Kid Nichols Rookie Card?
 

For those who collect rookie cards (I do not) what is considered Kid Nichols rookie card? I have argued with a friend that the Old Judge card is his rookie. My friend says it is his Mayo card. Which one of us is right (or is there a third choice)? Thanks!

Not 1988 Donruss! :)
 

I think its a more of "take your pick" between:

1889 N172 Old Judge
1889 N173 Old Judge Cabinets

The N300 Mayo Cut Plug was 1895 or thereabouts?

Just my opinion.

Peace, Mike

I agree, but the Old Judge card’s of Kid Nichols are “minor league” cards from his time in the Western Association.

I think that’s the main issue here. I don’t collect rookie cards either, but I gather that nowadays, when there are so many cards issued of minor league prospects, “rookie card” has been (re-)defined to mean the first card issued after a player was promoted to the majors; anything earlier than that is a “pre-rookie” card. So Nichols’s OJs would be considered pre-rookie cards by this definition, with his Mayo being his “true” rookie card. These are all pretty arbitrary distinctions as far as I’m concerned, but I guess they’re potentially relevant for people who collect Hall of Fame rookie cards

I do not collect or follow much of the 19th century stuff but the argument for the ages in the hobby will always be defining a rookie card. To me, it is the first time the player is recognized on a piece of card stock for promotional purposes. Minor league or major league distinction is not important to me. I am sure many would not agree.

Just to muddy the waters even more is that even in Kid Nichols' Mayo card he is actually shown wearing his Omaha jersey (with some 1890's era "Photoshop" work having been done to change the uniform). Thus even in the "Major League" card of Nichols he is being pictured from years earlier with the Omaha Omahogs, while listed for Boston!

I have never really cared about which team they are pictured with (especially 19th Century cards) and in my opinion his Old Judge cards are his "rookie cards," also they were distributed along with Major League cards so I don't see them as being much different than when companies today include "Rated Rookies" of the new crop of prospects.

BTW, how awesome would it be to find a Nichols Old Judge with the 1890 "Boston N.L." designation!?!

In my humble opinion:

1889 N172 Old Judge (Omaha WA) - Pre-Rookie
1889 N173 Old Judge (Omaha WA) - Pre Rookie

1895 N300 Mayo’s Cut Plug (Boston NL) - Rookie

I agree, Kevin.

So, is mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card now a pre-rookie card? What about Carl Yastrzemski's 1960 Topps card since he didn't play in the majors until 1961? A player's rookie card has always been his first card issued in a nationally released major league set. It doesn't matter if the player was in the majors yet or not. So, by definition Nichol's OJ would be his true rookie card. I am not sure where your definition comes from, I have been in the hobby 50+ years, that is a new one.

As suggested by the posts above it just depends on whether you think of "rookie" as designating the status of the player (in which case it should be from his rookie season, or at least no earlier) or the card itself. So the Mayo is a reasonable choice, but no more than a 1995 Topps Derek Jeter.

I collect rookie cards, not of HOFers per se, but of the top 50 players. Naturally that includes mostly HOFers but not most HOFers. It includes players as far back as Anson and as recent as Trout, and I wanted consistent criteria that made sense for everyone so I went with first actual MLB year with a card.

For Nichols that's the 1895 Mayo. The OJ is a great card -- the best player in the best set of the 19th century -- but I don't want a collection of minor league cards. If I only collected pre-war I probably wouldn't concern myself with the minor/major distinction and would just go for the earliest card, but that's just not how I collect. What he's wearing in the picture doesn't factor in for me. Some of these rookie cards don't show the player in uniform at all. Jeter is also irrelevant since he's well outside of the top 50 players. Not that you asked, but I don't like to miss an opportunity to point out how overrated Yankees other than Ruth have been.

Yes.

+1

sooooo.... 1952 Topps or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

Finally something we can all agree on.

I guess I should be glad that I sold all my 85 Topps Mcgwire RCs for 200.00+ after paying .25 or less now that you came along and decided to change the hobby's definition of rookie card. Can you now sell me a PSA 8 60T Yaz for the price of a common star card?

Edit: I will also take a PSA 10 SP Jeter at the price of a common star card and a 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera PSA 10 also at the price of a regular star card. After all they are overrated Yankees and not even rookie cards. I hate the Yankees, but I just want them so I can reminisce about the old days when we had one definition of rookie card instead of each person make up their own.

Thanks guys (I think)! Phil wrote the book--it would be good to hear his view.

I think the phrase "rookie card" has become a loaded term. I collect "first" cards, making Kid Nichols' Old Judge cards the obvious choice.

Let's take a pole, I'd bet most people would go with the OJ, I know I would.

I agree with this.

A ten foot pole?

:eek: doh, doh, doh, doh...


And, yes, I would!

Perfectly stated.

Just my opinion, but I’d prefer this 1889 Heyn Studio Cabinet over any of his “traditional” “rookie” cards.

https://photos.imageevent.com/derekg...889%20Heyn.jpg

Wow, that cabinet is beautiful.

unfortunately, not mine. It's been on my want list for years. It first sold in REA in 2006 and then at the now-defunct Legendary Auctions in 2012. I was hoping it would stay on that 6-year cycle and find its way into my hands in 2018, but to not avail. But I agree, it's a beauty!

So here is a related question. If the first card of a player issued with that player did not get issued until the player had been in the Major Leagues long enough to no longer be considered a rookie, do you still call it a rookie card? If that player was alive and you called him a rookie at that point in his career, he would probably pop you in the eye for calling him that. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, I personally don't pay attention to rookie when I buy cards for my collection, I just buy cards I think are neat. Everyone's different. And that's okay.

Satchel Paige? One of the oldest "rookies" around (1948 Leaf)...yep, that's why I prefer early career items (whether that be negro leagues, minor leagues, or even town teams / semi-pro items). I get around the "rookie" issue by collecting the "earliest collectibles" of players.

Ichiro is a special example too...

The center on the Warsaw basketball team is a ten foot Pole.

Barry, it is insights like that that get you nominated for the hobby's Mt. Rushmore.

It's hard work being clever.:(

And since you asked, I consider the N172 to be Nichols's rookie card. It makes no sense to say the N300, issued eight years later, is it. I know his team is Omaha but as far as I'm considered that's a stone's throw from the majors. I go for whichever is issued first, although I admit there could be exceptions.

I simply don't care. I like both the N172 cards and the Mayo and have each. It doesn't matter to me at all which one is his rookie. Frankly, the whole "rookie" thing has never made very much sense to me, although looking at relative card values, many others obviously feel very differently about that. Collect what you like and all is good IMO.

I am partial to Nichols 1898 National Copper Plate, my favorite set due to the great picture and hugely informative back narrative.

This question originally arose because I am in the midst of reading a biography of Kid Nichols by Richard Bogovich. While reading this, I learned that the Old Judge set could have easily had one additional HOFer. In 1889, Kid Nichols played for Omaha in the Western Association. Managing that team was future HOFer Frank Selee. Since the Old Judge set featured some manager cards, Selee could have had a card (and in fact one may be eventually found). In fact, it was because of a promise to Selee that Nichols moved to Boston with Selee for the 1890 season. If not for Selee, Nichols’ preference was to join Cincinnati in 1890. Imagine how this would have altered the balance of power in the NL?

Finding a Selee would be huge. And yes, had Boston been without perhaps the best pitcher of the 1890s, that would substantially altered the balance of power.

I thought people might enjoy seeing some Nichols cabinets. The first is an Old Judge proof which came directly from the Nichols family. The latter two are two different Old Judge cabinets.

Nice cabinets, Jay. Thanks for sharing them.

Those cabinets are beautiful, thanks for sharing.

Jay, amazing trio of Nichols cabinets (poses 2, 4, & 5)! Are you aware of poses 1 & 3 in cabinet form? Everyone else would have stopped after one example :)

Terrific

+1 Some of my all-time favorites.

I am not, but as you know the cataloging of N173s is spotty at best.

I'm a little bit late to the party here but just saw this thread and read through everyone's opinions.

While I generally consider any minor league/amateur card issues to be pre-rookies (i.e. - Zeenuts, etc.) and MLB issues to be rookie cards, I would classify the N172 Old Judge cards to be a Major League issue although some minor league teams/players were included. Off the top of my head, I believe that Clark Griffith also falls into the same category as Nichols, appearing pictured in his minor league uniform but part of a widely recognized Major League set as the N172 Old Judge is. There may be one or two others that I am not recalling at this time.

The 1889 cabinet card that Derek mentioned is a great item and could be considered Nichols' earliest card since it is a cabinet but not really a rookie card as it was not part of a catalogued set and studio photographer's cabinets, in general, were not produced to be collected by fans so the intent isn't really there either. The Sporting News premium mentioned earlier also wouldn't qualify as a rookie card, besides the obvious part of being produced a number of years later, the size of the item would eliminate it from consideration as it could never be considered a "card", thus eliminating the possibility of it being a rookie card. This type of item, if the earliest issued for that player could be an earliest collectible or possibly even be called a rookie issue but not a "rookie card".

I realize that this subject will never get everyone to be in agreement but, hopefully, explaining the rationale behind each of these classifications will help to clarify some things.

Hi Phil! As I mentioned in another thread, Frank Selee was Nichols' manager with Omaha in 1889. Since there are several Western Association managers cards in the Old Judge set, Selee could have had an 1889 card. In fact, there may be one yet to be discovered, although the odds after all these years are pretty low.