Pre-80s Rookie Card Craze?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Lest we forget the XRC craze with Strawberry, Gooden, Clemens, etc. in Topps/Fleer Traded Sets.............

[novakjr]

Now that I think about it. Wasn't the '86 Donruss Canseco pretty ridiculous right off the bat? Or did that not hit 'til a few years later?

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Now that I think about it. Wasn't the '86 Donruss Canseco pretty ridiculous right off the bat? Or did that not hit 'til a few years later?

Yeah, it came out of the gates on fire. I want to say $50 or something like that.

[mintacular]

Okay, so in the late 70s or so a 55 clemente and a 65 clemente were about the same $ or just a small premium for 55 since it was rarer but all other things equal the rookie cards of HOFers sold for close to their other cards?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mintacular

Okay, so in the late 70s or so a 55 clemente and a 65 clemente were about the same $ or just a small premium for 55 since it was rarer but all other things equal the rookie cards of HOFers sold for close to their other cards?

There was a premium by 78 or so, but it wasn't all that big in many cases. I'll see if I can dig out an old price guide. The popularity of the player and if the card was a high number or short print changed things too.

One examle that comes to mind is the 48 Musial. Rookie card, short print, lots going for it, and it was the most expensive card in the set. I bought the one I had in maybe 1979. It had paper loss on the upper left corner, but wasn't all that bad looking. It was $2. I think catalog was about 20 or 30.

Steve B

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Lest we forget the XRC craze with Strawberry, Gooden, Clemens, etc. in Topps/Fleer Traded Sets.............

If memory serves me right, the "XRC" brew-ha-ha came about because there was debate as to how "legitimate" those cards were because they weren't available in packs, only in sets and only at card shops, and there was a desire at the time to somehow distinguish them from "real" cards.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

If memory serves me right, the "XRC" brew-ha-ha came about because there was debate as to how "legitimate" those cards were because they weren't available in packs, only in sets and only at card shops, and there was a desire at the time to somehow distinguish them from "real" cards.

I believe the reasoning behind the traded cards being listed as XRC's was to avoid coming off hypocritical within the baseball card market. The rule seemed to be, "if it's not nationally available in packs, then it's not a true rookie". When Rookie card craze hit, this is the rule that was used against minor league and team issues, so that the standard sets could still claim to have rookies, and that same rule had to apply to the Traded sets as well. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the guides aren't in cahoots with the card companies, because of this fact. The XRC was the perfect tool, for a card company to be able to ensure that the traded sets sold, but also that the following year's sets would also sell. Basically it gave them the ability to market the same rookie twice.

Unfortunately for the major companies, Classic started putting out the 4-sport sets in packs, then they had to adjust the rules to the first MLB licensed card that was available in packs.. Then Bowman stole all of Classic's thunder and began to do the same, resulting in the market being flooded with cards of people that would never reach the majors, and undercutting the major standard issues by a few years when it came to rookies. If you notice, the majority of the mid-late 90's sets didn't have any rookies, with the exception of Bowman, thus making them unmarketable. So what had to be done? Oh yeah, now all of the sudden cards couldn't be labeled as rookies until a player was officially on an active major league roster. You could still make 'em as inserts or as part of a minor league or draft set, but they couldn't be considered rookies. I'm sorry, now we've got the "RC" and the "RC!" on our hands. The Rookie card designation for a player who had previously had a rookie card. ***I still can't wrap my head around that one.*** Basically the rules keep changing, to keep the standard sets relevant.

Major League Baseball should not be allowed to dictate what is and isn't a rookie. Evan Longoria in '08? Forget about it, I'd rather have his '06 Bowman Heritage Prospects card. And the biggest farce has to be Josh Hamilton. So I'm supposed to accept that his rookie cards are in '07 just because MLB says so, when the guy had major issue cards as far back as '99. Name me one person who with a straight face can say, I've got a 2007 Josh Hamilton rookie card. MLB doesn't seem to understand that designating something as a RC doesn't mean it will be reflected that way in the market. Although, I'm pretty sure they thought it would..

MLB needs to stay the F*** out of the card designations.

BTW, I still stick with my own, "the first nationally available card of a player is his rookie". If I get an older local issue, then cool, but not necessary in my book.