Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's surprising one of the successful Negro League teams didn't put out a team set somewhere along the line.

Totally agree. There is only one team "set" that I can think of off the top of my head. In 1931, the Harrison Studio produced real photo postcards of the Homestead Grays. The collection included both a team postcard and those of individual players, including Josh Gibson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Didn't go looking at all the years, but remember Reggie's '69 Topps card is his rookie card. He was also in the '69 Topps Decals set, the '69 Topps Super set, and also included on the '69 Topps Team Poster of the Oakland A's. None of his items in those three ancillary sets ever get denoted as rookie cards or items. It will be the same for any other rookie in any other year I believe.

Right. Of course if the JD McCarthy postcard is actually 1968, and the uniform would suggest that, then what?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

...if you didn't want to wait until 1947....


...

Mike

Gil did not play with the Dodgers in 1946. He played for their farm team, Newport News (129 games, BA = .278 with 8 HR's). He joined the Dodgers in the Spring of 1947.

Although I was a NY Yankees fan in my youth, I really loved watching Gil play. He was a tremendous clutch hitter. SEVEN consecutive years driving in 100+ RBI (1949-55).
If anyone in BB deserves to be in the HOF, it certainly is Gil Hodges.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But how many ancillary sets even included first year cards? I don't know some of the sets that well but none in 64 Giants, or 64 Standups, or 65 embossed, or 68 Topps Game, or in the coin sets I can think of, for example.

Killibrew's rookie is his '55 Topps card, and he's also in the Topps '55 Doubleheader set as well. And once again, his ancillary Doubleheader card is never referred to as his rookie card.

Hector Lopez's rookie card is his '56 Topps card, and he's got a'56 Topps pin issued also that is never referred to as a rookie item.

Zoilo Versalles, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Bill Stafford, Jim Brewer, and Juan Marichal alll have '61 Topps rookie cards, and are also all included in the '61 Topps Stamps set issued. And of course the stamps are never referred to as a rookie issue or item.

Don Schwall has a '62 Topps rookie card, and is also included in both the '62 Topps Baseball Bucks and Topps Stamps set issues. Jack Baldschun, Tim McCarver, Joe Torre, John Edwards, and Bob Rodgers all have '62 Topps rookie cards as well, but are only included in the '62 Topps Stamp set. And once again, with no rookie designation for items in either of these ancillary sets.

I'm going to stop there, this should be more than enough to satisfy your question. Likely more players will have items issued in ancillary sets during their rookie years as well if I keep searching. How hard did you look? LOL

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not baseball, but the other one that immediately springs to mind is O.J. Simpson's Super Glossy and Topps Super cards in 1970, alongside his regular issue "RC". Sellers seem to consider them RC's, buyer's not so much

Absolutely right. And of course the sellers want to claim those others as rookies, so they can mark them up and charge even more .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Killibrew's rookie is his '55 Topps card, and he's also in the Topps '55 Doubleheader set as well. And once again, his ancillary Doubleheader card is never referred to as his rookie card.

Hector Lopez's rookie card is his '56 Topps card, and he's got a'56 Topps pin issued also that is never referred to as a rookie item.

Zoilo Versalles, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Bill Stafford, Jim Brewer, and Juan Marichal alll have '61 Topps rookie cards, and are also all included in the '61 Topps Stamps set issued. And of course the stamps are never referred to as a rookie issue or item.

Don Schwall has a '62 Topps rookie card, and is also included in both the '62 Topps Baseball Bucks and Topps Stamps set issues. Jack Baldschun, Tim McCarver, Joe Torre, John Edwards, and Bob Rodgers all have '62 Topps rookie cards as well, but are only included in the '62 Topps Stamp set. And once again, with no rookie designation for items in either of these ancillary sets.

I'm going to stop there, this should be more than enough to satisfy your question. Likely more players will have items issued in ancillary sets during their rookie years as well if I keep searching. How hard did you look? LOL

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right. Of course if the JD McCarthy postcard is actually 1968, and the uniform would suggest that, then what?

Don't disagree with your point at all. I'm still saying though that the baby boomers who fueled the initial surge in card collecting popularity and prices back in the 80's were most familiar with Bowman and Topps sets that came out when they first started collecting. So no surprise then when Becket first comes out and primarily bases the concept and definition of what is a rookie card on those early Topps and Bowman sets. That subconcious bias is a main reason why lots of people still make certain claims, like Ruth's rookie cards are his '33 Goudeys, which is his 20th season of playing major league ball. Makes no common sense at all.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

Yeah and parallel insert cards get the RC treatment too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

[JLange]

Your site is fantastic! Tremendous research into the earliest cards of these HOFers! Love it!

Originally Posted by h2oya311

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

I agree. I mean you can still have a hierarchy, with the non-subset McCovey being the primary RC or whatever.

[bcbgcbrcb]

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

No reason that thinking can't evolve to be in line with today's designations though.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No reason that thinking can't evolve to be in line with today's designations though.

+1

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

When dealing with the post-war vintage Topps/Bowman sets, whenever you have a base set rookie card, any subset/team card of that same player is never considered a rookie card.

Of course you mean it is your opinion, right? I have read many different opinions on this thread as to what a rookie card is and it seems like this will always be an individual choice at the end of the day.

[Exhibitman]

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit

Adam

My folks took us to the Jersey shore when we kids in the late 1940's. And many of the Arcades on the boardwalk had Exhibit vending machines.
I poured a lot of pennies into them getting Exhibit cards. Although, as you probably know, I was an avid Yankees fan. I would try to get most of
the Yankees. However, I was very impressed with Satchel Paige in 1948.
I've gone thru my Exhibit card collection from my youth, but can't find the Satchell Paige card. Perhaps some one will chime in here with a date.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Then when it is all said and done, let the buyer decide. If more buyers knew about those 1946 Minoso rookie cards above, those would certainly draw more interest, and buyers would have a more rounded education of what is really out there in the baseball card collecting world. If they still wanted to call Minoso's 1952 Topps his rookie card, so be it....but I'd rather have the 1946 card. It is more interesting, older, and far more scarce. I'd rather own that one.

Agreed. I should mention that the 1946 Minoso cards aren't in MLB uniform. Nonetheless I have always found them more interesting (although I do like 52T Minoso a lot...it's a great looking card!). AND since MLB recognizes Negro League careers/statistics now, I see a good argument that these Cuban and other cards of NL players could be considered major league cards....

[Peter_Spaeth]

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

The chase is no fun when it's easy

[bcbgcbrcb]

Peter/Bob:

Where this logic fails in today's world is that, in an effort to get every possible card an "RC" logo on it, the manufacturers issue that designation on numerous subset and insert cards. That's where everything changes in the modern and ultra-modern card markets.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Peter/Bob:

Where this logic fails in today's world is that, in an effort to get every possible card an "RC" logo on it, the manufacturers issue that designation on numerous subset and insert cards. That's where everything changes in the modern and ultra-modern card markets.

Yes that is certainly what they've done, but what other than past convention says it's necessarily wrong? Maybe the old school view that there could be only one RC from a set is dated.

[packs]

I actually much prefer the new method of sticking an RC on contemporary releases across different products. It gives you the ability to choose your card. I often find the Heritage cards the nicest rookies and am glad I'm not stuck with whatever's available. Some really good players have awful rookies if you only go by first bowman.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I actually much prefer the new method of sticking an RC on contemporary releases across different products. It gives you the ability to choose your card. I often find the Heritage cards the nicest rookies and am glad I'm not stuck with whatever's available. Some really good players have awful rookies if you only go by first bowman.

The only RCs I have refused to own so far are BKB cards, 1974 Topps George Gervin 1975 Topps Moses Malone and 1981 Topps Kevin McHale. All "pinheads" where you can barely see the player's face. Thankfully, all the postwar HOF baseball RCs are IMO at least presentable.

[packs]

I don't know how anyone can own either the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera or the Chipper Jones. Yikes.

I'm also not really partial to multi-player rookies but I've always thought the Jack Morris 78 Topps was the worst of the worst.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know how anyone can own either the 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera or the Chipper Jones. Yikes.

I'm also not really partial to multi-player rookies but I've always thought the Jack Morris 78 Topps was the worst of the worst.

This Morris is better.

[packs]

Much preferred.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Much preferred.

Nice Trammell and Whitaker in the set too, IMO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes that is certainly what they've done, but what other than past convention says it's necessarily wrong? Maybe the old school view that there could be only one RC from a set is dated.

+1

And again, this rookie card fixation seems to borne from the 80's surge in collecting, fueled mostly by baby boomers remeniscing about their early Topps and Bowman cards. Because those were the card sets (and the rookies from them) primarily in collector's sights back then, the widely accepted definition of what a rookie card is, put forth by the likes of Beckett and others at that time, were based on pretty much solely those early Topps and Bowman sets. Pre-Topps/Bowman vintage, and even more so pre-war vintage, were nowhere near as popular back then as they've grown to be today. So that being the case, Beckett and other hobby influencers at that time didn't really care how their definition didn't really fit in with pre-Topps/Bowman sets. So they just tried to shoehorn those earlier sets in to fit the definition of a rookie card for the more popular Topps and Bowman sets at that time. And that's how you ended up with the stupid idea that Babe Ruth never had a rookie card till his 20th season in the majors.

Fast forward to recent years and now you have the card manufactuers purposely trying to dictate what is a rookie card, and also expand the number and variety of those rookie cards being produced every year to continue driving the way and reason cards are sold primarily online today. So why are we letting the card manufacturers call the shots on what is a rookie card today, especially since their sole reason is only to create more interest and more sales with modern collectors? Not much we can really do to change that, but here's the rub then. Hopefully at least some of these modern collectors will eventually find their way into the pre-war side that we are already into. And in so doing they will naturally lean toward a rookie card definition more in line with the way they collect modern cards now. So down the road I can see the idea that cards from different sets and types put out in the same year will be more widely accepted as all being a player's rookie cards, not just the one base card from their one main set. So if a current player's rookie card can be a die-cut, autographed, game-used, booklet, or limited number card, why for the old vintage player's can't it also be a doubleheader, super, stand-up, stamp or some other oddball kind of card or related item that can be considered a player's rookie card as well?

What it sounds like is some others are kind of suggesting that we maybe have different rules or definitions for different years or periods of time. So should we have different definitions of what constitutes a rookie card and have one for say 19th century cards before the major league as we know it today was really established? And then maybe a different definition for the pre-Topps/Bowman era starting around 1900 and going to 1947, followed by a Topps/Bowman era going from 1948 to around say 2000? And then finally a modern rookie card definition running from around 2000 through today? I don't know for sure if that will end up being what happens, but I'd like to think as a hobby that we could eventually come to a consensus and more or less agree upon one rookie card definition that covers all eras.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

I think you guys were referring to this one. Agreed on SSPC set being issued in 1976, not 1975.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That is the one (and maybe the only).

[Pat R]

I'm not sure if I'm right but I thought for the most part the rookie card
designation started with Beckett's.

Here's an article from the Feb. 2007 Beckett that covers some of the attributes
that they used at the time.

img534.jpg

img535.jpg

img535 - Copy.jpg

img535 - Copy (2).jpg

img535 - Copy (3).jpg

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I'm not sure if I'm right but I thought for the most part the rookie card
designation started with Beckett's.

Here's an article from the Feb. 2007 Beckett that covers some of the attributes
that they used at the time.

Attachment 465519

Attachment 465520

Attachment 465521

Attachment 465522

Attachment 465523

Interesting how in the definition it says a rookie card is just the base card from a set put out by one of the major card companies. So is there a separate definition of what a "major card company" is somewhere? Doesn't say anything at all about having a national distribution either.

Mentions how in some instances Beckett would also go against the Major League Baseball rules of when a player was or was not a rookie, and how the card companies would also make their own designation of a card as a rookie card, also contrary to MLB, sometimes to get the card of a player out there for marketing and sales purposes.

So who in the collecting hobby ever gave Becket, MLB, or even the card companies, the right to decide for us as collectors what is or isn't a player's "rookie" card as defined by them? Beckett has attempted to assume the position of being the self-proclaimed, de facto voice of the collecting hobby, and supposedly then tell us what the rules are for what we collect and how we determine the condition and value of those items. When the initial card surge started in the 80's, let's face it, those Beckett price guides were everywhere, with their definition of what a NM or VG-EX card was, what was or wasn't a rookie card, and probably most important of all, what the perceived value was of a card and how the condition of it affected it's value as a percentage of that particular card's NM perceived price. All those new people jumping into the hobby back then used their monthly Beckett magazines they had picked up at the grocery store as their own condensed collecting bible, and blindly adopted and believed everything in them was the gospel of the collecting hobby.

Well that time has passed and no one that I know seems to really ever read or follow Beckett anymore. Yet the influence and bias of those early Beckett rules and ideas of value and condition were so pervasive back then that they still permeate and influence the hobby today. What I've always thought would be best is to eventually have some recognized group or organization formed by and for the collectors (not dealers, card companies, auction houses, TPGs, etc.) to be the one to decide what counts as a player' rookie or first year card or collectible, to determine and codify the grading standards of all cards so they are uniform and the same and subject the grading companies to independent, periodic, outside review of their grading standards and procedures, not allow each TPG to just do what they want, and to possibly set up an overall registry system for the hobby that includes all graded cards, and not just certain ones. These kind of changes would put more control and direction of our hobby in the hands of the true collectors, and not have the guidance and direction of it being dictated to us by those that have a more vested/monetary interest at heart. Probably never happen anytime soon though, but can still dream.

[Exhibitman]

1947 Sports Exchange Spahn

[the-illini]

A couple of underappreciated (IMO) and really tough to find rookie cards

[h2oya311]

Adam and Chris! Those are simply outstanding!!!! Love that '47 Sports Exchange Mini Sheet w/ Spahn and, of course, the absolutely impossible '46 Sears PC of Musial. I don't have either of those. I'll have to settle for these for now:

1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange




Notice that the '46-47 Propagandas Montiel uses the same image as the '43 M114 Baseball Magazine Premium (just tilted a little).

Here's another Musial you don't see too often - 1946-49 W603 Sports Exchange:

[MikeGarcia]

..a lot of nostalgia with this roster....Joe Garagiola with hair...and who can forget "Slats Marion"....


...Eureka Sportstamps Issue in 1948


..

[shagrotn77]

Now "1975" SSPC cards were actually issued in 1976? Ay caramba. It's tough keeping up with all of these updated dates of issue. Why are so many still being corrected after so many years?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

..a lot of nostalgia with this roster....Joe Garagiola with hair...and who can forget "Slats Marion"....


...Eureka Sportstamps Issue in 1948


..

I think the Eureka Sportstamps were issued in 1949. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to hear about it! That would be, as my 8-yr old son says, epic.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Now "1975" SSPC cards were actually issued in 1976? Ay caramba. It's tough keeping up with all of these updated dates of issue. Why are so many still being corrected after so many years?

The SSPC set was definitely issued in 1976. Here is a pretty good blog post about it.

http://1975baseballcards.com/card-spotlight-1976-sspc/

Lots of sets have been assigned erroneous dates over the years. I imagine that when the hobby pioneers were researching hundreds of sets that they guesstimated the years for many based on a cursory look at the players. The subsequent guides, publications, grading companies, etc., copied that misinformation and most of it was not corrected until collectors did more thorough research on a particular set.

[Exhibitman]

1946 Sports Exchange Trading Post Musial issued 4/1/46. The precursor series to the W602 and W603 series.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...w602-and-w603/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Now "1975" SSPC cards were actually issued in 1976? Ay caramba. It's tough keeping up with all of these updated dates of issue. Why are so many still being corrected after so many years?

This is how I feel, many of the dates "updated" in recent years are fairly obvious. Boudreau's "1948" Leaf card, Clarkson's "1887" A&G, SSPC's that were even marketed as a 1976 issue by the company. The catalog's and websites are unfortunately replete with assumptions, half-truths, questionable narratives labelled as fact, and untruth's amidst actual facts. It gets even worse when one ventures outside of the big sports

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

The SSPC set was definitely issued in 1976. Here is a pretty good blog post about it.

http://1975baseballcards.com/card-spotlight-1976-sspc/

Lots of sets have been assigned erroneous dates over the years. I imagine that when the hobby pioneers were researching hundreds of sets that they guesstimated the years for many based on a cursory look at the players. The subsequent guides, publications, grading companies, etc., copied that misinformation and most of it was not corrected until collectors did more thorough research on a particular set.

Thanks, Kevin. It’s easier to understand for the older issues, but I would have thought that the date for something more recent like SSPC would have been nailed down from the start. Oh well. Thanks for the info.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is how I feel, many of the dates "updated" in recent years are fairly obvious. Boudreau's "1948" Leaf card, Clarkson's "1887" A&G, SSPC's that were even marketed as a 1976 issue by the company. The catalog's and websites are unfortunately replete with assumptions, half-truths, questionable narratives labelled as fact, and untruth's amidst actual facts. It gets even worse when one ventures outside of the big sports

G1911

"Most valuable player in 1948" was awarded to Lou in December 1948. This LEAF set was definitely issued in the Spring of 1949.

.


Incidentally, Boudreau is featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Thanks, Kevin. It’s easier to understand for the older issues, but I would have thought that the date for something more recent like SSPC would have been nailed down from the start. Oh well. Thanks for the info.

It's really inexplicable with something so recent. Leaf too, really. If you really want to see misdating sometime, look at Hollywood and music cards and PSA dating. Truly awful. Elvis cards labeled 1950 when he was 12 or 13. Sets issued over four albums across eight years all designated 1969, creating the artificial appearance of first cards for some performers. The great thing about PSA is they just ignore the very knowledgeable people who communicate these errors.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

G1911

"Most valuable player in 1948" was awarded to Lou in December 1948. This LEAF set was definitely issued in the Spring of 1949.


Incidentally, Boudreau is featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

That’s exactly my point