Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

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.

That's mostly because of Beckett. Rookie cards were a thing, supposedly because most players didn't become huge stars until after the typical 3-4 year window for kids to collect so they didn't get saved.
Think like early 50's, when someone might save a couple favorites from moms purge of "junk" Mickey Mantle and a couple personal favorites got saved, but that Aaron kid who only hit 13 homers last year? Nah, he's in the bin.

When minor league and draft pick sets got really big, some dealers hyped guys who might never even make the majors cards as "rookies" some definition was needed. So Beckett being the unofficial arbiter of everything (Kidding/not kidding ) Made one up.

Local issues, team issues, limited anything was out. Minor league cards were out, update sets were out. I forget exactly how it really reads, but it should have read

A rookie card is the earliest card of a player that exists in enough quantity for all dealers to benefit from the hype.

Total nonsense in my opinion.
Then since some complained, they came out with XRC for cards from update sets, FTC, FDC, FFC -first card for that plater from a manufacturer...

Other than peoples fascination with "firsts", there hasn't been a real reason for rookie cards being worth more since around 1977, maybe earlier. That was sort of the beginning of hobby shops proliferating, catalogs that listed what cards were in what set, people realizing they could buy a stack of 100 of almost any card they wanted to put away...

I don't see making any semi "official" checklist not include cards simply because of the expense.

BUT, for your own collection, I think it's fine to use you own criteria and collect as you want.
Heck, I've just changed mine to "the oldest card of a player I can get for under $10."... and now I'm complete at least pre-war.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's mostly because of Beckett. Rookie cards were a thing, supposedly because most players didn't become huge stars until after the typical 3-4 year window for kids to collect so they didn't get saved.
Think like early 50's, when someone might save a couple favorites from moms purge of "junk" Mickey Mantle and a couple personal favorites got saved, but that Aaron kid who only hit 13 homers last year? Nah, he's in the bin.

When minor league and draft pick sets got really big, some dealers hyped guys who might never even make the majors cards as "rookies" some definition was needed. So Beckett being the unofficial arbiter of everything (Kidding/not kidding ) Made one up.

Local issues, team issues, limited anything was out. Minor league cards were out, update sets were out. I forget exactly how it really reads, but it should have read

A rookie card is the earliest card of a player that exists in enough quantity for all dealers to benefit from the hype.

Total nonsense in my opinion.
Then since some complained, they came out with XRC for cards from update sets, FTC, FDC, FFC -first card for that plater from a manufacturer...

Other than peoples fascination with "firsts", there hasn't been a real reason for rookie cards being worth more since around 1977, maybe earlier. That was sort of the beginning of hobby shops proliferating, catalogs that listed what cards were in what set, people realizing they could buy a stack of 100 of almost any card they wanted to put away...

I don't see making any semi "official" checklist not include cards simply because of the expense.

BUT, for your own collection, I think it's fine to use you own criteria and collect as you want.
Heck, I've just changed mine to "the oldest card of a player I can get for under $10."... and now I'm complete at least pre-war.

I know Beckett had a major influence on those things, but it was all for the good in my opinion. And it's not all that complicated. First card in a widely distributed MLB set. That generally guarantees it's a card that collectors can actually find. It would be less good if Jackie Robinson's rookie card was the '47 Dodgers team issue or Bond Bread. It's better for collectors that his rookie cards are Bowman and Leaf.

Post-war collectors are heavily influenced by Beckett, no doubt. Pre-war collectors are heavily influenced by Burdick. All this is largely for the good. But just because something is "in the catalog" doesn't mean we have to bow to that. Receiving the designation W600 doesn't, in my mind, bestow baseball card status upon a 5x7 portrait one received in the mail.

EDIT: And expense isn't the issue. It's being able to find the card. If cards are virtually non-existent, why bother making a rookie card list at all.

[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).