Posted By:
MarkJosh, I know there is a (disproportionate) rookie premium. My thought was that the rookie premium is consistant the principal that (as Hal aptly puts it) "older cards are worth more than newer cards." Perhaps both principals should be thrown out and a 1970 Mays should be worth the same as a 1954 Mays (and as his 1951 rookie). The intrisic value of each is the same after all (i.e., they're just old cardboard). But I think most collectors would agree with the adage that "older is better" when it comes to cards (due to scarcity and the other reasons discussed above) and I think the rookie preimum is just an exention of that principal.
What I find interesting regarding the rookie premium is that experts differ as to the definition of rookie. Not to fixate of non-vintage issues, but some commentators consider Barry Bonds' rookie to be his 86 update cards, while others insist that those are "XRCs" and that his true rookies is 1987. At the same time, I've rarely heard it said that Clemens' rookie is not his 1984 update. And if the rule is that the card has to be issued as part of a major manufactuer's complete set for teh year, then why isn't Dave Concepcion's 1967 Topps Venezuela considered to be his rookie? And if rookie cards are the most valued because they are oldest/scarcest, why are minor league cards worth relatively little?