Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I simply disagree when it comes to team issues. The distinction is artificial. As is the distinction involving postcards, cabinet cards, newspaper issues and smaller premiums. The problem is that the stricter you are, the more issues get left out, until the exceptions swallow the rule. I mean, if the guy has multiple items that predate the 'rookie', sometimes by years, who cares what the 'rookie' is at that point? Let's take Joe DiMaggio as an example and set aside the three PCL issues (2 Zeenuts and the Pebble Beach Clothiers), which I think make the 'rookie' designation superfluous. What've we got?

--1936 World Wide Gum: can a card that was never issued in the country where MLB was played constitute an MLB rookie card? No American kid had a shot at one. That doesn't seem right to me.

--1936 R312-R313-R314: at least these are USA issues. But they are made of the same paper as team issues and were handed out as point of sale premiums.

--1936 Sports Stamps: paper and in a newspaper, but catalogued.

The first 'true American card' you get to is the 1938 Goudey.

Adam, I agree, but if you slipped across the border in 1936, say from Detroit to Ontario, I bet you could find a pack of WWG.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Adam, I agree, but if you slipped across the border in 1936, say from Detroit to Ontario, I bet you could find a pack of WWG.

And even so, the point isn't really if Midwest kids in the 30s could find one, it's can we find one? In my opinion, 1936 WWG is DiMaggio's RC.

[Baseball Rarities]

Stephen - Interesting take and I am sure that you will get a lot of different answers.

I do not think that rarity should ever be a determining factor for rookie cards, especially when the set was available to the public like E107s.

I also think that your "#2 Random Distribution" rule should not come into play or else it will exclude N173 Old Judges cabinets, W600 Sporting Life cabinets, T3 Turkey Reds, etc.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Stephen - Interesting take and I am sure that you will get a lot of different answers.

I do not think that rarity should ever be a determining factor for rookie cards, especially when the set was available to the public like E107s.

I also think that your "#2 Random Distribution" rule should not come into play or else it will exclude N173 Old Judges cabinets, W600 Sporting Life cabinets, T3 Turkey Reds, etc.

Old Judge cabinets and Turkey Reds are some of my favorite collectibles and I have several. But I purposefully exclude them from rookie card eligibility. They're just not baseball cards, they're too big and not randomly assorted. And further, we don't need them to be rookie cards. All of the players in N173 are in N172, and all of the players in T3 are in T206. All those players have rookie cards that look like baseball cards. It doesn't make the cabinets any less desirable. My N173 Cap Anson is one of my most prized possessions. But it's not a baseball card.

I'm definitely aware my take won't jive with a lot of others, particularly serious pre-war collectors. Part of my mission is to make pre-war collecting more palatable for modern collectors, with whom I interact a lot. And telling my fellow Cubs collectors that there are only half a dozen Frank Chance rookie cards in the world doesn't help.

That being said, my rule #4 is the least precious to me. I'm much more willing to call E107 a rookie card than M101-1. Large pieces of paper aren't baseball cards.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I'm definitely aware my take won't jive with a lot of others, particularly serious pre-war collectors. Part of my mission is to make pre-war collecting more palatable for modern collectors, with whom I interact a lot. And telling my fellow Cubs collectors that there are only half a dozen Frank Chance rookie cards in the world doesn't help.

I understand that you are trying to make it easier or more straightforward for modern collectors, but I do not think that many will consider Chance's 1909 T206 as being his rookie card. It was issued after he had already played 11 seasons in the Majors and was at the end of his career.

I know that you do not consider Chance's 1899 M101-1 Sporting News as being a card, but what about this W600 Sporting Life?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I know that you do not consider Chance's 1899 M101-1 Sporting News as being a card, but what about this W600 Sporting Life?

I don't, but I would love to own one. The only thing bigger than a T201 Mecca I would consider a baseball card is an Exhibit. I make an exception for those because of the unique, random way they were distributed. If there were a bunch of players you could only find in W600 that would be one thing, but all those guys have actual baseball cards. A 5x7 you get in the mail goes against the spirit of what a baseball card is. Opening up a pack of cards (or cigarettes or gum or a box of Cracker Jack) and pulling a card out is a fundamental part of it.

EDIT: Also, because of the long production period for W600 (1902-1911), it's hard to know when a player's card was produced, although I'm sure there are ways to tell. When did Chance's W600 come out?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

EDIT: Also, because of the long production period for W600 (1902-1911), it's hard to know when a player's card was produced, although I'm sure there are ways to tell. When did Chance's W600 come out?

The W600 of Chance that I posted came out in October of 1902.

[Rhotchkiss]

I would define someone's rookie as the first solo image of them, on a professional team, on a media whose integrity is not compromised on a stand-alone basis.

I do not think rarity and/our ones lack of desire/interest in the media (cabinet, supplement, pin, etc) should matter.


I do agree with you that Alleghany is a tough one because only 1 of each player was ever made. For all we know, thousands ++ of E107s, M101s, W600s, etc were made and distributed

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I would define someone's rookie as the first solo image of them, on a professional team, on a media whose integrity is not compromised on a stand-alone basis.

Ohh, I like that one. As to the latter part of the definition, I would look at intentionality when it comes to items like strip cards: was it meant to be cut out and stand alone? If so, it's on my list for sure. One of the bigger controversies in boxing cards is about Muhammad Ali's first card. There are two very early M-style issues: 1960 Hemmet's and 1962 Rekord.




Some collectors don't care for these because they are cut from larger media. Others contend that because they can stand alone and were designed to be cut out, they are cards.