly Old Judge) is my standard.

What is Frank Chance’s rookie card? Some options:



A. 1899-00 Sporting News Supplement M101-1 (fails #1)
B. 1903-04 Breisch-Williams E107 (fails #4)
C. 1906 Fan Craze NL WG3 (fails #2)
D. 1908 American Caramel E91 (fails #3)
E. 1909-11 T206 (RC)

A lot of you are going to think I’m lame as heck for not recognizing a Frank Chance RC until 1909, but I don’t see the point in designating things rookie cards that no one gets to own, or isn’t a card at all. His E107 has a total pop (PSA+SGC) of 3. If I’m trying to complete a Cubs RC set, putting that one on the list is just self-destructive and not fun. Let's replace "nationally distributed" with "available."

I'm aware that my rules will result in some players having no true rookie cards, like Cubs HOFer Bill Lange. His only issues are the M101-1 supplement and the Whitehead and Hoag pin. I'm mostly OK with that. We can make exceptions in those cases. I'd rather do that than have to chase "rookie cards" for other players who have better options.

EDIT: I'm holding on to these principles pretty loosely, definitely open to debate and changing my mind.

[Exhibitman]

To each their own, Stephen, when it comes to the PC, but I don't think there is much support for ignoring rare issues, like E107, just because they are rare. That makes them more desirable for many fanatical collectors. I tend to be in that camp. Just because I can't get or cannot afford a specific card doesn't "un-card" it.

I get into this discussion quite often in the boxing card world because so many fighters' first cards may be obscure overseas issues, management-issued promo cards, or cards in formats that we in the USA community don't think of as 'cards'. Same is true to an extent in basketball since there were so few mainstream sets from 1948-68. Do I ignore 1951 and 1952 NY Knicks schedule card with Nat Clifton and go with a 1957 Topps card?




Or to take another example, do I ignore a 1957 McCarthy PC of Don Drysdale that wasn't randomly distributed?

[Shankweather]

Oh I’m definitely not ignoring those cards. In fact, Chance’s E107 is my most wanted card. I own all kinds of stuff that doesn’t meet my own criteria. All this stuff is supremely collectible, whether it passes my or anyone else’s RC rules. But let’s say you wanted to create a Cubs Hall of Fame RC set on the PSA registry. You can’t put the E107 on there because only a couple people would be able to complete it. What if the 1904 Allegheny was Chance’s first card. Are we really going to call that his rookie card?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Oh I’m definitely not ignoring those cards. In fact, Chance’s E107 is my most wanted card. I own all kinds of stuff that doesn’t meet my own criteria. All this stuff is supremely collectible, whether it passes my or anyone else’s RC rules. But let’s say you wanted to create a Cubs Hall of Fame RC set on the PSA registry. You can’t put the E107 on there because only a couple people would be able to complete it. What if the 1904 Allegheny was Chance’s first card. Are we really going to call that his rookie card?

Just because you can’t realistically obtain the card does not disqualify it from being a rookie card.

To me, there is no rational justification for excluding e107 - it’s clearly a card and it comes from a set. I believe W600s are also cards, meaning Wagner, Matty, Chance and others with Type 1 examples have their rookies in the W600 sets. I will go a step further- although I recognize that it’s a bit more controversial, I think the M101-1s should be considered rookies

[Exhibitman]

Ditto. I don't have any of those, Ryan, but not calling them RCs doesn't work for me.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Just because you can’t realistically obtain the card does not disqualify it from being a rookie card.

To me, there is no rational justification for excluding e107 - it’s clearly a card and it comes from a set. I believe W600s are also cards, meaning Wagner, Matty, Chance and others with Type 1 examples have their rookies in the W600 sets. I will go a step further- although I recognize that it’s a bit more controversial, I think the M101-1s should be considered rookies

We exclude cards from RC eligibility for lots of reasons. Regional team issues like Kahn's, and team photo packs, and minor league cards. And weird 1-of-1 sets like 1904 Allegheny. There are lots of first cards that aren't rookie cards. We may disagree about one or all of those things, but they're fairly common reasons. Not many argue for 1980 TCMA or 1982 Red Lobster to be Ryne Sandberg's RC instead of 1983 Donruss/Fleer/Topps. If we're willing to exclude 1-of-1 Allegheny, excluding 1-of-2 Breisch-Williams isn't that big of a leap.

[molenick]

I think if you are trying to decide what a rookie card is, rarity or cost should not come into play. If you want a complete T206 set, you need to have the Wagner. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy collecting T206s just because you will never be able to get a Wagner (as most people do).

As for the other standards, I kind of like "looks like a baseball card" if that means thicker than a newspaper and made of paper. But you need to go beyond postcard size. I think many people consider Old Judge Cabinets, Turkey Reds, Pinkerton Cabinets, and Sporting Life Cabinets to be in the discussion for possible rookie cards (that puts Chance's Sporting Life poses as candidates well).