Why don't more people collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards?

[bcbgcbrcb]

It seems like this venture was a lot more popular a few years ago (Hal Lewis, Sergio Delgado, Dan Paradis, Andy Baran, etc.), why do you think interest has waned over the past few years? Aside from the same few people that always respond to posts on this subject (Derek, David, Ken, Jimi), it seems that either no one else really cares or no one else has anything relevant to add.

I was really hoping that all of the research and work that I did together with Lyman Hardemenn a couple of years ago on the OldCardboard webpage would shed some light on the subject and provide answers to a lot of questions as to what constitutes a player's rookie card, particularly on the pre-war side. My thought process was that the more knowledgable people become about a subject, the more they will gravitate towards it.

Do you feel that this area of the hobby still has a lot of room for future growth?

[David W]

I think a lot of people collect post WW2 rookie cards, but the pre WW2 cards are too expensive and/or rare so to get the majority of them is very difficult and/or expensive.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Valid point, David.

My question in response to that is:

Do many more people collect post-war because they are much more affordable, like you said, or is it really that those cards are defined with an "RC" designation in the card catalogues and it is easy to identify which card(s) to go after? My fear is that the answer to that question is much more often the latter. It was for this reason, that I spent so much time trying to come up with a definitive list for pre-war collectors.

The rarity aspect definitely comes into play, to me the greater the challenge, the more rewarding the accomplishment is in the end. To me, if it is too easy, it's kind of like the type-card collector who only collects mainstream issues, where would the challenge in that be?

[egbeachley]

When Rookie Card's became the "in-thing" in the 80's, it seemed like an obvious ploy to raise prices for the dealers. But then it turned out to lower interest in non-rookies.

For the most part, pre-war collectors don't fall for this artificial standard and just collect cards that they like and/or are rare in their own rights.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I don't really agree with the reason behind the rookie card pricing rise during the '80's. I feel that it was much more a case of the collectors hoarding these in large quantities similar to investing your money in as much stock of each company as you could afford, thus cutting down available supply in the market which drove up prices. I'm sure that the greedy dealers had their part in it as well, but I think it was the "collector as investor" philosophy that drove it, at least initially.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I remember hearing about that PSA registry set coming out, Gary. I have to say that I treated it like a joke, obviously, some not too knowledgable effort went into putting that together. I'm not sure why they could not come up with something better, they could have always asked people with more expertise in that area.

[botn]

I collect hall of fame rookie cards. One of the things I wrestle with for pre war is how to define "rookie card." Is it the first issue in which the player appeared? Can it be a minor league issue? Must it have been nationally distributed? Must the issue feature just the player or can it be a team shot? I am an advocate for professional grading so must the item be something recognized (able to receive a grade and be holdered) by PSA or SGC?

The other element, which poses a problem, is that sometimes the "rookie card" is far from the most pleasing of issues for the player.

By the way, Phil, your list is valuable and I refer to it often when considering my acquisitions. So thank you for providing that to the hobby.

[Exhibitman]

+1 on many of the above points, and would add that with the nature of prewar card issues it seems silly to discuss 'rookie' cards when so many players have minor league issues, postcards, regional issues, foreign cards, regional premiums and arcade cards that predate the supposed 'rookie' cards. Take the Zeenuts, which I as a west coast collector find especially interesting. I lost all interest in 'rookie' cards when some people touting rookie card collecting discounted the Zeenuts of DiMaggio, Cochrane, Heilmann, the Waners, Vance, etc. The whole idea of a rookie is supposed to the the guy's first card, right? Well, if there are several professional baseball player cards that predate the rookie card, doesn't the whole thing then seem a bit pointless? If you stop and think about it, half the country had no MLB before the war, so the whole MLB thing itself was really a regional thing until after WWII. And what about the black guys who were barred from playing but who had cards issued in Latin America and had local postcards? Where do you fit them in? Separately but equally? Hardly seems right. And if their cards are rookies, why not the aforementioned cards of the guys who got the MLB chance?

The other issue I have is that the people who are most into the debate over the 'rookie' card often seem to be more interested in touting their own holdings as the 'rookie' card than anything else. There's marketing and scholarship, and they aren't necessarily the same things. I wish I could tout an R315 O'Doul as his rookie but how can I when I'm holding a trio of earlier Zeenuts?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Greg:

You really understand the challenges facing this type of collection. For what it's worth, I'll share my viewpoint on each of your questions even though they were probably meant to be rhetorical:

I would agree that the rookie card would be the first issue that the player appeared as a Major Leaguer.

I would categorize minor league issues separately, using the term, pre-rookie or prookie for short.

No requirment for a set to be nationally distributed to be a rookie card.

No team cards count as rookie cards, I typically set the limit at 4 players as Topps has done that traditionally with their rookie cards over the years. This should not be too controversial as there is rarely a card that falls between a full team card and a 4-player card.

I too strongly prefer a TPG (PSA, SGC or BGS) as they add additional legitimacy to the item, although grading detractors will tell you otherwise.

You're right, a particular rookie card may not be the most attractive card of a particular player (see 1920's strip cards for example) but it is what it is.


Lastly, thank you for the kind words.

[Runscott]

I can buy a whole lot of T206's with the money I would have spent on only a few HOF rookie cards.

[packs]

I feel like its less important. I'd like to have any Ty Cobb card. I don't really care if its his rookie card. Same goes for Ruth and Gehrig. For most post-war HOFers their rookie card is their only card of value, which is why it would be more widely collected.

[glchen]

I think most people don't collect prewar HOF RC's because it's too expensive and rare. Last year, someone tried to come up with a complete HOF rookie card set for the PSA Set Registry. However, many of the card are obviously not rookie cards (e.g., 1933 Goudey for Ruth). However, most of the post-war cards are the correct rookies. I think the creator was going by the Beckett guide for rookies using the "nationwide set" definition, and also trying to make the set more obtainable. The set composition is here: Link, and there are already 17 sets on the registry, so it's gained traction relatively quickly. That's why I think that there is some interest for this kind of set. There should be interest in a better list than this registry, but probably would just need to be published somewhere like the PSA, SGC, or Beckett registries to become more popular. For example, even the Top 250 Sportscards set on PSA (Link has some active collectors trying to complete the set even though there are some very expensive cards on that list such as the T206 Wagner, T210 Jackson, and Baltimore News Ruth. (Spence is at 98% completion for this set.)

[ullmandds]

Personally... Rookie card collecting Has never really interested me... Especially in regards to vintage For some of the reasons already stated. The cost is definitely prohibitive In many cases...as is the supply. Additionally... I don't like the idea of being bound To one card of a given player... I would much prefer the card That appeals to me the most on an aesthetic level. Also the whole prookie/rookie debate turns me off too!

To me it is like Leon's quest for a complete acc type set...an incredible Accomplishment... But beyond the means Of most.

[deadballfreaK]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Personally... Rookie card collecting Has never really interested me... Especially in regards to vintage For some of the reasons already stated. The cost is definitely prohibitive In many cases...as is the supply. Additionally... I don't like the idea of being bound To one card of a given player... I would much prefer the card That appeals to me the most on an aesthetic level. Also the whole prookie/rookie debate turns me off too!

To me it is like Leon's quest for a complete acc type set...an incredible Accomplishment... But beyond the means Of most.

+1 I have never gotten the rookie card thing.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

[z28jd]

It seems like the older the card/player, the less I care about getting his rookie card. The break point is probably the start of the Topps era. Never really thought about why, but I can't think off-hand of any pre-52 rookie that I wanted because it was a rookie. On the other hand, I can think of tons of HOF players that I wanted their rookie. Some I still haven't got around to buying like Steve Carlton

[glchen]

My opinion on one of the reasons for that is the lack of consensus for some of the prewar rookie cards. For example, Ty Cobb has something like 5+ rookie cards. If there is consensus and some set rules that collectors can agree with, then I think they would be more popular for prewar. For example, modern cards often have multiple rookie cards for a player also. However, I think the rule is something like the most valuable card for that player with a print run greater than XYZ. (That way certain short prints won't be included.) For example, I think right now, there is general agreement among that M101-5/4 is Ruth's rookie card, so auction houses have commonly advertised this when selling these cards. Same thing with the 1925 Exhibits Gehrig (sorry, Adam).

[bcbgcbrcb]

As an aside, I have asked Bob Lemke if I could forward him a list of pre-war rookies that a small group of us worked on a couple of years ago. The intent is to label those with the "Rookie" designation in the SCBC. The answer was "no" because the topic is too controversial. Well, it's going to remain controversial until someone defines it.

[paul]

Phil's original question was why interest in HOF rookie collecting has diminished in the last few years. I always thought the reason for this was the HOF election of 2006. When all those Negro Leaguers were elected, many people lost hope of getting the rookie card of each HOFer. The rookies of Pete Hill and Jose Mendez are in the Punch set. Good luck finding them. Biz Mackey is no walk in the park either. I think this discouraged a lot of people.

The lack of consensus over what is a rookie card is also a factor. But that factor was present even in the hey day of HOF rookie collecting.

[Kenny Cole]

Paul, Pete Hill's "rookie" (or first card as I would define it) is actually in the Cabanas set. The Cabanas were issued a year earlier than the Punch set if I understand things correctly.

[oldjudge]

I have never understood the hoopla about rookie cards. I agree with an earlier poster that it was just a vehicle for some dealers to charge more for them. For me, I would think that a collection of one card, regardless of the year but issued during the player's active playing days, of each HOFer would be a nice collection. I don't like the '51 Bowman Mantle but I do like the '52 and '56 Topps cards, so that would be what I got. I would get the Collins McCarthy Ruth rather than the M101 card. I would get the Goudey Gehrig and the Zeenut DiMaggio.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

This is a very difficult topic to discuss in regards to what specifies a 'rookie card'. I know my definition, or collecting niche you can call it, is that I consider the first card of a player in a mainstream set. That mainstream set needs to be readily available pretty much nation wide, not just a specific region or state. Obviously, a lot of players do not have this, so if I have no 'rc' for that said player, I just try to get the ealiest signed card available for that player. An example of this is Honus Wagner. There are early 1900's cards of him, non are signed to my knowledge. The earliest 'true card' signed I've seen of him is a '40 Play Ball.

In my collecting of HOF signed 'rookies', I do not consider magazine photos, or clippings to count.

But I guess the number one, most important thing is to collect what you want. Everyone has there own opinions and views on what an 'rc' is, but in regards to your own collection, it's only your opinion that matters. I know I have a TON of pre-war cards that aren't 'rc's' like my Gehrig DeLong, Rousch, and tons of others. But they will do, because I consider them to fit my set, and I'm so happy I have them. I still get chills when I see my Gehrig signed DeLong, because I never thought I would EVER even own a Gehrig autograph, or an autographed card. But that's what makes me happy, and when it's broken down to whether it's a rookie or not, in the end, you just gotta be happy with it.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

OK, Phil, basically what I envision (and I certainly would be ok being the one starting this unless someone else wants to) is developing a website that encompasses all of these issues in one location. Yes, I know there is a lot out there, but for some reason, we keep coming back to these same threads and asking virtually the same questions....so that must mean that the "super minds" of this near impossible type-card collection still have yet to come up with all the answers on all the information available.

SOOOOOO......why not develop a similar list of HOF RCs like the work you published on Oldcardboard.com (but more in-depth), add a forum for discussion much like Net54 geared towards discussing HOF related cards with a focus on RCs (but certainly other things, too, like Negro Leaguers, managers, etc.), and develop a section to where HOF collectors can post their want lists or send a direct link to their want list.

I was just telling Derek a couple days ago that we need to help each other out in our quests, but heck, that's only two people. If we can centralize a location for all of us "crazies" into one spot, we could have a group researching, trading, and conversing together. Some people will be more experts in Negro League cards, some in executives, some in 19th century and so forth.

I love the Oldcardboard.com section on the HOF stuff, but I think a lot more could be done to it. More on that later as this idea formulates.

[tedzan]

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.



. . . .


. .


TED Z

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.

TED Z

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

[HRBAKER]

Jimi,
I am aware of Phil's tireless efforts. I applaud his focus and
have contributed a scan or two. I was merely commenting
on his lamentation about the seeming lack of appeal of RC
collecting.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

Jimi

One cannot live by pre-war stuff alone

Actually, my collection comprises of cards (sets) from 1887 to 1987.

Best regards,

TED Z