![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From the '20's and earlier, the proliferation of sets seems to lend itself to grouping of earliest cards of various stars and HOF'ers, rather than a single, undisputed rookie card. See, for example, some of the previous discussions on this site re the Grove, Foxx and Cobb rookies. Will we ever really know, for example, whether Foxx's 1926-1929 Exhibits Postcard Back came before his 1929 Kashin? Or whether the W560 was actually issued in 1927, which seems unlikely, given Foxx's limited achievements to that date, or several years later, which seems to me far more likely, since 1928 and 1929 were his first years of any real significance? To me, a player's "rookie" card carries with it the somewhat romantic notion of the player in question being on the threshhold of a great dream, filled with the seemingly unlimited vitality of youth to carry him through a series of great adventures. Collectors share in the player's magical youth vicariously, and through its magnetism, it becomes, to an extent, their own through that process. After all, would you rather hold a '52 Topps Mantle (yes, I know its not his rookie!) in your hand, marveling in the feats you know he was to go on to accomplish and perhaps trying to capture a bit of that golden youth for yourself, or his last '69 Topps card, even a white letter variation, where its evident he's old and worn out, with his greatness long since having departed from the scene? But I digress.
My point is that each of several cards may quite likely achieve similar recognition as "rookie-era" cards, and which one actually came first becomes more academic than of any real concern, based on their equal ability to impart the feelings discussed above. I don't think we lose anything by recognizing that a number of cards qualify as the player's earliest, with it sometimes being well-nigh impossible to ascertain exactly which is his earliest. They all impart that same romantic fascination as does a single rookie card, where only one exists of the player. Just my 50 cents worth, and if the above doesn't make much sense, its because I'm writing it in the wee hours of the morning, plagued with insomnia. You guys should know by now that either way, your feedback is appreciated. May your collecting be filled with wonder, and may you never tire of the treasures you obtain! Larry Last edited by ls7plus; 08-14-2011 at 12:13 AM. Reason: spelling |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't count team photos as rookie cards.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
Successful deals with: scmavl, buymycards, nicedoctor, kutcher55, aaamchenry, brianvanhorn, jburl, tonyo, benge610, highlanderfan, westwin, cardsmemro, 27Championships, et al. My needs lists: W514 strip cards W515-2 strip cards |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson card - is it real | Archive | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 03-17-2008 05:09 AM |
Rookie Card Determination | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 01-28-2006 06:26 PM |
Rookie Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 50 | 08-24-2004 01:22 PM |
Ty Cobb's True Rookie Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 12-07-2003 10:02 AM |
Joe Jackson Rookie Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 12-05-2003 08:02 PM |