Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[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.