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

[tedzan]

I'm starting this discussion with these 2 examples. Yogi Berra and Joe Garagiola grew up neighbors on the same street in St. Louis. Their Major League careers both
started in 1946, after their Military service during WWII.

I find it interesting that Berra's 1948 BOWMAN card; and, Garagiola's 1951 BOWMAN card have been identified as their "Rookie" cards. But, not these 1947 TIP TOP
Bread cards. And in Berra's case, he is also featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD set. So, I don't understand why these 1947 cards are not considered their real Rookie
cards. Perhaps, some of you on this forum can explain what is going on here ?
Incidentally, the 1947 TIP TOP Bread cards were issued from the East coast to St. Louis. It is indeed a major set.

Furthermore, there are a number of Pre-war (and early Post-war) cards in the hobby, where the first Major League card of a player is not considered his Rookie card.
I leave it up to you to identify them. Also, post them, if you have them


. .


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This Feller card predates his 38 Goudey but I don't think it's generally recognized as a RC (or the other 37 issues).

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't have one but the 1946 Propagandas Musial is not generally considered a RC.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I find it interesting that Berra's 1948 BOWMAN card; and, Garagiola's 1951 BOWMAN card have been identified as their "Rookie" cards. But, not these 1947 TIP TOP
Bread cards. And in Berra's case, he is also featured in the 1947 BOND BREAD set. So, I don't understand why these 1947 cards are not considered their real Rookie
cards. Perhaps, some of you on this forum can explain what is going on here ?
Incidentally, the 1947 TIP TOP Bread cards were issued from the East coast to St. Louis. It is indeed a major set.

It sounds like we just disagree on the definition of a major set. I may be remembering it wrong, but weren't these cards regional issues? They may have been issued from the East Coast to St Louis, but I seem to recall that each region got its own team cards, not the entire set.

The Propagandas set is, similarly, not a major set...though I collect it and, in fact, have the Musial card, which serves for his RC in my collection.

In either case, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the collecting community to anoint the cards as THE official RCs. But I think they are awesome and would be happy to have them....

As for other cards, the 1946-47 Caramelo Deportivo Minnie Minoso. The earliest Minoso I have, but there might be other small issues.

[dougscats]

Here's Phil Garry's list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141603

It needs to be updated, but it's always been my favorite for HoF'ers.

He agrees with you, Ted, on Yogi. and with Peter on Feller.

The thread also contains info on how/why some self-appointed authorities have different standards for RC's.

[drcy]

The "major national set" rule was when most people collected Topps. It's an out of date rule. There's no reason "other" cards can't be considered "real" rookie cards, other than antiquated convention.

[G1911]

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems to me the "major set" standard only exists for $$$. When dealers and Beckett made RC's a thing in the 1980's, the point was to make money off them by elevating the values of some cards. It worked very well and created the huge hobby spike and subsequent crash in the 80's and early 90's. But this doesn't work well if the card whose value is being raised is a tough card few people have. The rules are never consistent, because a consistent standard would escalate value on the wrong cards sometimes. By the "national standard" that excludes almost everything but Topps and Bowman in the post-war vintage era, I'm not sure any card before the late 1940's meets the standard. I'm not sure even T206 was a truly national issue. Many will claim Exhibits are not rookies, but the unauthorized and illegal 1949 Leaf's are, even the 2nd series cards that had a very limited geographical distribution.

I can see the excitement of a rookie card in having the first card of a player, even if I personally don't care about them (I'd rather have Bob Gibson in 1968 at the peak of his career than in 1959). I don't really get the excitement in having a "RC" of a player when it's like his 15th actual card, or why they still carry such a huge premium for a card sometimes issued years after his actual first cards. The first card of a player that is very easy to get or scores more points on a registry list doesn't seem as fun as the first actual card.

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I thought that Trout is not considered a RC because it was a minor league card in that he hadn't yet appeared in a ML uniform/made a ML roster. Appearing in a ML uniform is a contractual requirement for an official RC logo, no? I don't think it had anything to do with quantity. Lots of short prints have RC logos. Lots of what they now call super short prints do too.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by drcy

The "major national set" rule was when most people collected Topps. It's an out of date rule. There's no reason "other" cards can't be considered "real" rookie cards, other than antiquated convention.

I agree. Beckett made the rule, whether or not some collectors helped contribute to the rule is unknown, but ultimately Beckett made that determination.

The reasoning of "it must be in a national issued set so more people could sell it/collect it", doesn't really mean anything or add any value to it. It seems more like applying artificial importance, adding a contrived value.

Paying more for a card simply because Beckett proclaimed it his true rookie seems rather silly.

It does make sense to pay more for a card because it is more rare than the 'Beckett decreed Rookie'. Hence why 1984 fleer updates sell for more than any of his 1985 rookies(which Beckett decress as the true rookie).

Ultimately, everyone has a shot at any card anyway, regardless if it is regional issue or not. The internet pretty much made regional issues irrelevant anyway. They are ALL available to anyone....just have to pony up the money.

In the end, buy the better card. Cards can have many appealing attributes that can contribute to the desire to own one, with scarcity being one of them. Just because the collecting community is unaware of these cards that pre-date the 'Beckett rookies', doesn't make them non rookies. It makes them diamonds in the rough ...diamonds made before the 'Beckett Rookies'.

So if someone wants to call the 1985 Donruss Roger Clemens his true rookie card....who cares, it doesn't mean you have to listen to them. If thats what they want to call it, so be it. You are just as welcome to call the 1984 Fleer update his true rookie card.

Learning about new rookie cards existence should be a delight to collectors who have only listened to the 'maintstream' explanation. That grows the hobby too, and is far more appealing to many who have only known the stuff that is common to find.

[packs]

Here's Jackie's true rookie. This card should be infinitely more iconic than it is, considering it was the first time in history an African American player ever appeared in a major league uniform on a baseball card:

[brianp-beme]

This W514 card of Ross Youngs for many years flew under the radar because of its player identification on the card as 'Pep Young'.

Brian

[Casey2296]

Fun discussion, let’s talk Mel Ott, is his rookie card the Goblin Merrymints OH Melville card?, only one example known and a great story, but the jury is out on an exact date, 29 Kashin?, IMO that’s his rook until proof that the Goblin was a 1927-28 issue. The hobby considers his rookie the 33 Goudey, which makes no sense to me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

Go along with rats, it has a lot to do about the money. Dealers want there to be enough rookie cards so they can sell them as rookies and charge more to make more. If an earlier issue like Tip Top Bread would have ended up being recognized from day one as a player's rookie card, instead of a later Bowman card, those Bowman "rookies" wouldn't be worth anywhere near what they are today. And since Tip Top cards are a lot scarcer than Bowman cards, there would have been far fewer "rookie" cards for dealers to sell at an elevated price.

Seem to remember this debate from way back when the Beckett price guides used to list Ruth's Goudeys as his rookie cards if I remember correctly. Haven't looked in a Beckett price guide for 15-20 years, do they still claim a '33 Goudey as his rookie? For cryin' out loud, he came up in 1915 with the Red Sox, was in an unbelievable number of sets over the ensuing years, but doesn't have a rookie card till his 19th season in the majors?!?!?! Give me a break!!! Always felt that was a major reason the Goudey Ruths have always been so expensive. It's not like '33 Goudey Ruths are particularly scarce and hard to find either. I've always felt they are significantly overpriced as a residual effect coming from this misapplication of what the definition of a "rookie" card is. Take a look at any other ballplayer, especially ones from the modern Bowman-Topps era, and compare the value of their 1st and 2nd year cards with those of their 19th season, and tell me how they differ. I know it is not a perfect comparison, and we are talking about Ruth and the very popular Goudey set, but the Goudey Ruths still seem disproportionately high to me. And I believe that still has a lot to do with the old definition of what was a "rookie" card from back when the Beckett guides were fueling the card collecting popularity as it was taking off.

Plus, don't know if this was a factor or not, but Beckett sold an awful lot of those monthly price guide magazines back in the day. Well, they only had a limited number of pages to work with and list their price guide info on. So when it came to the earlier years, they wouldn't want to take the time and trouble (and cost) to list all the sets and issues we are aware of nowadays thanks to things like the internet, the SCD catalogs, and overall increased collector interest in the more obscure/regional sets over time. So when Beckett would just list a few of the old sets (like T206 and '33 Goudey) in those price guides, I often wondered if they didn't push their definition of what a "rookie" card was so they could make the few vintage sets they selected for their price guide magazines look more important and valuable with more "rookie" cards in them. And that would also be more helpful to dealers when they would just show a potential customer at a card show/shop the page in the price guide and say, "See, it's worth more because it's his rookie."

[Lorewalker]

Designation of some rookie cards seems to be determined by each individual's definition and is a moving target. In both of Ted's examples I would consider them to be rookie cards but most traditional collectors would not. I have a broad definition of what is considered a "rookie card."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, the definition was to grow the hobby. What is the point of having a "card to have" of a player if few could own it? That is why it must be from a nationally issued set. A rookie card should be available to the majority of collectors.

The definition is not antiquated. It is very much alive with current rookies. In 2006 the rule was further refined to exclude cards such as the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout as rookie cards to make rookie cards again more available to collectors. It is good for the hobby that the game's best player has a RC in the mass produced 2011 Topps Traded set instead of a short printed Bowman Chrome Autograph. The growth of the hobby over the last few years has been fueled by the easy availability of modern rookie cards.

I agree the definition was to "grow the hobby". By escalating prices and increasing demand, and it worked. As I specifically said. We don't seem to be saying a different thing here, I just don't think it's good and you do.

Usually, a "card to have" is not the easiest card to get in other areas of the hobby. Wagner is the "card to have" in T206 because it is so rare and a super star. Lajoie is the "card to have" in 1933 Goudey because it is so rare (relatively) and a super star. I don't see why a rookie card is different or why it must be available to everyone, especially for cards issued when not a single person cared about rookie cards because they were not a thing that had been invented, from a collector perspective. I am fully aware it is great from an investor/dealer/business perspective because if it is limited to major Topps cards and the like, it is easier to profit from and drive up if this is so. Which is also why the definition is not very consistently applied.

I wasn't the one who said it was antiquated. I am fully aware that readily available easy to get rookies with hundreds listed at a time on eBay are one of the reasons of "growth of the hobby", by which we seem to mean value increases. I completely understand it from a business side, I don't understand it form a collector side, why I should pay exponentially more for some card that is often not a players first because it's his 'first card some in the general hobby has arbitrarily decided matters'. It's great for dealers, it's great for investors, I personally don't see the appeal as a collector.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by packs

Here's Jackie's true rookie. This card should be infinitely more iconic than it is, considering it was the first time in history an African American player ever appeared in a major league uniform on a baseball card:

Packs

Do we know which Jackie Robinson card was issued first....the regular issue 1947 BOND BREAD card shown here, or his special series of 13 cards (example, your scan) ?

I remember pulling the regular issue cards from BOND Bread packages in the Fall of 1947.

The special series cards of Jackie were never available in our neighborhood in Hillside, NJ.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[packs]

This article from Beckett features an image of a Bond Bread advertisement with the portrait card featured prominently in an issue of a Baltimore newspaper. The date is August 17, 1947. I don't know when your Bond Bread set officially came out but the portrait card was available at least as early as August of 1947.

https://www.beckett.com/news/1947-ja...on-bond-bread/

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by packs

This article from Beckett features an image of a Bond Bread advertisement with the portrait card featured prominently in an issue of a Baltimore newspaper. The date is August 17, 1947. I don't know when your Bond Bread set officially came out but the portrait card was available at least as early as August of 1947.

https://www.beckett.com/news/1947-ja...on-bond-bread/

Thanks Packs.... for that dateline.

I am not certain of when in 1947 the regular issue (48 cards) were available. I do remember that I was trading them with my schoolmates in the Fall of 1947.

The Joe Gordon card has him in a Yankees uniform. Joe was traded to the Indians on Oct 11, 1946. This fact appears to suggest that the regular set of BOND
BREAD cards were more likely issued early in 1947 (possibly coinciding with the start of the BB season).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree the definition was to "grow the hobby". By escalating prices and increasing demand, and it worked. As I specifically said. We don't seem to be saying a different thing here, I just don't think it's good and you do.

Usually, a "card to have" is not the easiest card to get in other areas of the hobby. Wagner is the "card to have" in T206 because it is so rare and a super star. Lajoie is the "card to have" in 1933 Goudey because it is so rare (relatively) and a super star. I don't see why a rookie card is different or why it must be available to everyone, especially for cards issued when not a single person cared about rookie cards because they were not a thing that had been invented, from a collector perspective. I am fully aware it is great from an investor/dealer/business perspective because if it is limited to major Topps cards and the like, it is easier to profit from and drive up if this is so. Which is also why the definition is not very consistently applied.

I wasn't the one who said it was antiquated. I am fully aware that readily available easy to get rookies with hundreds listed at a time on eBay are one of the reasons of "growth of the hobby", by which we seem to mean value increases. I completely understand it from a business side, I don't understand it form a collector side, why I should pay exponentially more for some card that is often not a players first because it's his 'first card some in the general hobby has arbitrarily decided matters'. It's great for dealers, it's great for investors, I personally don't see the appeal as a collector.

Agree with what you're saying. But to possibly explain this from the collectors side, the surge and growth in the hobby really started and took off in the 80's, fueled by the baby boomers who started collecting as kids about the same time as Bowman and Topps began. So they all had this sunconscious thinking that all normal sets with rookie cards should be just like those early Topps and Bowman sets. Thing is, before Topps and Bowman started up, no card manufacturer/distributor ever really produced cards in an annual and easily identifiable set format, with new and unique images every year, and kept producing new sets covering basically the entire major league, year after year after year. The '33 and '34 Goudey sets are very similar to what Topps and Bowman were doing, especially if they had continued making Goudey sets like those for many more years. Feel that is a big part of why those Goudey sets are so popular today.

So those baby boomer collectors may have subconsciously been defining what sets constituted appropriate ones from which rookie cards could come, based on the Topps and Bowman sets they grew up collecting as kids. And that could be a big part of explaining why so many collectors only considered sets like those Goudey sets to be eligible to have player's rookie card in them.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that Trout is not considered a RC because it was a minor league card in that he hadn't yet appeared in a ML uniform/made a ML roster. Appearing in a ML uniform is a contractual requirement for an official RC logo, no? I don't think it had anything to do with quantity. Lots of short prints have RC logos. Lots of what they now call super short prints do too.

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Fact? Honestly you are the only person on this thread who thinks Puckett's rookie is 85 not 84. Perhaps we should take a poll?

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

So it is then a contrived rule to add value to Puckett's second year cards from 1985.

Puckett clearly had a baseball card that came out in 1984. His rookie card. Forcing a contrived money making rule down the throats of buyers isn't exactly a compelling argument to decree his 1985 cards his rookie cards when he clearly had a baseball card in 1984.

I think more and more people are seeing well beyond the illogical and thinking for themselves now...and realize that the 1984 Fleer card is his first card.

In the end, the 1984 Fleer Update is a better card and more scarce, and that is really what matters anyway, rookie card or not.

PS. It doesn't bother me a bit though when 1985 cards are considered his rookie cards too. In reality, they are his first cards that fit the typical contrived definition, while the 1984 Fleer Update fits in the logical more compelling definition. They can both be classified as rookie cards that way.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

No, it is because Upper Deck, Fleer and Donruss/Playoff were upset that their products wouldn't sell because they had no rookies in them. Topps was using the hobby definition of rookie card to create a new monopoly. So MLB stepped in to again make a players rookie card more accessable to the average collector.

We have had unprecedented growth in the hobby over the last few years. Products are selling out at retail stores. It is because collectors are chasing after rookie cards of young stars, Acuna, Soto, Tatis, Ohtani, Guerrero, etc. That has filtered down into vintage cards.

The hobby took off in the 80s because kids could go to the grocery/drug store or card shop and pull a Darryl Strawberry RC out of 1984 Topps or Dwight Gooden RC out of 1985 Topps. If they had walked into my card shop and I had tried to tell them that wasn't a rookie card, you had to buy this $10 traded card, they would have left and never come back.

The definition of rookie card is what it is. I don't understand why a few people want to change it. If it were to be changed, who gets to make that decision? The majority of collectors, collect modern cards. It has always been that way. The vast majority want an inclusive definition. You calling the 1984 Fleer Update Kirby Puckett's RC is never going to change the fact that his 1985 Topps, Donruss and Fleer cards are his rookie cards.

But by your own definition, once traded sets were more widely distributed, they WERE rookie cards. So kids could never buy a pack with a Pedro Martinez rookie, a Nomar rookie, a Mike Piazza rookie, I could keep going. So what? They chased other stuff including chase cards.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fact? Honestly you are the only person on this thread who thinks Puckett's rookie is 85 not 84. Perhaps we should take a poll?

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are about a trillion 1986 Barry Bonds cards out there between Topps Traded, Fleer Update, and Donruss Rookies. Does anyone except James Beckett seriously maintain that 1987s are his rookie cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Need some pictures.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by G1911

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

Correct as well. That was in place even before Topps came onto the scene.

[ledsters]

Regional cards are some of the best rookie cards. Limited quantities and many times different size than the regular issue. My favorite is the 1978 Family Fun Centers Ozzie Smith RC….
AB6C810A-435E-42F3-863F-8EF2B310FA09.jpg

[tedzan]

Here's a classic example of a player's "unrecognized" Pre-war rookie card, which was over-shadowed by a post-war so-called "rookie" card (1948 BOWMAN Rizzuto).




NOTE.... the two 1949 cards of Rizzuto just happen to be on the same scan as the 1941 Double Play card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Here's a classic example of a player's "unrecognized" Pre-war rookie card, which was over-shadowed by a post-war so-called "rookie" card (1948 BOWMAN Rizzuto).




NOTE.... the two 1949 cards of Rizzuto just happen to be on the same scan as the 1941 Double Play card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Spot on. That Rizzuto example is perfect. The hobby needs more information like this out in the mainstream.

Jackie Robinson has a few cards that pre-date his recognized leaf rookie card. The Bond cards, the Swell Sport Thrills, etc....pre-date and are great cards hardly anyone knows about.

Great thread showing these.

PSA won't do an article on all these cards that pre-date the Beckett recognized Rookie cards. It probably doesn't help their bottom line. It doesn't make the earlier rookie cards any less of a rookie though.

I don't think 'anyone' in general knows about the 1946 Minoso card talked about above. How do treasures like that go almost completely unnoticed to the collecting masses?

There is no harm in recognizing more than one rookie card.....especially pre-1950 where cards and sets were more unique in their production/appearance/ than what is made in more modern times. But it all leads back to the sort of silly notion of having a 'true rookie card'. The cards have merit that go beyond that definition and that is what really matters.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here is a rather extreme example from basketball where there were no mainstream cards issued for 7 straight years, do you want a 1963 Jerry Lucas or a 1969 Jerry Lucas for your rookie? Similar choice for 1951 Berk Ross or 1957 Topps Bob Cousy.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here is a rather extreme example from basketball where there were no mainstream cards issued for 7 straight years, do you want a 1963 Jerry Lucas or a 1969 Jerry Lucas for your rookie? Similar choice for 1951 Berk Ross or 1957 Topps Bob Cousy.

Easy, the earlier cards for both. Collectors may say that Cousy is in a college uniform on the Berk Ross card so it isn't a rookie card. He was a professional player in 1950 already, so when that set came out in 1951 he was clearly a professional player, so whether he was depicted in his pro uniform, college uniform, or naked...its still his rookie card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ichiro is an interesting question, 1993 Japanese major league cards or 2001 US cards?

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ichiro is an interesting question, 1993 Japanese major league cards or 2001 US cards?

Wasn't there a bit of controversy over him winning Rookie of the Year, despite having played several years in Japan? I seem to remember the Japanese press felt slighted when him and Hideo Nomo received the award.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

No need to ding the 52 Mantle since the 51 Bowman was his rookie.

[packs]

My Ichiro rookie (maybe?):

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah I think there are three 1993 Japanese Ichiros, the Takara I posted, the Tomy, and the more common BBM.

[Kidnapped18]

People can call a card what ever they want but calling a Rookie Card when it clearly is not doesn't make it so...generally to me a Rookie Card is the players first card(s) issued at or very close to their MLB debut year
If a player debuted in 1933 and a card was made in 1933 that would be his Rookie Card and subsequent years 1934, 1935 etc would not be Rookie Cards

If a player debuted in 1933 but his first card was made in 1934 then that would be his Rookie Card

If a player debuted in 1933 but his first card was made in 1953 then I would say the player has no Rookie Card

1951 Bowman is Mantle's rookie card, the 1952 Topps is not, it is simply his first Topps card

Players can have multiple Rookie Cards ie Ken Griffey Jr's 1989 Bowman/1989 Donruss/1989 Score/1989 Upper Deck etc.

Modern Rookie Cards should be clearer with a few exceptions such as Ichiro
I would consider his 2001 US cards as his Rookie Cards since that was his first year in MLB
I would not consider his Japanese cards as Rookie Cards since he was not in MLB

Vintage Rookie Cards can be more problematic since players could have played a few years before a card was ever issued

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Fun discussion, let’s talk Mel Ott, is his rookie card the Goblin Merrymints OH Melville card?, only one example known and a great story, but the jury is out on an exact date, 29 Kashin?, IMO that’s his rook until proof that the Goblin was a 1927-28 issue. The hobby considers his rookie the 33 Goudey, which makes no sense to me.

I'm partial to this one for Ott:

[GeoPoto]

1931 Washington Team Issue

Joseph E. "Joe" Cronin. Shortstop for the Washington Senators in 1928-1934 and the Boston Red Sox in 1935-1945. 2,285 hits and 170 home runs in 20 MLB seasons. He had a career OBP of .390. He was a 7-time All Star. Boston Red Sox #4 retired. Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame. In 1956, he was inducted to the MLB Hall of Fame.

Cronin's best season was probably 1930 for Washington as he posted a .422 OBP with 127 runs scored and 127 RBI's on 686 plate appearances. He managed the Washington Senators in 1933-1934 and the Boston Red Sox in 1935-1947. He was General Manager of the Boston Red Sox in 1948-1958. He was president of the American League in 1959-1973. When he left the Red Sox in 1959, they were the only MLB team without a black player. He and team owner Tom Yawkey are generally viewed as responsible for this injustice which ended six months after Cronin's departure.

Excerpt from Cronin's SABR biography: When the Cronin's landed in California, Joe had an urgent message to call Griffith. The news was a shock. Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey had offered $250,000 plus Lyn Lary for Cronin, and had agreed to sign Joe to a five-year contract as player-manager at $30,000 per year. It only needed Cronin’s OK. Joe realized what this would mean for Griffith, and also for himself and his new wife. He told Griffith to take the deal.

Two hundred fifty thousand dollars? In 1934, during the height of the Great Depression, this was an unfathomable sum. Cronin was the Alex Rodriguez of his time — his purchase price and contract became part of his identity. Stories about Cronin long after he had retired mentioned his 1934 purchase price.

When Cronin joined the Red Sox, dubbed the “Gold Sox” or the “Millionaires” by the nation’s press corps, the club was expected to win. When they did not win, the fans and press around the country typically blamed the high-priced help, including Cronin. Even worse, many of the veteran players Yawkey had acquired — ornery men like Wes Ferrell, Lefty Grove, and Bill Werber — did not like or respect their manager.

In July 1936, Ferrell called Cronin to the mound and told him he would not throw another pitch until the pitcher warming up in the bullpen sat down. A month later he stormed off the mound and back to his hotel room after a Cronin error. When informed by a reporter of his $1,000 fine, he shot back, “Is that so? Well, that isn’t the end of this. I’m going to punch Cronin in the jaw as soon as I see him.” A month later, Werber cursed at Cronin during a game and was ordered off the field. Cronin was not yet 30 years old when all this was going on.

Yawkey and general manager Eddie Collins were no help. Lefty Grove hunted and drank with the owner, who looked the other way when his star pitcher openly blasted Cronin in the press. Ferrell apparently never paid his fine for storming off the mound. The Red Sox continued to acquire controversial veterans, players who had had trouble with managers over their careers, and invariably they caused trouble with Cronin. When Collins finally succeeded in dealing Ferrell (along with his brother Rick, who caused no trouble) in 1937, the club acquired Bobo Newsom and Ben Chapman, two of the bigger managerial challenges in the game.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1624274039
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1624274047
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1624274053

[maniac_73]

So since Mike Trouts 2011 Topps was in Update does that make his 2012 Topps his true Rookie?

Personally I feel his 2009 Tristar Prospects card is his Rookie but only because thats the one I have lol

[darwinbulldog]

I'm just here to remind everyone that Derek Jeter was the 1996 Rookie of the Year.

[Scocs]

Don’t have a picture handy, but a 1956 Kahn’s Weiners Frank Robinson beats out his Topps rookie by a year.

[grandcards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'm just here to remind everyone that Derek Jeter was the 1996 Rookie of the Year.

This is my favorite example that lays bare how silly even the most ardent "True RC" arguments are. As far as I can tell, there is absolute consensus that 1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card, despite the fact that he made his debut with the Yankees in 1995.

Heck, Carl Yastrzemski made his Major League debut in 1961 -- something that I didn't even know because I had always assumed it was 1960 because of his Rookie Card! (also accepted as such by consensus)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by grandcards

This is my favorite example that lays bare how silly even the most ardent "True RC" arguments are. As far as I can tell, there is absolute consensus that 1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card, despite the fact that he made his debut with the Yankees in 1995.

Heck, Carl Yastrzemski made his Major League debut in 1961 -- something that I didn't even know because I had always assumed it was 1960 because of his Rookie Card! (also accepted as such by consensus)

In 1993 MLB didn't have a rule about when players could be included in big league sets.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by grandcards

This is my favorite example that lays bare how silly even the most ardent "True RC" arguments are. As far as I can tell, there is absolute consensus that 1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card, despite the fact that he made his debut with the Yankees in 1995.

Heck, Carl Yastrzemski made his Major League debut in 1961 -- something that I didn't even know because I had always assumed it was 1960 because of his Rookie Card! (also accepted as such by consensus)

Close, but not absolute consensus. I personally make zero exceptions to the rule that a card issued in a year earlier than one's major league debut is not a rookie card. Jeter happens to have many minor league cards, and some of them happen to be popular in part because some of his minor league uniforms were indistinguishable from New York Yankee uniforms, but his MLB debut was 1995, and I (even if no one else goes along with it) regard his 1995 cards as his true rookie cards. I will die on this hill.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Close, but not absolute consensus. I personally make zero exceptions to the rule that a card issued in a year earlier than one's major league debut is not a rookie card. Jeter happens to have many minor league cards, and some of them happen to be popular in part because some of his minor league uniforms were indistinguishable from New York Yankee uniforms, but his MLB debut was 1995, and I (even if no one else goes along with it) regard his 1995 cards as his true rookie cards. I will die on this hill.

It's logical but the hobby consensus at the time was first card in a big league set. Thus the 93 Jeters, 92 Mariano, and many more from that era.