Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

[bcbgcbrcb]

Sorry, Bob, maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly with the foreign “major league” connotation. I did not mean that any of those foreign leagues were the equivalent of the US major league level. Instead, my point was that those pictured on cards from the pre-war era typically played on “major league” level teams based on the actual teams/countries that they played on in comparison to lower-level teams from those countries during that era. I was trying to compare US minor leagues/amateurs to the lower level teams.

Regarding players who exclusively played only in foreign countries, you are right, they would never be enshrined in Cooperstown as that is reserved for National (USA) Baseball Hall of Famers. Separately, there is a Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, etc.

[Exhibitman]

What I find interesting is the number of players whose rookie cards are the 1974 Laughlin set. That far removed from playing, does it really even matter?

[Republicaninmass]

How can any card as a "composite" be a rookie card or one with Street clothes? That being said, I guess a type one "family with baby" photo should be a rookie card?

[Schlesinj]

Recent Dr. Beckett Podcast about rookie designation.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000601096928

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, he's already playing on a recognized Negro ML team, but hasn't had any card issued playing with that or any other Negro ML team yet. Instead, he goes and plays Winter ball in Cuba in the offseason, and someone releases not just a card of him playing with a different non-ML team, but also one from an entirely different country, in this case, Cuba.

So, do you consider that Cuban card as this player's true rookie card even though it was with another team AND from a different country? And I guess as a secondary question then, would it make a difference to you as to being this player's true rookie card if instead he had a card with a different non-ML team, but that the card was actually issued in the U.S. and was not from a foreign country?

I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.

If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.

The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Sorry, Bob, maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly with the foreign “major league” connotation. I did not mean that any of those foreign leagues were the equivalent of the US major league level. Instead, my point was that those pictured on cards from the pre-war era typically played on “major league” level teams based on the actual teams/countries that they played on in comparison to lower-level teams from those countries during that era. I was trying to compare US minor leagues/amateurs to the lower level teams.

Regarding players who exclusively played only in foreign countries, you are right, they would never be enshrined in Cooperstown as that is reserved for National (USA) Baseball Hall of Famers. Separately, there is a Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, etc.

No apologies necessary Phil, I just wasn't sure what you were getting at when you mentioned a foreign league team being a major league level team. I can definitely see such a foreign team as comparable to a minor league team, but then you make another somewhat confusing statement. You say that such ML level players here in the U.S. who then played on other foreign teams during the offseason typically played on "major league" level teams for the foreign country. And that the lower level foreign teams were then comparable to minor/amateur league teams we have her in the U.S. I get that, but then how do you know if a player is truly on a "major league" level foreign team? I'm not aware of any U.S. group or organization that makes such a distinction when it came to a foreign country and league, and which teams/leagues are then considered major or minor/amateur league level. Simply saying that such players typically played on the "major league level" foreign teams just seems to be getting a bit too arbitrary to me in deciding what is or isn't a major or minor/amateur league foreign team.

And even after you do make such a determination as to whether a foreign team is a major or minor/amateur league team in that other country, exactly what difference does that then make on whether you consider that foreign card of a player, on that foreign team, as potentially being considered as that player's rookie card? And if you say it doesn't really make a difference, then why make the distinction to begin with? Are you trying to say that if the guy played on a "major league level" foreign team that his foreign card gets different treatment/consideration as a rookie card than if he played on what is considered as a minor or amateur league foreign card, because that is what it sounds like you're saying/implying? I've heard of people making distinctions between U.S. issued cards/items and foreign issued ones, but never someone then making further distinctions based on which foreign country league they then played in. That is an entirely new concept to me, and I'm guessing many, many others.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I think this is an excellent edge case to help people think through what their criteria are so they can be internally consistent in their identification of rookie cards. My own definition would require that it be a card issued no earlier than the player's first year in the majors, so your hypothetical card is okay so far. The location of production and distribution is irrelevant, so your card is still okay. At that point for me it comes down to whether he is explicitly depicted as a member of the non-ML team.

If one requires a player to be shown in uniform to meet the definition of a baseball card, then we've got problems with most of the N172 Ansons, many of the top W600s, and a whole slew of guys from the early 90s. To me that's absurd. The clothing a player happens to be wearing in the image has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise, a card of me in a Cubs uniform would be more a baseball card than a card of Cap Anson in his street clothes. So what it comes down to is the actual printed text on the card. If it names his MLB team, I would then consider your hypothetical card a rookie card; if it names only his other team or neither team, I would consider it not a rookie card but a minor league issue released within the span of the player's MLB career.

The most interesting comparable case that comes to mind for me is the 1972 Puerto Rican Mike Schmidt issue. He's wearing the other team's uniform, but it came out during his MLB career, and he is explicitly identified as the Philadelphia Phillies' 3rd baseman in the text. (For reasons I indicated much earlier in this thread I've already determined that these "stickers" are in fact baseball cards, but that's another matter entirely.)

Great points Glenn, and it helps to further illustrate how different people can look at the rookie card parameters in a multitude of different ways. As I've said before, I don't think there is one single way to define what is a person's true rookie card, and there are no wrong answers. I also think it then makes sense to list the different options and such that can fulfill different people's definition of what they think of a rookie card. The listing from Phil's site is a perfect example. It doesn't list just one single card/collectible for each player, but multiple ones, including first ML cards, first professional league cards, and some collectibles that are not traditional "cards" as well. As I suggested, he could even create separate columns to make it even easier for people to see which cards/items relate to first ever appearance, first amateur/minor league card, first ML card appearance, and even the first traditional "card" appearance, and so on.

As others have noted, for some of the Negro League players their first really true "card" turns out to be a 1974 Laughlin card. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right to me, and obviously many others as well, as to being their "true" rookie card. For a card to be someone's rookie card, you would think/hope it had to have been issued at some point while they were still playing, and if nothing else, at least while they were still alive. But again, to each his own. There are no 100% right or wrong answers. Still great to discuss and think about though.

[BobC]

.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

.

Bob, this is by far the most succinct comment you've ever posted.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Bob, this is by far the most succinct comment you've ever posted.

I enjoy being made fun of because of a glitch in the forum that at times double posts something when I hit the submit button, so go back and edit it out. I'll just leave it as it was from now on!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Bob:

I am fine with all of the foreign issues that I mentioned being potential rookie cards, no difference what level the team was, as you stated, that cannot really be determined anyway. I was simply trying to point out that most all of the players pictured were on significant teams of the era, no intention to single out which teams/leagues were and were not significant, just trying to make a generalization.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Bob:

I am fine with all of the foreign issues that I mentioned being potential rookie cards, no difference what level the team was, as you stated, that cannot really be determined anyway. I was simply trying to point out that most all of the players pictured were on significant teams of the era, no intention to single out which teams/leagues were and were not significant, just trying to make a generalization.

I get it. It just sounded at first like it might make a difference to you as to which foreign league a person played in as to whether or not you might consider that foreign card as possibly being that person's rookie card then. You're good with foreign issues being considered rookie cards, that is cool. Many others will say no. It's all good, to each his own. Your site and the work you put in on it is great, and you include multiple cards/items and things like these foreign cards, so collectors can pick and choose what makes sense to them. This is super!

[bcbgcbrcb]

At this point, I would like to see if we can move forward with trying to establish an initial listing of "pre-war" baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards. Let's begin with those that would be considered "no-brainers" as just about everyone will agree with these choices. For purposes of this list, I would like to define "pre-war" as everything prior to the modern era of baseball cards beginning with Bowman/Topps/Leaf starting in 1948. I realize that WWII ended a couple of years earlier but as Bob C has explained, this makes an excellent breaking point of the two different eras.

Please feel free to jump in and post your most obvious choices for rookie card designation through the 1947 season, keeping in mind that a traditionally accepted RC from Bowman/Leaf might actually have a better choice from 1947 or earlier, i.e.-Bond Bread, etc. Once we have accumulated a good number of choices, I will begin to checklist them in alphabetical order. My hope is that maybe we can get halfway through the HOF'ers with little to no controversy and then hammer out the tougher ones later.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

At this point, I would like to see if we can move forward with trying to establish an initial listing of "pre-war" baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards. Let's begin with those that would be considered "no-brainers" as just about everyone will agree with these choices. For purposes of this list, I would like to define "pre-war" as everything prior to the modern era of baseball cards beginning with Bowman/Topps/Leaf starting in 1948. I realize that WWII ended a couple of years earlier but as Bob C has explained, this makes an excellent breaking point of the two different eras.

Please feel free to jump in and post your most obvious choices for rookie card designation through the 1947 season, keeping in mind that a traditionally accepted RC from Bowman/Leaf might actually have a better choice from 1947 or earlier, i.e.-Bond Bread, etc. Once we have accumulated a good number of choices, I will begin to checklist them in alphabetical order. My hope is that maybe we can get halfway through the HOF'ers with little to no controversy and then hammer out the tougher ones later.

I'd be surprised if we get more than 10% of the way through before we run into disagreements. The only consensus here is that we can't agree on the definition of a rookie card. But hope springs eternal I suppose.

Carl Hubbell: R315

[Lucas00]

I'll throw my opinion in the ring on what I consider a rookie card.

Essentially any release whether it be a premium, post card, bread label, playing card, ice cream lid, notebook cover, I don't care. As long as it's made of paper and was distributed to at least a small amount of people. That is a rookie card to me.
Minor league issues also would count imo.


Things such as Snapshots and Press photos and some unique rppcs that were created for Personal or News use I don't count as rookies. Simply because they weren't meant for distribution.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Agree, Glenn. R315 for Hubbell is a clear cut choice.

[Yoda]

It seems forever that any AH has offered up a N172 Anson in uniform. Cap's head and somebody else's body, I believe.

[Shankweather]

I’m so glad I found this thread, what a great read. Glad to know there are freaks scholars like me who really care about this stuff.

I'm in favor of a more restrictive definition of rookie cards, primarily for the sake of collectability. One corner of my collection is rookie cards for the Cubs Hall of Fame, from King Kelly to Mark Grace. When I really got into pre-war Cubs cards and tried to find the rookie cards of these ancient players, I found that going with the “first issue” was not always feasible. So I came up with four criteria for determining a pre-war set’s rookie card eligibility.

1. Looks like a baseball card. No postage stamps, photocards, or newspaper inserts. Reluctantly I’ll go up to postcard size for the sake of Exhibits. Colgan’s Chips are fine I guess. Leaning no on pins, silks.
2. Random distribution. A key component of baseball cards, since the very beginning, was buying something that had a card in it but you weren’t sure which one.
3. A representative checklist. 1876-1897 sets should have at least 24 players in the set. 1892-1901: 36. 1902-1960: 48.
4. Availability. We can’t really use the “nationally distributed” criteria for pre-war, but we can use pop reports to deduce the rarity. An average pop/player of 30 (roughly Old Judge) is my standard.

What is Frank Chance’s rookie card? Some options:



A. 1899-00 Sporting News Supplement M101-1 (fails #1)
B. 1903-04 Breisch-Williams E107 (fails #4)
C. 1906 Fan Craze NL WG3 (fails #2)
D. 1908 American Caramel E91 (fails #3)
E. 1909-11 T206 (RC)

A lot of you are going to think I’m lame as heck for not recognizing a Frank Chance RC until 1909, but I don’t see the point in designating things rookie cards that no one gets to own, or isn’t a card at all. His E107 has a total pop (PSA+SGC) of 3. If I’m trying to complete a Cubs RC set, putting that one on the list is just self-destructive and not fun. Let's replace "nationally distributed" with "available."

I'm aware that my rules will result in some players having no true rookie cards, like Cubs HOFer Bill Lange. His only issues are the M101-1 supplement and the Whitehead and Hoag pin. I'm mostly OK with that. We can make exceptions in those cases. I'd rather do that than have to chase "rookie cards" for other players who have better options.

EDIT: I'm holding on to these principles pretty loosely, definitely open to debate and changing my mind.

[Exhibitman]

To each their own, Stephen, when it comes to the PC, but I don't think there is much support for ignoring rare issues, like E107, just because they are rare. That makes them more desirable for many fanatical collectors. I tend to be in that camp. Just because I can't get or cannot afford a specific card doesn't "un-card" it.

I get into this discussion quite often in the boxing card world because so many fighters' first cards may be obscure overseas issues, management-issued promo cards, or cards in formats that we in the USA community don't think of as 'cards'. Same is true to an extent in basketball since there were so few mainstream sets from 1948-68. Do I ignore 1951 and 1952 NY Knicks schedule card with Nat Clifton and go with a 1957 Topps card?




Or to take another example, do I ignore a 1957 McCarthy PC of Don Drysdale that wasn't randomly distributed?

[Shankweather]

Oh I’m definitely not ignoring those cards. In fact, Chance’s E107 is my most wanted card. I own all kinds of stuff that doesn’t meet my own criteria. All this stuff is supremely collectible, whether it passes my or anyone else’s RC rules. But let’s say you wanted to create a Cubs Hall of Fame RC set on the PSA registry. You can’t put the E107 on there because only a couple people would be able to complete it. What if the 1904 Allegheny was Chance’s first card. Are we really going to call that his rookie card?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Oh I’m definitely not ignoring those cards. In fact, Chance’s E107 is my most wanted card. I own all kinds of stuff that doesn’t meet my own criteria. All this stuff is supremely collectible, whether it passes my or anyone else’s RC rules. But let’s say you wanted to create a Cubs Hall of Fame RC set on the PSA registry. You can’t put the E107 on there because only a couple people would be able to complete it. What if the 1904 Allegheny was Chance’s first card. Are we really going to call that his rookie card?

Just because you can’t realistically obtain the card does not disqualify it from being a rookie card.

To me, there is no rational justification for excluding e107 - it’s clearly a card and it comes from a set. I believe W600s are also cards, meaning Wagner, Matty, Chance and others with Type 1 examples have their rookies in the W600 sets. I will go a step further- although I recognize that it’s a bit more controversial, I think the M101-1s should be considered rookies

[Exhibitman]

Ditto. I don't have any of those, Ryan, but not calling them RCs doesn't work for me.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Just because you can’t realistically obtain the card does not disqualify it from being a rookie card.

To me, there is no rational justification for excluding e107 - it’s clearly a card and it comes from a set. I believe W600s are also cards, meaning Wagner, Matty, Chance and others with Type 1 examples have their rookies in the W600 sets. I will go a step further- although I recognize that it’s a bit more controversial, I think the M101-1s should be considered rookies

We exclude cards from RC eligibility for lots of reasons. Regional team issues like Kahn's, and team photo packs, and minor league cards. And weird 1-of-1 sets like 1904 Allegheny. There are lots of first cards that aren't rookie cards. We may disagree about one or all of those things, but they're fairly common reasons. Not many argue for 1980 TCMA or 1982 Red Lobster to be Ryne Sandberg's RC instead of 1983 Donruss/Fleer/Topps. If we're willing to exclude 1-of-1 Allegheny, excluding 1-of-2 Breisch-Williams isn't that big of a leap.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I simply disagree when it comes to team issues. The distinction is artificial. As is the distinction involving postcards, cabinet cards, newspaper issues and smaller premiums. The problem is that the stricter you are, the more issues get left out, until the exceptions swallow the rule. I mean, if the guy has multiple items that predate the 'rookie', sometimes by years, who cares what the 'rookie' is at that point? Let's take Joe DiMaggio as an example and set aside the three PCL issues (2 Zeenuts and the Pebble Beach Clothiers), which I think make the 'rookie' designation superfluous. What've we got?

--1936 World Wide Gum: can a card that was never issued in the country where MLB was played constitute an MLB rookie card? No American kid had a shot at one. That doesn't seem right to me.

--1936 R312-R313-R314: at least these are USA issues. But they are made of the same paper as team issues and were handed out as point of sale premiums.

--1936 Sports Stamps: paper and in a newspaper, but catalogued.

The first 'true American card' you get to is the 1938 Goudey.

Adam, I agree, but if you slipped across the border in 1936, say from Detroit to Ontario, I bet you could find a pack of WWG.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Adam, I agree, but if you slipped across the border in 1936, say from Detroit to Ontario, I bet you could find a pack of WWG.

And even so, the point isn't really if Midwest kids in the 30s could find one, it's can we find one? In my opinion, 1936 WWG is DiMaggio's RC.

[Baseball Rarities]

Stephen - Interesting take and I am sure that you will get a lot of different answers.

I do not think that rarity should ever be a determining factor for rookie cards, especially when the set was available to the public like E107s.

I also think that your "#2 Random Distribution" rule should not come into play or else it will exclude N173 Old Judges cabinets, W600 Sporting Life cabinets, T3 Turkey Reds, etc.

[molenick]

I think if you are trying to decide what a rookie card is, rarity or cost should not come into play. If you want a complete T206 set, you need to have the Wagner. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy collecting T206s just because you will never be able to get a Wagner (as most people do).

As for the other standards, I kind of like "looks like a baseball card" if that means thicker than a newspaper and made of paper. But you need to go beyond postcard size. I think many people consider Old Judge Cabinets, Turkey Reds, Pinkerton Cabinets, and Sporting Life Cabinets to be in the discussion for possible rookie cards (that puts Chance's Sporting Life poses as candidates well).

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Stephen - Interesting take and I am sure that you will get a lot of different answers.

I do not think that rarity should ever be a determining factor for rookie cards, especially when the set was available to the public like E107s.

I also think that your "#2 Random Distribution" rule should not come into play or else it will exclude N173 Old Judges cabinets, W600 Sporting Life cabinets, T3 Turkey Reds, etc.

Old Judge cabinets and Turkey Reds are some of my favorite collectibles and I have several. But I purposefully exclude them from rookie card eligibility. They're just not baseball cards, they're too big and not randomly assorted. And further, we don't need them to be rookie cards. All of the players in N173 are in N172, and all of the players in T3 are in T206. All those players have rookie cards that look like baseball cards. It doesn't make the cabinets any less desirable. My N173 Cap Anson is one of my most prized possessions. But it's not a baseball card.

I'm definitely aware my take won't jive with a lot of others, particularly serious pre-war collectors. Part of my mission is to make pre-war collecting more palatable for modern collectors, with whom I interact a lot. And telling my fellow Cubs collectors that there are only half a dozen Frank Chance rookie cards in the world doesn't help.

That being said, my rule #4 is the least precious to me. I'm much more willing to call E107 a rookie card than M101-1. Large pieces of paper aren't baseball cards.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I'm definitely aware my take won't jive with a lot of others, particularly serious pre-war collectors. Part of my mission is to make pre-war collecting more palatable for modern collectors, with whom I interact a lot. And telling my fellow Cubs collectors that there are only half a dozen Frank Chance rookie cards in the world doesn't help.

I understand that you are trying to make it easier or more straightforward for modern collectors, but I do not think that many will consider Chance's 1909 T206 as being his rookie card. It was issued after he had already played 11 seasons in the Majors and was at the end of his career.

I know that you do not consider Chance's 1899 M101-1 Sporting News as being a card, but what about this W600 Sporting Life?

[Rhotchkiss]

I would define someone's rookie as the first solo image of them, on a professional team, on a media whose integrity is not compromised on a stand-alone basis.

I do not think rarity and/our ones lack of desire/interest in the media (cabinet, supplement, pin, etc) should matter.


I do agree with you that Alleghany is a tough one because only 1 of each player was ever made. For all we know, thousands ++ of E107s, M101s, W600s, etc were made and distributed

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I know that you do not consider Chance's 1899 M101-1 Sporting News as being a card, but what about this W600 Sporting Life?

I don't, but I would love to own one. The only thing bigger than a T201 Mecca I would consider a baseball card is an Exhibit. I make an exception for those because of the unique, random way they were distributed. If there were a bunch of players you could only find in W600 that would be one thing, but all those guys have actual baseball cards. A 5x7 you get in the mail goes against the spirit of what a baseball card is. Opening up a pack of cards (or cigarettes or gum or a box of Cracker Jack) and pulling a card out is a fundamental part of it.

EDIT: Also, because of the long production period for W600 (1902-1911), it's hard to know when a player's card was produced, although I'm sure there are ways to tell. When did Chance's W600 come out?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I would define someone's rookie as the first solo image of them, on a professional team, on a media whose integrity is not compromised on a stand-alone basis.

Ohh, I like that one. As to the latter part of the definition, I would look at intentionality when it comes to items like strip cards: was it meant to be cut out and stand alone? If so, it's on my list for sure. One of the bigger controversies in boxing cards is about Muhammad Ali's first card. There are two very early M-style issues: 1960 Hemmet's and 1962 Rekord.




Some collectors don't care for these because they are cut from larger media. Others contend that because they can stand alone and were designed to be cut out, they are cards.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

EDIT: Also, because of the long production period for W600 (1902-1911), it's hard to know when a player's card was produced, although I'm sure there are ways to tell. When did Chance's W600 come out?

The W600 of Chance that I posted came out in October of 1902.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

The W600 of Chance that I posted came out in October of 1902.

Thanks. I thought he looked pretty young in the photo.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I copied and pasted the below from my original post in this thread. These discussions always go down the same path and end the same way, collectors will agree to disagree on what does or does not constitute a rookie card. Due to this perceived "controversy", the hobby never accepts a universal answer to the question, what is the true rookie card for XXXX. This lack of a clearly defined answer prevents the mainstream hobby from making this segment of collecting BB HOF RC's an important part of vintage card collecting. There is such great potential here but it all ends up never being realized at the end of the day because some individuals are more intent on proving that a definitive answer is not possible. Let's work toward the solution for the betterment of everyone that chooses to pursue this type of collection.


"I strongly believe that the first step in identifying rookie cards, especially pre-war, is to have a consensus where the vast majority of collectors agree on what constitutes a card and what does not. Working towards that goal will make it possible one day to have that definitive rookie card list available as opposed to those trying to find fault with the system and arguing every parameter that is trying to be established by the majority of us collectors. I believe that if you break down the parameters that I have previously identified one by one, you will find that each and every one makes sense and there might not be a better alternative. If there is a better one though, then we all should try and champion the cause to follow that through.

The first parameter that I created for identifying rookie cards is that neither minor league nor amateur cards be included. My reasoning for this is that they have their own clearly defined designation as being pre-rookie cards. This includes things such as Zee-nuts, PCL Exhibits, etc. This in no way deters the value of these kinds of items as many are more highly sought after than their MLB counterparts, it is simply something that does not meet the definition of what we are trying to define as a rookie card.

Secondly, no team cards are considered to be rookie cards as each individual player image can be so small as to possibly not even be discernable. Since Topps, the leading card manufacturer for over 70 years now, used this definition over the years limiting rookie cards to a maximum of 4 players on a card, I have done the same for rookie card qualification.

Next, I have chosen not to include 1-of-a-kind items for the obvious reason that this entire endeavor is being done to grow the interest in pursuing pre-war rookie cards and an impossible task as searching for only one item in existence is only going to frustrate the collector. Instead, I move on to the next possible option going in chronological order. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to own the "true" rookie for that player, kudos to you but then no one else can.

The next item that I address is the exclusion of stickers, stamps, paper premiums, etc. as the various item names indicate, they are not cards and whether or not they are encapsulated by a TPG company does not change that.

Another requirement for my rookie card qualification is that the card must be catalogued. Typically, the old Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards is the go to source for this. Unfortunately it's been a number of years since the most recent update to this previously annual issue. Now that Bob Lemke is no longer around RIP, I guess Krause never found anyone to pick up the editing duties.

Finally, I do not include team issued items as being considered for rookie card status. Most of these have been paper photos over the years and are not cards. Some did issue postcards which makes them more of a gray area but since they are not part of any kind of advertising or regionally/nationally distributed set, I choose not to count them. This is probably the one parameter that could be argued either way but mostly comes into play with post-war rookies and the main focus of this entire endeavor is to identify pre-war rookie cards."

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I'll throw my opinion in the ring on what I consider a rookie card.

Essentially any release whether it be a premium, post card, bread label, playing card, ice cream lid, notebook cover, I don't care. As long as it's made of paper and was distributed to at least a small amount of people. That is a rookie card to me.
Minor league issues also would count imo.


Things such as Snapshots and Press photos and some unique rppcs that were created for Personal or News use I don't count as rookies. Simply because they weren't meant for distribution.

I agree, except the minor league issues.

[oldjudge]

Agree, except I think pins should also count--hello Cameo Pepsin

[Yoda]

An example of just what we are discussing occurred in Al's last LOTG auction. I consigned a Fleishman Casey Stengel with coupon graded SGC 1.5, which I believed to be his first MLB card. The result was somewhat disappointing. Shortly thereafter, SB in his auction offered up an Old Mill T210 Casey, which got a lot of attention and did well.
Just an example of the complexity of this issue.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

We exclude cards from RC eligibility for lots of reasons. Regional team issues like Kahn's, and team photo packs, and minor league cards. And weird 1-of-1 sets like 1904 Allegheny. There are lots of first cards that aren't rookie cards. We may disagree about one or all of those things, but they're fairly common reasons. Not many argue for 1980 TCMA or 1982 Red Lobster to be Ryne Sandberg's RC instead of 1983 Donruss/Fleer/Topps. If we're willing to exclude 1-of-1 Allegheny, excluding 1-of-2 Breisch-Williams isn't that big of a leap.

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.

[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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Yoda

An example of just what we are discussing occurred in Al's last LOTG auction. I consigned a Fleishman Casey Stengel with coupon graded SGC 1.5, which I believed to be his first MLB card. The result was somewhat disappointing. Shortly thereafter, SB in his auction offered up an Old Mill T210 Casey, which got a lot of attention and did well.
Just an example of the complexity of this issue.

It is his first MLB card and is therefore worthy of designation as his rookie card. That said, minor league cards, particularly scarce ones from popular sets that predate a player's MLB debut are understandably more expensive than the same players' later rookie cards, but I think one of the issues the hobby is close to a consensus on (and with which I agree) is that a card issued prior to the year of a player's rookie season is not a rookie card -- though as I've pointed out a few times there are more than a few -- what's a nicer word for hypocrites? -- who claim to agree but also think that Derek Jeter has a rookie card from 1993.

[bcbgcbrcb]

To me, the parameters for what constitutes a rookie card are very clearly defined here. There is no debate that the 1903 Allegheny Frank Selee is his rookie card. Given that the entire set is believed to have only one copy of each card in existence, it is a monumental accomplishment for the one individual in the world that owns it. Since this set was a prototype and never reached the commercial distribution stage, it is extremely unlikely that another set will ever surface. The same can be said for the 1894 Alpha Photo Engraving Baltimore cards which include 4 Hall of Fame rookie cards: John McGraw, Joe Kelley, Hughie Jennings and Wee Willie Keeler (unconfirmed). Only one set is known to exist, always possible one or more could turn up but after 130 years, probably not. I don’t know if the same individual owns all of these cards or they are owned by multiple collectors. Again, kudos to the owner of each, nobody else will ever own one of these unless the owner decided to part with them. There are other similar scenarios such as the 1893 Just So Tobacco Cy Young and Jesse Burkett. I think there might be a second or possibly third copy of a player or two from that set. Again, an impossible task to find one of these. So we as HOF rookie card collectors can either accept the fact that we can never obtain every one and move on with collecting them anyway or we come up with the next best thing (although it might not be the true rookie card, it allows us to continue the chase).

[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.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

It is his first MLB card and is therefore worthy of designation as his rookie card. That said, minor league cards, particularly scarce ones from popular sets that predate a player's MLB debut are understandably more expensive than the same players' later rookie cards, but I think one of the issues the hobby is close to a consensus on (and with which I agree) is that a card issued prior to the year of a player's rookie season is not a rookie card -- though as I've pointed out a few times there are more than a few -- what's a nicer word for hypocrites? -- who claim to agree but also think that Derek Jeter has a rookie card from 1993.

One way to unify that is to go by the set, not the player. Only consider cards from MLB sets. That would eliminate minor league cards (1914 Baltimore News, 1980 TCMA) but allow for pre-debut RCs like 93 Jeter, 85 McGwire, and 60 Yastrzemski.