Pros vs. Cons of Collecting Pre-War Baseball Rookies

[Robextend]

Hey Phil,

Cool thread!! As you know right now one of my projects is Post-War HOF RCs, once that is complete I might very well get into Pre-War RCs.

I actually believe that the first 3 cons aren't actually cons. I think it is pretty neat that there are many definitions of what a rookie card or even a "card" is. The more I collect, the more I throw many existing definitions out the window.

I do agree that con #4 is a real pain in the butt! And that has been the one deterrent for me.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, Rob.

Another area of this type of collection that I did not mention previously but is also a major "pro" to me is the possible inclusion of Non-Players such as Managers, Umpires, Executives, Pioneers & Negro Leaguers. These categories can provide huge amounts of education and research as the individuals are often times much less known than the more mainstream Players. I'm sure that some would say on the "con" side, collectibles of these individuals can be much more difficult to identify and track down.

[barrysloate]

When it comes to collecting rookie HOFers, I don't believe the controversy regarding which is the true rookie card is as big as advertised. I think it's perfectly fine to collect whatever one wants. For example, I know that the N300 is Kid Nichols rookie card. But I would much prefer to own the N172 and use that in my run. Cy Young's rookie card is unquestionably his Just So, but it is pointless to try and get one, so an E107 would have to do (go find one of those!). So it's okay to be flexible along the way.

[Orioles1954]

My feeling is who cares if they are rookies or not? Their first depiction is largely when they were an obscure underling. Why not get a contemporary or last card when their credentials were already established? I just don't see the appeal, especially when it's already difficult to establish what a true rookie is.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

My feeling is who cares if they are rookies or not? Their first depiction is largely when they were an obscure underling. Why not get a contemporary or last card when their credentials were already established? I just don't see the appeal, especially when it's already difficult to establish what a true rookie is.

I think that is the beauty of it and why it appeals to me; capturing these players when they were in obscurity.

[glchen]

I've thought about this kind of set, and have always liked the idea of it. Rookie cards have always had a special place in baseball card collecting, especially postwar. Prewar is much more difficult for many of the reasons that Phil listed. The biggest thing that would deter me however is the financial costs and the scarcity of available cards. For example, is it even possible to get your hands on a Cy Young rookie card? If you can't get the Ryder Cabinet or the Just So, and instead go to the W600 which is somewhat obtainable, that's 10 years past his rookie, so can you say that you are really collecting rookies at that point?

I'm still debating what to do in these cases, whether to get what rookies you can and for the unobtainable pieces do something else. A couple of other ideas I was thinking instead was to go for a "key" card set for prewar HOFers. The key card idea obviously has leeway also, and players have multiple key cards which people may disagree on. However, for example, for a player like Gehrig, I think most people can agree that his Delong card is a key card while his W517 is not. Another idea, and even more subjective, was to try to collect the "best pose" for prewar HOFers (during playing days of course). That way, you can develop a set of cards that you enjoy looking at rather than some ugly (and very expensive) rookie cards. For example, I think most people agree that Joe Jax rookie (and he's not even a HOFer) isn't his best looking card.

[novakjr]

Phil, I've gotta agree with Rob. Cons 1-3 aren't cons for a HOF rookie card collection...However, I do agree that they can at some point become one..

The loose definitions that some people have of both "rookie" and "card", plus the lack of any definitive resourse, actlually gives some leway to the beginning collector, and might encourage one to take on the task.

Basically, If I were starting out, and knew for sure that I had to have the Just So Young and Burkett or Baltimore News Ruth amongst other specific cards, there's no way that I even bother... The lack of these specific designation, give me a chance to set my own parameters at the start. And then as we all know, our opinions change over time, and we all eventually move closer to the "true rookies"..

Take a player like Al Lopez for example. Currently, I'm ok with pursuing the '34 Batter Up, but eventually, I will end up upgrading to the Baguer. In this case though, the loose option of the Batter Up helps keep the interest as a "filler"... Same for Joe Medwick. I'm ok with one of the '34 issues, but will ultimately eventually move on to the '33 Worch Cigars.

Also, using the loose definitions, a person might ultimately end up going the earliest photographic image route, as you did, and include woodcuts and such.. Or kind of a mix-match of the two, using both "rookie cards" and/or images that pre-date said "rookie card".

It's an evolving project..

[bcbgcbrcb]

David:

I like your insight and follow your train of thought, especially with regards to your collection plans changing as you get further along into it. This has happened to me several times over the years. I started out doing strictly traditional cards only, then gradually added a couple of postcards, then a couple of W600's and ultimately, it has become a "free for all" as I have almost every type of paper baseball collectible under the sun in my collection.

One thing that I will mention, as I can speak on this after tons of experience, is that if you ultimately hope to pick up a true "Rookie Card" such as the Baguer Lopez or Worch Medwick (not so much so with the very few impossibilities such as the Just So Young or Alpha Jennings, McGraw or Kelley) you might want to consider simply leaving the spot open in your collection until you find the card that you really want. For years, I have done what you said and settled for the "next best thing" and ultimately found the card that I really wanted but almost always wound up selling the "filler" at a loss. I'm not advocating that this collection must be based on profitability but over the course of time and many "upgrades" later, I have lost a good amount of money doing this type of thing.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

My feeling is who cares if they are rookies or not?

+1

I've always been fascinated by the rookie card thing. Morbidly fascinated, as I do not understand it. If the allure is having the first card of the player I would think that a "pre-rookie" would be even more desirable since it predates the "rookie." If the allure is having the first card in a MLB uniform, isn't that just a bit of a false standard-bearer for a player who may have had several minor league cards? I know for the few players I collect I like to get the first card, nevermind whether it is MLB or a Zeenut or other minor league issue. I'd much rather have a Zeenut DiMaggio than a WWG DiMaggio.

On the what is a card thing, that too is an issue for me. I tend to be inclusive and count a premium, a team issue, a PC, an Exhibit, etc. as a card issue. Here are some examples that I count as cards: