Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[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.

[puckpaul]

The W600 is a cardboard set of baseball players. They are very clearly baseball cards. And the set contains Rookie cards. Collectors of all types can aspire to own them, or just admire them, or choose to not consider them like you. Whatever!

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

The W600 is a cardboard set of baseball players. They are very clearly baseball cards. And the set contains Rookie cards. Collectors of all types can aspire to own them, or just admire them, or choose to not consider them like you. Whatever!

Normally I'm all for "whatever" but the point of the thread was to create a consensus for prewar rookie cards for the purpose of increasing interest in that corner of the hobby. I'm mostly in step with the OP, except for these oversized, not randomly distributed issues like W600.

[molenick]

I think the consensus is that W600s, T3s, N173s, T5s, and similar issues are baseball cards and can be considered rookie cards. Their method of distribution or size was not something I thought excluded them from being baseball cards.

Technically, T cards were not directly available to many people (children) because they could not buy tobacco products. It's not a perfect analogy, but as you said in post 75, "the point isn't really if Midwest kids in the 30s could find one, it's can we find one?".

W600s do have a long issue date but there are four different mounts and also team changes that can help date them. For example, Old Cardboard consider the W600 with Bresnahan on the Giants as his rookie cared https://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/roo...tail.asp?id=27 but not the later one with him on the Cardinals.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by molenick

I think the consensus is that W600s, T3s, N173s, T5s, and similar issues are baseball cards and can be considered rookie cards. Their method of distribution or size was not something I thought excluded them from being baseball cards.

Close to a consensus on this thread for sure, but I've seen it debated elsewhere. And random distribution is definitely a must for post-war rookie card eligibility. (Topps Now doesn't count as a "true" RC, for example.) I probably try to unify things across eras too much, but to me randomness feels essential to what the spirit of a baseball card is. But feelings can be wrong.

Originally Posted by molenick

Technically, T cards were not directly available to many people (children) because they could not buy tobacco products. It's not a perfect analogy, but as you said in post 75, "the point isn't really if Midwest kids in the 30s could find one, it's can we find one?".

But we literally can't find one. Total pop (PSA+SGC) for W600 is 448 and there are 465 players in the set. Less than one card per player. I know there are lots of ungraded examples out there, but the graded population is at least a way to compare one set to another. Old Judge isn't exactly plentiful, but that average pop/player is 35.

[molenick]

Well, it is a fun discussion and something that will probably never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. First we need to agree on what a card is. Then we need to agree on whether something that is not a card (say a pin, leather, felt, or newspaper supplement) can be included because it is a collectible.

Then we need to decide whether the distribution method matters. Then we need to decide if "rookie" means first minor league (or earlier) collectible or first major league collectible. I guess group image vs. individual image is also in play for some people.

The one thing I will disagree with you on is that "literally can't find one" is not the same as "it exists but is very rare".

If we can agree on the other terms (like what a "card" is and what a "rookie" is) then I don't think rarity or cost should come into play. If a collectible actually exists, and it meets the other criteria, then I would count it.

Although we could certainly have a list that differentiates between attainable items and one-of-a-kind or exceedingly rare items.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

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.

That's the major difference.
To me it's all about what came first. That some early stuff is extremely uncommon doesn't affect what was first. Beckett took an approach more like yours. I have always believed that it was done mostly to benefit dealers and keep collectors in the mainstream.

That "we" as a hobby can get the date wrong on something as recent as 49 Leaf when it's both fairly clear and there are people still around who bought the cards new (Hi Ted!) says a lot about how few collectors even consider what isn't "in the book" having firsthand knowledge should make it easy. But it's not.

What defines a "major set"? 48 Bowman is only 48 cards, and probably shouldn't count, but it does. Probably because of its place as pretty much the first postwar set from a gum company. Many of the 1800s cards were part of sets that were 50 cards, but only a handful of baseball players.

The "what's a card discussion" is a totally different topic, one that's got so many twists and turns because almost no matter what definition you use there's an exception. As well as cards that were issued in multiple ways, usually both as cards in packs and a complete set. I see a LOT of room for interpretation there. To the point that if someone wants to claim stuff like mail in premiums are not cards I can see the logic to it. The sportscasters were issued as "sets" by subscription. making them essentially monthly publications. The Spot Bilt Brett supposedly came with shoes, but it a one card "set" So many variations of that...

[Yoda]

I agree that Dr. Beckett bears some responsibility about the confusion and controversy that this subject has raised over the years. For example, I believe the run up in Mel Ott's '33 Goudey price recently is Jim's designating it as his RC when we, at least the people on this Board, know that is not the case.