What's a rookie card?
 

This may have been discussed before. I find it interesting on TPG rookie card registries, the cards labled rookie card.

1949 Leaf S. Musial?
1982 Topps traded Ripken?
1952 Topps Mantle?

What defines it?

Of those 3, the only one that I would even give consideration as a rookie card to, is the Ripken.

Mostly because it's at least from his rookie card year, and it's his most expensive and desireable card from that year.

Even by modern rookie card rules(not counting regional/local releases), the '49 Leaf Musial and '52 Topps Mantle wouldn't qualify, because of their '48 and '51 Bowmans', so I really don't see why those cards are even a RC option for the TPG's..

The Musial, I think the confusion comes from the fact that it is sometimes referred to, and at one point even slabbed as a '48 issue. As far as the '52 Mantle, I think that the card is so iconic, that people just wanna find any excuse to call it a rookie. And even if they can't find an excuse, they just do it anyway..

Rookie Card
 

If Rookie card is a player's first baseball card ever, that's one way to look at it. If a rookie card is the first card issued by a particular manufacturer/producer, that is another way to look at it. Some folks get fairly exercised about the rookie card issue. As a set collector and not a rookie card collector, it does not matter much to me. But, I understand why it would be important to one who centers their collection around "rookie" cards

For example the fact most folks contend the Topps 52 Mantle is not a true rookie card, as opposed to his Topps rookie card, does not affect it's higher value much, if at all, versus any earlier Mantle cards by Bowman

On the other hand, Musial's first Topps card was not until 1958 and was an All Star card. I have never heard it seriously referred to as a rookie card, and it's value will never approach that of his earlier non Topps cards, whether it be Bowman or Homogenized Bread or Leaf or whatever.

Added a poll to this. Interested in hearing more viewpoints.

None of the above. IMO, to qualify as a "ROOKIE card," the card should be produced either the year of or after a player's ROOKIE year.

If a player doesn't have a card that that fits that criteria, then he doesn't have a rookie card. He could have a first Topps card, first Bowman card, etc, but should not have what is considered to be a rookie card.

In the early to late '90s, a lot of companies were snapping pictures of players as soon as they were drafted and calling them "rookie cards." That's ridiculous! Take Derek Jeter for example, his "RC" is 1993 Topps, SP, etc, but he didn't brake into the majors until 1995. How can you call it a rookie card if the player wasn't a rookie the year the card was produced? Makes no sense.

I pretty much fall on the line is that there is no such thing. It is largely a designation that was "contrived" after price manipulators/reporters gathered that collectors would pay "more" for some key players first cards. Then the manufacturers got in the game. Even "RC" card collectors can't decide among themselves what "it" is even though I think most define it in a way that would best fit their budget.

Something like a 1964 Pete Rose?

I thought about including that scenerio, but I didn't think anyone would vote for it. Shows how wrong I am.

I usually make the call on what is considered a players rookie based on what I have and what I can find/afford. Before I bought my 51 and 52 Mantles, his 53 topps was a rookie :)

Not exactly. Rose's rookie year was '63, so I am ok calling his '63 Topps card his rookie card. I just think in order to qualify for a "rookie card" it should be produced the year of or after a player's rookie year.

RCs
 

As a set collector, whatever you folks decide is fine with me

I think it is the first appearance of a player as a member of a major-league team. If a player's first card is a regional issue, fine (1982 Red Lobster Cubs Ryne Sandberg and 1978 Family Fun Center Padres Ozzie Smith come to mind). I guess I would choose none of the options given.