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

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So we need the TPGs to decide what the RCs are and then everyone just falls in line?

Lots of room for intellectual dishonesty there. Why would a Fleer card be the rookie, not the Topps and Donruss of the same year? I personally think that makes matters worse, not better. It is a terrible idea IMO.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by glchen

My opinion is that someone just needs to make an opinion and then just go with it. For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry

Assuming you meant '87. I for one don't play the XRC/RC game with the 80-current releases. For me it's the '86 Sportflics for Larkin. I do have all the '87 releases anyways though. Same for Puckett and Clemens(yeah I know he's not a HOFer). '85 doesn't quite cut it for me, with the '84 fleer updates out there. Which I don't have. I do have the '85's though, but won't count them as RC's..

postwar-79, there's a few exceptions where oddball or local releases may pre-date the traditional RC...I generally accept the hobby standard on those(with some exceptions, like '48 bowman Feller, that's not even close to a damn rookie)..

Pre-war things get even murkier, and I generally just play it by ear. Phil's RC list, combined with the "earliest collectible" list serve as a pretty solid reference.. I reference those lists more than I do anything else in this hobby..

As far as the PSA registry, their list is a joke.

I think a website devoted to them would be a good idea. Maybe some of Phil's(or other's) lists, discussions and photobucket/whatever links. Hell, compile it's own rankings based on completion %.

BTW, right now I'm really enjoying Derek's HOF rookie Image event page..

[glchen]

Oops, yep, I had a typo and meant 1987 Fleer Larkin.

In regards to the TPG deciding the rookie cards, I am just saying IMHO someone has to decide it. The rookie card discussion has been percolating for a few years. It has to move forward some time. If not the TPG's, then the standard guides should specify the rookie cards. Phil has his list, and it's on oldcardboard also, but it's not widely distributed in the hobby. It's basically just on this board who really know about it. If the hobby or the guides say this is the list, I think there will be a greater following for the list.

In regards to intellectual dishonesty, it is not truly that PSA (or another TPG) is creating the list. What happens is that some knowledgeable collector submits the list to PSA, and then they approve it. I think if Phil were to say to the board, this is the list that I am submitting to PSA for the All Time Hall of Fame Rookie list, people can comment on it like they already have for his other thread that gave a list already. If there are any disagreements, then Phil can make some small tweaks taking into account everyone's opinion. Then he can take that list, and publish it to the PSA, SGC, and Beckett boards, and again take feedback. After this is done, then he can submit that final list to the TPG's, and point to these threads and say that he compiled this list, and this is the work that went into it. He published the proposed list on these respected forums, and after taking the feedback, made the appropriate changes. Therefore, this list is as intellectually honest as any HOF Rookie list is going to be, and then hopefully, the TPG's can publish those lists into their registries. Hopefully, then SCD and the Beckett guides can follow and designate the rookies the same way. Again, not everyone collects rookies. Many people prefer key cards or other ways of collecting. However, for those who do, I think they would appreciate this comprehensive list to use.

Phil, I would think to be realistic, you would need to have a list that contains cards that all 3 TPG's grade. I think in general PSA is the most restrictive since they do not grade cards greater in size than 5x7, they don't grade wrappers (so Overland Candy won't make the list), and they wouldn't grade Real Photo postcards. I am not sure about certain cabinet cards either. So, if there are certain cards that you are unsure of, I would just check the PSA pop report, and see if they have graded it. The other thing you would need to decide is whether to "eliminate" certain rookie cards because they are simple too scarce. As someone already pointed out, there is the Just So Burkett. Do you really want a list that no one can really complete? That may be more honest, but not realistic for collectors. Again, since Phil's put the most work into this, I think Phil should decide on these points and make some executive decisions.

[HRBAKER]

So it's really just a list of RC that PSA will grade? So that criteria is essentially as important as any other that a list is vetted against.

[Runscott]

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

[glchen]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So it's really just a list of RC that PSA will grade? So that criteria is essentially as important as any other that a list is vetted against.

This is just my opinion. Phil and the others on this board can comment, and make the final calls on this. It's possible that Phil can submit different lists to the different TPG's depending on the types of cards that they grade.

[novakjr]

I really don't think any of the TPGs will ever be able to put together a registry flexible enough to truly cover the subject..And I'd think pins or whatever would have to be acceptable fill ins..

Maybe just a career contemporary list. with a +(#) for years removed from the decidedly acceptable rookie card year..

Take Feller for instance. Let's say 1937 is decided(with the goudey wide pen), and someone has the 1941 double play as his card. It would then count as having a card/item of him with a +4. Compile all the +numbers at the end on top of completion %. That way even without improving your completion%, you could still improve your set/collection.. Say you're at 87% completion, with a +85, simply improving the age on that 1 card, you'd move up to 87% completion, with a +81..

maybe even create a highest possible +(#) for a player. Again, I'll use Feller as an example..If it's decided that his acceptable rookie card year is '37, and the last year he played was '56, then his max +(#) would be 19. If you don't have a card of him, then you get a default +19 until you get a qualifying card.. Compile a highest possible default number(combining ALL players) at the start..And then just subtract from there when applicable cards/items are added.

Just estimating. 300 members, at an average of 15 default years apiece. Maybe everyone starts with a max number of 4500(whatever the actual number end up being) and working towards zero.. The near impossibility of some players would basically create their own weights. You could technically have ZERO Rookies, but possibly still have the highest rated set with a number of +300

And for players with no contemporary items, you could cap it at first reasonably attainable non-contemporary card/pin/whatever).. Or just discount them alltogether..

Just some random ideas..

[glchen]

For the contact information for the 3 TPG's, I think Earl would be the contact at SGC. However, most likely, he will say that anything would need to wait until after their Registry overhaul is finished by Simple.

I think Mark is in charge of the Beckett Registry and is a board member here. Here's a link for a recent post on the Beckett Registry (Link), and he can probably comment on what process is needed to get a new set included there. They are also overhauling their registry also, so it is possible that any new sets may need to wait until they are finished.

To get a new set on PSA, you need to follow the instructions here: Link. PSA also would like a weighting for each of the cards on the list, in order to decide how tough they are to obtain. For example, on the T206 Master, a Honus Wagner would receive the maximum weight of 10, while a common would receive the lowest weight of 1. They will then take your suggested weightings and then make any changes. You may just need to take this list and email the Set Registry folks directly. (Their email is on that link.) Personally, I don't know how receptive PSA will be especially since they already published that other so-called HOF list last year. (That HOF Restricted set I pointed out earlier in the thread.) You may need to discuss it with them, and if it doesn't go well, you may even want to talk to Joe Orlando to see if you can get it by him. I know when I was trying to get some cards on the Ruth Master list, the Registry folks actually passed my comments to Joe for his decision. Here is the thread from the Collectors forum about how the HOF Restricted set got into the registry: Link and Link 2. You may be able to contact that submitter for tips on how he got the list by PSA. Not sure how receptive he may be either since this set may supersede the one he worked on.

On the scarcity issue, the T206 Master list does have the Wagner and Doyle variations, and I know other sets have cards with only a pop of 1. So again, you would have to decide just how scarce cards can be. Good luck whatever you decide!

[bcbgcbrcb]

My first reaction was that Gary's idea might bring about the best chance of getting these cards identified to the mainstream collecting public. Reading his post further, I subsequently realized his point that these rookie cards need to coincide with what the TPG's will encapsulate, otherwise, they are not going to accept the idea for their registries.

If I am correct, PSA requires an item to be catalogued in order to grade it so some postcards will work as long as they are part of a catalogued set, not possibly unique ones. I assume that cabinet cards would be the same along with CDV's. I'm not sure what their position is on something like an Overland Candy, if you say that they won't do those, I'll accept that.

As far as gearing my list towards what issues the grading companies will or will not grade, I think that is probably too restrictive and will force items to be left out because PSA or SGC choose not to grade them or do not have a holder large enough or thick enough to encapsulate them.

Maybe using Gary's idea of gaining a concensus and presenting that to the card catalogue publishers would be the best way to go. I tried once with SCD though and that went nowhere. Maybe we could try to approach Beckett first and if they like and accept it, SCD will follow. Then, maybe the grading companies will jump in.

[h2oya311]

Interesting feedback all.

I am happy with my spreadsheet (and website) that has all the cards I want/need to complete the HoF rookie / pre-rookie collection. I couldn't care less about whether someone or some TPG tells me what is or is not a player's "rookie" card.

I am okay with the lower demand for cards I'm interested in buying, so lets not over-hype rookie card collecting until I'm 90-95 % complete. Okay??

Anyway, interesting thread, ...to me at least!

[glchen]

No worries, Phil, this is up to you, whatever you decide. I was just trying to give some ideas. PSA will not grade Overland Candy. I already tried and asked them, and they rejected it. I did send these to SGC, who did grade these wrappers/cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thank you, Gary, lots of good ideas to think about.

Going back to my orignal question and assumption, it does appear that the single biggest reason that more collectors don't take on this challenge is the lack of agreement on clearly defined items to collect. Now, I just need to find the best way to get them clearly defined.........

[triwak]

Nice thread. While my focus has always been to simply obtain a period card of each HOFer, I usually will opt for the earliest card I can afford. As others have stated, I refer to Phil's Old Cardboard reference list often. Keep up the fine work!


My HOF set:
http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s290/triwak/

[paul]

Lots of folks keep mentioning Phil's Old Cardboard list, but I can't find it anymore. It used to be listed under "reference materials" or something like that on the Old Cardboard website, but now I can't find it anywhere. Has it been taken down?

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by paul

Lots of folks keep mentioning Phil's Old Cardboard list, but I can't find it anymore. It used to be listed under "reference materials" or something like that on the Old Cardboard website, but now I can't find it anywhere. Has it been taken down?

http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/rookieslist.asp

[triwak]

Paul, its still there. Middle section of OC home page, bottom right. "Reference Library."

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by triwak

Nice thread. While my focus has always been to simply obtain a period card of each HOFer, I usually will opt for the earliest card I can afford. As others have stated, I refer to Phil's Old Cardboard reference list often. Keep up the fine work!


My HOF set:
http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s290/triwak/

Nice stuff, Ken! I, too, chase the earliest I can get my hands on, but I envy those who only focus on the prewar RCs. If my pockets were deeper, I'd be doing more. It's fun, though, to slowly work my way down towards reaching their RC. So, for example, with Babe Ruth, I've gone from an '80s All-Time great card, to a '73T card, to a'62T card, to '32 Sanella, and now my '26 w511....with attempt at getting his RC in about 50 years. It's cool getting to have different cards of each HOFer while in pursuit of my lofty goal.

[novakjr]

http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/rookies/rookieslist.asp
I thinks there's a handful of updates/changes that haven't been made, but it works for easy visual reference..

and these are Phil's lists from here that I reference most often..

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

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128179

I think Phil had some other sites floating around on the net somewhere, but none that I can find anymore..

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Nice stuff, Ken! I, too, chase the earliest I can get my hands on, but I envy those who only focus on the prewar RCs. If my pockets were deeper, I'd be doing more. It's fun, though, to slowly work my way down towards reaching their RC. So, for example, with Babe Ruth, I've gone from an '80s All-Time great card, to a '73T card, to a'62T card, to '32 Sanella, and now my '26 w511....with attempt at getting his RC in about 50 years. It's cool getting to have different cards of each HOFer while in pursuit of my lofty goal.

That's pretty much how I've gone about my collection too. Started as any career contemporary, and just keep subbing in older and older cards/collectables.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Nice stuff, Ken!

Thanks, Jimi! And thanks for posting those other links, David.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by triwak

Thanks, Jimi! And thanks for posting those other links, David.

no problem, Ken.

[Iwantmorecards77]

I love collecting post-war rookies. I'm on a bit of a tight budget - so it takes me a while to pick up some from the 1960's and earlier (in decent grade.) I have all the key rookies from 1970-1999 and I enjoy those cards just as I enjoy the vintage rookies. While I enjoy looking at my Aaron, Banks, Clemente, Koufax, Jackie Robinson rookies - I also like looking at my stacks of 1982 Ripkens, 1984 Donruss Mattingly's, 1984 Fleer Update rookies, 1992 Bowman Rivera's and so forth.

Pre-war: I have a nice little collection, but I'm not too concerned with pre-war rookies as I just like to collect whatever I can.

My collection is a bit all over the place - but I enjoy it!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

Your concept falls a few feet short of the plate. I'd try not to pay that much but if I am assembling a set and the card is in the set I will have to get it to make the set. I can't very well stick a 27 in a 26 set, can I? It has nothing to do with rookie cards, it is set building.

While we're on the subject, one of the things I do like to get are postally used PCs of players in their rookie years. I recently picked up a 1957 Drysdale PC signed and mailed from Brooklyn in 1957 and a 1954 Bob Turley Baltimore team issue PC. I suppose those don't make the RC cut for some collectors but they are issues of the players that are as early as the gum cards that are treated as RCs and indisputably originate in the rookie years by virtue of the postmarks. If they're not some sort of RC then the whole exercise starts to lose its explanatory value as the exceptions eat up the rules

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I just want to mention something along the lines of what Ken & David are saying, I too began my quest by buying the earliest card of each member that I could afford and constantly tried to upgrade by going back year(s) earlier. In this manner, I learned a lot about many different players and card issues over the years and it was certainly a lot of fun.

Strictly from a financial standpoint, however, I wish now that I would have had the patience to wait for the right card at the right price to purchase the true rookie card for each member. I believe that doing it the other way cost me tons of money over the years as many times my buy and subsequent sell due to an upgrade ending up costing me money and very rarely did I make money on the switch.

That being said, collect what you enjoy.

[DanP]

There are quite a few reasons why I stopped my quest to get a RC of every MLB player:

1. Impossible: Some players only have one (i.e. Cy Young) or a few RC's

2. Expensive: When I got down to the last 20 or so, many cost $10k+

3. Moving target: I had what I believed was Rabbit Maranville's RC only to find out that there's a 1912 Boston PC. However, after reviewing the information available, most would agree that Maranville would not have been on a card in 1912 (so the card was most likely produced later than 1912, see N54 post). Or how about Tris Speaker? I lost out bidding over $2k (luckily) on his 1907-09 Novelty PC. After I lost I find out that the Novelty PC's were most likely produced after 1910. So in reality, it was no more his RC then the T206 that I already had.

4. Definition: I got tired off hearing different definitions of what is a "card"? How is a sticker or photograph called a card?

I still collect RC's but now only of players I am interested in. I only decided to get back into collecting when I built my family room and theater room. I wanted to have a sports theme for each. I'm doing more autographed baseballs and football helmets (nothing expensive), statue's (i.e. Hartland, Danbury Mint) and graded cards. I love going down into the room and just looking around.

Oh well, that's my 2 cents worth!

Phil, keep up the good work!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by glchen

The problem with the "pre-rookie" / minor league cards like the Zeenuts or even Baltimore News Ruth is that it's not limited to prewar. There are a lot of modern minor league cards floating around. I think there'd be an uproar if someone said Derek Jeter's true rookie card isn't his SP card, but is some vague minor league card of his.

That would be entirely possible especially with Jeter. I think he's one reason for Becketts narrow view of what a rookie card is.

There's the little sun High school prospects set.....only 3000 made,
Or the one from front row
Or classic
Or the other classic

All from 92 And at one time all hyped as "rookie cards"

When Beckett went to the whole nationally distributed major set it pretty much ended some of that.

Personally I always felt it was a silly defenition since there were enough sets that didn't qualify but were major manufacturer and/or nationally distributed.
I always figured it should read as
"A rookie card is a card from around the players first year in the majors that was also printed in enough quantity that dealers can ensure a ready supply"

But then, I'm occasionally a bit cynical.

Steve B

[Leon]

When I first got back into collecting as an adult, some 17 yrs ago, I collected rookie HOF'ers. I remember getting an E102 Cobb from John Spencer. It was a great card. Then the year of the set changed. Then more of the "what is a rookie card" question set in. Since I always enjoyed variety I decided to stop doing the Rookie HOF collecting and focus on type cards. That being said here is a 1938 premium with T.Williams (tall guy in back row). I still enjoy prookie and hof rookie cards but don't go after them and they aren't my focus. Plus, if I stayed with them it's not like I could have ever, in my mind, completed the set.

[steve B]

A few have mentioned the rise in prices in the 80's.

Everything rose substantially during the 80's.

Rookie cards more than most.
There actually was a reason at one time.
Most collecting pre 1980 or so was done by kids
Most of them only collected for 3 years or so.
Few players made an imediate impact.

So when kids moved on to other interests and the cards were eventually thrown out sometimes they'd save one or two. But lets say it's late 55 and you're moving......what card gets saved if you only can hide 5 or 6 from mom?
Mantle for sure, but probably not that kid in Milwaukee, or the new guy in Pittsburgh(Aaron and Clemente)

So the first Topps/Bowman cards of most players were actually a bit harder to find than those of established players.

And the hobby as it developed in the late 70's-early 80's was driven by baby boomer nostalgia. By the late 80's it was more of an easy money thing, and devolved into more of a collectable lottery ticket. But it still held onto the once sensible traditions like the rookie card.

I like pretty much all cards and I'll collect them if I can afford them.


Steve B

[oldjudge]

Phil-you poses the question to begin this thread as to why more people were not collecting HOF rookie cards. Let me ask a different question, one which ties to my prior post:

Why should anyone collect rookie cards instead of collecting one's favorite card of each HOFer (assuming one wants a card of each HOFer--I don't)

[barrysloate]

Most of the reasons why people don't collect rookie cards have been stated, but the bottom line seems to be that it is impossible to do. One might get 90% or more of the known rookie cards with patience and a big checkbook, but finishing the set can't be done. And it would cost millions of dollars even if there was some way to do it. Plus, the lack of a consistent definition of a rookie card frustrates too many collectors. We've had numerous threads about rookie cards and there are always so many different opinions about what's what.

I like Jay's idea of collecting one card of choice of each Hall of Famer, difficult enough in its own right. In many cases a player's rookie card is unappealing so why spend big money on it?

Dan P.'s example of Cy Young is a good one. The Just So is unique, and the E107 is a five figure card. Why not simply get a nice portrait, such as a T206 or an E90-1, and call that your Cy Young example? I would rather buy a card that appeals to me aesthetically than one that is ugly but is a player's first. It kind of forces you to buy a card whether you find it attractive or not.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

Never said you were [as far as you know ]. The cost of the 'rookie' cards in some of the Exhibit sets is one reason why I haven't pursued the prewar sets with the same vigor as the postwar issues.

I consider the PCs to be rookies also but I know a lot of collectors who would disagree. To each his own...

[bcbgcbrcb]

The main reason why I gravitated towards Rookie Cards of HOF'ers rather than any random cards of HOF'ers is that had been my primary interest since I was 12 years old. Even though I was only collecting modern Topps, Fleer and Donruss cards at the time, I was after Fernando Valenzuela rookie cards, Tim Raines rookie cards, etc.

As I got older and noticed the volatility of that market from season to season, I decided to go a safer route and do retired HOF'ers instead. Thus, where I am today.

To me, focusing on rookie cards poses a finite number of items for the collection as opposed to any card that you like of an individual, which obviously would be infinite. The rookie card set also gives you an opportunity to measure your collection against all others going after the same cards just like T206 or any other set. How can you compare a '32 Sanella Margarine Babe Ruth to a Sporting News Babe Ruth, which two different collectors have as their Babe Ruth representation for their HOF collection?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Most of the reasons why people don't collect rookie cards have been stated, but the bottom line seems to be that it is impossible to do. One might get 90% or more of the known rookie cards with patience and a big checkbook, but finishing the set can't be done. And it would cost millions of dollars even if there was some way to do it. .

This would then suggest that no-one should go after the T-206 set. It's almost impossible to complete...so what do people do, they make sub-sets and create their own definitions of a "complete" set. We HOF Rookie cards do the same thing.

I actually started my journey by looking for any card of players that had 3,000 career hits and/or 500 career HR's. Most of these guys were in the HOF, and once I got a R. Henderson rookie card, it was all over for me. I just loved getting "rookie" cards. To me, I don't care if I never complete this "set" in 100 years, it's the journey that is the most enjoyable part of the collection. I love that I am learning about new cards all the time (take the 1905 Pokomoke Team PC w/ Frank Baker, for example)...

Also, I believe Leon stated that he started out looking for HOF rookie cards and then migrated to type card collecting. Getting a "complete" set of HOF rookie cards would give you quite a bit of variety in the type-card world. I love the variety of the cards in my collection because of it. I think it would be so boring to only go after 1925 Exhibits, for example. The appeal of HOF rookie collecting is the depth and breadth of my collection and the discovery of new items that fit the definition and "change the checklist". I can see why Dan P. got frustrated, but who cares? I love my stuff and don't care whether someone else considers my 1923 Type I Press Photo, which was used to create the 1925 Exhibit card, of Lou Gehrig a "rookie". It is to me!!

And if a new card that pre-dates my example is discovered, oh well! Great! Now I get to learn about a new card / type-card / set and get to decide if I want to pursue it.

And lastly, Leon - - sorry to disappoint, but your Minneapolis Team w/ T. Williams is not the earliest...Phil has a 1937 SD Team Premium and I have a 1937 SD Team PC, shown below! Enjoy!!

[Runscott]

My read was that it's too expensive for most of us. Same reason we collect T206's.

For the wealthier collectors, though, I think you assessed the problems correctly.

[oldjudge]

Phil--why do you have to measure (read compete) your collection against others? Collect what you enjoy for you, not for how it compares to others. This is the whole registry set disease. Collecting your favorite card of a player rather than the "rookie" card means you will get the card you enjoy most, not the card that someone else is telling you to buy. Think outside the box instead of getting locked in.

[HRBAKER]

The question was why isn't it more popular. I think the answers were very clear and correct. Nobody said don't do it. I think it will always just be a marginal niche bc of just what has been discussed. Nothing is wrong with that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

And lastly, Leon - - sorry to disappoint, but your Minneapolis Team w/ T. Williams is not the earliest...Phil has a 1937 SD Team Premium and I have a 1937 SD Team PC, shown below! Enjoy!!

No disappointment here as I didn't buy it thinking it was Ted's earliest card. I could pretty much care less about them and only buy them when it's a type I still need. Neat 1937 card, thanks for sharing. (I need it as a type too) Happy collecting....

[glchen]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Phil-you poses the question to begin this thread as to why more people were not collecting HOF rookie cards. Let me ask a different question, one which ties to my prior post:

Why should anyone collect rookie cards instead of collecting one's favorite card of each HOFer (assuming one wants a card of each HOFer--I don't)

I don't collect this set yet (the HOF rookie run), however, it is on my list of the many things that I do want to collect. For me at least, I think, part of the appeal is that this is the first card of the player as a major leaguer, and this is the first step that he is taking to greatness in the major leagues. It's like this is how the person was before he became really famous. You can see the youth and the love for the game before that player truly became a "professional." Also, for most players, collecting the rookie card gives the set consistency. How do you determine the key card for that player when you compare it with your hobby friends? When you tell them that you got the rookie for Cal Ripken, they are much more likely to know what you are talking about, and you can share it w/ them. (Was it the Donruss, Topps, or Fleer version?) Your childhood hobby friends will typically say that's pretty cool, I always wanted one of those. They'll have a decent idea what the card image looks like. If you tell them you got the 1986 one because you liked the image, most of them won't even know what the image looked like even if they did collect cards as kids. This is not to show off. This is because you want to be able to speak a "common language" with the average collector rather than discussing really specific card images that no one cares about but you. Do you want the conversation to continue or just end w/ you? I hope this makes sense.

The prewar aspect is a little different as has already been discussed previously in this thread and others. There's ambiguity of what is the true rookie card, the cost, and the scarcity involved. This is probably a really bad analogy, but to me, it would be like collecting the Cracker Jacks. You can do the 1914, you can do the 1915, or you can do a mixture of both. Therefore, for prewar, for myself, I would probably try to approach it this way. I will take a look at the rookie card for that player. If the card is not obtainable or I like the image of another card (e.g., a key card) much better, I'll get that key card instead of the rookie. However, if I don't really have a big preference, I'll try for the rookie by default. For example, Chick Hafey is not a really important HOFer to me. I think I'll just try to get the rookie. However, for Ty Cobb, there are some key cards (like the CJ's) that I really like, so I think that I would like to get one of those instead of one of his true rookie cards. Same thing with Cy Young, as his rookie is practically unobtainable. I'll fill that slot with a key card with an image that I really like.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Gary:

I like your example of Chick Hafey for this reason:

Like you said, Hafey is not a "major" Hall of Famer but if you are doing the rookie set, you need him just as much as Cobb or anybody else. It turns out that Hafey's rookie card hails from the Middy Bread Die-Cuts set, so scarce that I have never even seen one for sale or auction. If one did come up, I believe it would go for $1,000+ if in decent condition. For those who are budget conscious, would you be willing to spend that kind of money on a marginal Hall of Famer?

The true hard-core rookie card collector is going to say "yes", most everyone else will say "no".

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

gary:

I like your example of chick hafey for this reason:

Like you said, hafey is not a "major" hall of famer but if you are doing the rookie set, you need him just as much as cobb or anybody else. It turns out that hafey's rookie card hails from the middy bread die-cuts set, so scarce that i have never even seen one for sale or auction. If one did come up, i believe it would go for $1,000+ if in decent condition. For those who are budget conscious, would you be willing to spend that kind of money on a marginal hall of famer?

The true hard-core rookie card collector is going to say "yes", most everyone else will say "no".

yes!!!

[Exhibitman]

I measure myself against other collectors by height.

It took me a long time to get to the point of collecting only what I like. If a rookie card appeals to me I would buy it but if not I am not interested.

[FirstYearCards]

I've had plenty of input with regards to my site: www.firstyearcards.com , but would like to take it a step further. I have a fairly indepth list of all HOF first year cards and prior cards/memorabilia, but would like more input and scans. I have been selective about what I post on NET54 as it has been my personal hobby/collection.

How should I pursue more info on primarily pre-rookie memorabila of each player? Should I start a thread or try to make my site more public/accesilbe?

I realize I can't find every card, image, deawing, pin, pennant, poster etc. on my own, but I have a good start and think my site could be a good central site for this info.

I like the idea of adding a section that lists all the sets that contain HOF first year cards and will add that soon, thanks, Bill.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Bill:

Why not try both, post on Net 54 and your website.

[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.

[Runscott]

Phil, you have won me over. I have decided to collect rookie semi-pro postcards of HOF'ers. But that's as far as I go.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Phil, you have won me over. I have decided to collect rookie semi-pro postcards of HOF'ers. But that's as far as I go.

Uh oh... Another bidding competitor!!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well then, Scott, do I have some things for you ............

[wake.up.the.echoes]

I find this topic to be completely fascinating. As a child of the 1980s, I have always been taken with the concept of a rookie card. As I turned away from collecting cards from the 4 major sports in the United States (baseball, football, basketball, and hockey), and toward collecting, first, boxing, and now soccer cards exclusively, I have tasked myself with identifying and collecting the "rookie" cards of significant players. Soccer doesn't really have an international hall of fame, so deciding the players to collect is a unique part of my pursuit. I am aware of beckett's definition of what constitutes a rookie card. In my own pursuit I decided to try and find the earliest released card for each player. I definie "rookie card" as a player’s earliest appearance on an item made for either collectible or informational purposes. This broad definition of the term allows me to collect a wide array of items. I very much appreciate the ideas that you guys have of setting up a page/database that identifies several options for which rookie card to collect. I think it helps a collector who would prefer a traditional card as a rookie to collect, and also the collector who would prefer to collect the earliest collectible, regardless of the "medium" on which it is presented. I hope to emulate/imitate some of your work with regard to creating a soccer database.