Rookie Card

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Hi all,

During my preteen years in the early '50s neither me nor any of my friends had any interest in players who had no history of performance. Each (currently) notable rookie card was equally shunned.

Now however, I can appreciate that the portrayal of lifetime records by showing the initial and last card of a player does present that subject well.

What I do not understand is:
why is there essentially no premium asasociated with a players last card
why is the rookie card's premium typically so high
what other value is associated with a rookie card
why we have "true" rookie cards, and "false" rookie cards

Any insight which you may choose to offer on this and related topics is appreciated.

Gil

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I've always wondered about that one too. I collect last cards of players because they show their career accomplishments, or nearly all of them. My 1963 Musial, 1965 Spahn, 1969 Mantle, etc., are great examples.

Rookie cards are generally priced higher than later cards for no good logical reason other than demand that was generated for them a decade or two ago and that has remained enshrined in our collecting folklore ever since then. When the first Beckett guides came out, there was a great deal of hyping of rookie cards. I recal battles over which card deserved a rookie designation because the resulting price boost was very important. Also, remember rookie card mania over modern players? That emphasized the rookie hype.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It is all about scarcity.

In 1915 ... kids probably all fought over the Ty Cobb cards ... but nobody wanted the "Babe Ruth" cards and they got tossed or lost.

By 1933 ... it was pretty obvious that Ruth was a "keeper" ... and so EVERY Ruth card from that year was probably not only kept but also PRESERVED and PROTECTED.

The same is probably true for EVERY baseball player, so finding the rookie cards in good condition is ALWAYS a LOT harder than finding the cards from later in their careers.

Why is it SO HARD to find Bid McPhee Old Judge cards???

Because he was NOT enshrined in the HOF until 2001 or so!!!

People were probably trading them for peanuts as late as 1995!!

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

The rookie card hype started, not with Beckett, but with the Mark Lewis publication Card Prices Update (CPU). It was a pretty good guide, but Beckett eventually sued Lewis and put the guide out of business.

As a sort of gimic the guide gave huge premiums to rookie cards. I remember Ryne Sandberg was like $3, they created and whole new market.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Collecting of older material is done retrospectively, rather than at the time. Meaning, 25 years later the collector looks back and says, "Of all Jackie Robinson's Topps cards, which one should I pick as the bestest?" Whether good or bad, the 'first edition' is the one that typically jumps to mind.

From fine art paintings to baseball cards, all organized collecting genres are filled with arbitrary rules and silly conciets. As with a Hollywood movie, the standard rookie card definition requires dramatic lighting and supension of disbelief.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Rookie cards are actually so much higher because that is all I am interested in buying.

If I suddenly switched to buying "final year" cards, then I am convinced that THEY would skyrocket in price.

If I the switched to buying "team leader" cards, then THEY would suddenly skyrocket in price.

I am cursed.

There is your answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...happened to me when I started going after portraits of Hall of Famers in the T206 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Kasel

You and me both! Now everyone quit biddig on the one's I want! And for the love of God stay away from all E95's! Go for the t207's that's where the real deals are (wink-wink).

We all have a little bit of Murphy's Law in us I think. Fact is, now that I'm hooked on the HOF Portrait's i'm not gonna stop just because they are going for premium's, it will just take longer to fill out, with two obvious exceptions. I cant even afford a corner of a Wagner. Besides the chase is the fun part for me.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

And I thought prices were skyrocketing because I got interested in those cards. At least I now know its your fault.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

with the darn caramel E94 overprints.....since I bought the Lipset ones, and a little before that, they skyrocketed. I am quite sure if I quit collecting them then the price would go down. (well maybe that's because I wouldn't bid crazily on them?).....good points....and btw, when I very first started collecting again (in my mid 30's) I started with Rookie HOF's....still have a fairly decent 50's-70's collection of them....not that I care about them anymore but they don't eat much ..later

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

As a longtime collector with limited financial means, I generally shun rookie cards. I have a policy that I stick to: Never pay extra for a rookie. Another policy I am firm with is: Never pay extra for a Yankee. Nevertheless, as fate would have it, my collection is filled with both rookies and Yankees because I'm a good bargain hunter. But the idea that either a rookie or a Yankee is worth more than a comparable rookie or non-Yankee is ridiculous. It's just another example of marketing hype. I simply collect the cards I like, not the cards I'm supposed to like. Now if I collected to turn a profit, I might have another view ...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

to my Floridian colleague, there is no empirical evidence that rookie cards are any scarcer than any other cards from most (not every) sets where they carry huge premiums. In fact, what little evidence there is proves that the opposite is true when it comes to graded examples. The August 2004 SMR has a population report on 1956 Topps cards. There are 629 graded Aparicio cards, while commons run about 20%-25% of that total on average. Steve Gromek, who I picked because he has a common-sounding name, has 160 cards slabbed. Aparicio is a minor HOFer; his cards typically carry a premium of less than 100% of the common price (see 1958, $55 common in 8, $100 Aparicio in 8), except for his rookie card. His 1956 card is $305 in 8, nearly six times the common price of $55 per card. His rookie premium, therefore is about 4x the price of a common card. If raw numbers in existence was the sole determinant of the premium price, you would expect the population to dictate a premium price on all lower population common 1956 cards, since they exist at 20%-25% of the rate of the Aparicio cards. Since that does not happen, the premium attached to the rookie card status (as opposed to the expected differential between the card of an Aparicio and a Gromek) is simply the result of demand being driven by the marketers.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

to my Floridian colleague, there is no empirical evidence that rookie cards are any scarcer than any other cards from most (not every) sets where they carry huge premiums. In fact, what little evidence there is proves that the opposite is true when it comes to graded examples. The August 2004 SMR has a population report on 1956 Topps cards. There are 629 graded Aparicio cards, while commons run about 20%-25% of that total on average. Steve Gromek, who I picked because he has a common-sounding name, has 160 cards slabbed. Aparicio is a minor HOFer; his cards typically carry a premium of less than 100% of the common price (see 1958, $55 common in 8, $100 Aparicio in 8), except for his rookie card. His 1956 card is $305 in 8, nearly six times the common price of $55 per card. His rookie premium, therefore is about 4x the price of a common card. If raw numbers in existence was the sole determinant of the premium price, you would expect the population to dictate a premium price on all lower population common 1956 cards, since they exist at 20%-25% of the rate of the Aparicio cards. Since that does not happen, the premium attached to the rookie card status (as opposed to the expected differential between the card of an Aparicio and a Gromek) is simply the result of demand being driven by the marketers.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I got a very weird glitch-glitch-glitch.

[Archive]

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)

the final card may also carry a premium--Joss, Clemente, Gehrig. This isn't to say that rookie Clemente isn't worth mnore than a '73--but the '73 prices are somewhat elevated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Adam:

The flaw in your theory is that I was speculating with rookie cards as far back as 1956 ... and I have 2,000 Gromek cards that I am just about to send in for grading.

My ship has finally come in!

[Archive]

Posted By: Max

I am not convinced about Hal's rookie card logic. Why doesn't it extend to books? I have observed through rumour and innuendo that Mr. Lewis has been purchasing books that are in fact not the first book written by that particular author! Not a rookie book? Shocking! I will be gladly willing to exchange an earlier work of Mr. Chadwick's for that undesirable later title of the 1860's.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Max:

You and everyone else in the World will have a chance to buy the 1868 Chadwick book in the NEXT Robert Edward Auction in Spring 2005!!

BID! BID AGAIN!! BID HIGHER and HIGHER!!!

The book is worth at least as much as some stupid Honus Wagner card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

Adam,

I think you have a good thought on why rookie cards are more/less valuable. But I think your methodology is wrong.

I believe that the rookie card is more valuable because when a rookie's card first came out (pre-1960) no one knew who this player was and didn't keep his card because he wasn't a star. Later on, people knew who the star was and started to save his card. The last card isn't as scarce, but it is a cool card to keep, because by that time everyone knew that this player was a star and wanted to have the card.

Now to compare the number of Aparicio rookies with commons that are graded doesn't appear to me to be a good comparison. People are grading the Aparicio rookie card because it has a higher book value and figure that a graded card will help on the return. Whereas a graded common really isn't going to yield a higher return whether it is graded or not.

To try this experiement, do it with a mega-star. Do it with Mickey Mantle. People will have his cards graded no matter what year it is. So take a couple of years, say 1959, 1961 and 1968 (I just picked these years at random) and compare the number of these cards graded with the number of 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards and I bet you will find a large discrepancy in the number of cards.

I haven't done this but I would guess that the number of 1959 cards or 1968 cards are much greater than the number of 1951 cards.

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

I think it's supply and demand. Being a T206
afficionado, the Tris Speaker rookie is for me
one of the top cards in the set.

I don't understand the 'T206 portrait craze".
The T206 Dougherty looks horrid to me, I just
love the E102 batting pose in my collection.
(ok , I know its not a rookie card).

Being a guy who likes the aesthetics of a card
the Obak Weaver has it all compared to the 'true'
T207 rookie (sorry, I find it bland).

Ok, I'm going a bit non-vintage here, but look
at the awesome 1971 Munson 'Topps Rookie' black
border. This action shot captures the way a card
is supposed to be done, unlike his 'true' 1970
rookie which blows, along with most of the
other ugly 'portraits' from 1970.

Ok, getting back to the olden days of T206, it's
obvious kids didn't care who was the new rookie.
Chance and Clarke are already player/managers,
and they're
still printing cards of olden day heroes like Joe
Kelly (pictured with Toronto in the minors)

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

How is the rookie premium different from the fact that older cards are nearly always worth more than earlier cards from the same manufacturer of teh same player (e.g., a 1960 Topps Mays is worth more than a 1961 Topps Mays, which is in turn worth more than a 1962 Topps Mays)? Do people disagree with that principal as well? Anyone care to trade me a 1954 Mays for a 1970 Mays?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Mark has a good point.

Older cards are worth more than newer cards ...

and rookie cards by definition are the oldest cards ...

so it does make sense that they cost more.

Or then again ... does ANYTHING really "make sense" about spending money on pieces of cardboard?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

If you wanted to buy an autographed photo of your favorite star to hang on your wall, would you rather the image show Mantle in 1968 or 1951, Elvis in 1976 or 1955, Ingrid Berman in 1982 or 1941(Casablanca).

On their 1951 and 52 cards, Mays and Mantle look like exciting confident athletes-- the way fans want to remember them. On their last cards cards, they look like old men ... Even if not familiar with cards or prices, I would bet that the majority of fans would pick Mantle's 51 Bowman over his 69 Topps.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I've long firmly beleived that, no matter what the area (paintings, baseball memorabilia, fine china), the collector should collect whatever he wants so long as he is knowledgeable about what he is collecting. There's absolutely nothing wrong with collecting 50 cent postcards, as long as you don't think they're worth $200 each. There's nothing wrong with buying mass-produced reprints, as long as you don't think they are rare originals.

Each hobby has its rules about what people are supposed to collect. That doesn't mean a collector has to follow them, or take them seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Although I agree with Mark in some respects, it should also be noted that the difference between each successive year is typically a minimal increase. However, I believe that the difference in price between the rookie card and the second year card is going to be significantly larger. I just picked up a Beckett's price guide to see if this holds true (lets forget for a minute that the price guides are really worthless indicators of true value):

1951 Bowman Mantle - High Book - 8500
1952 Bowman Mantle - High Book - 2500
1953 Bowman Mantle - " " - 2000
1954 Bowman Mantle - " " - 1500

So, while older is typically more valuable, that explanation still doesnt account for the premium given to rookie cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

It seems to me that since Topps came around, it's a lot more obvious what is considered a rookie card, whereas especially for pre-war players, people had to do a good deal of research to actually determine what constitutes a given players first appearance on a card. It seems that only because some people did the research, and because that information got passed on among the most avid vintage card collectors, that then the price started rising on these rookies, not necessarily because they were any harder or easier to get than any other issue of any given player.

That being said, and I don't know how much of this is because of the influence of rookie cards being hyped, they just seem more glamorous to me somehow. The same phenomena exists in the comic book collecting world, where there is great demand for the #1 issue of any given comic series, and the #1 will usually command a considerably higher price than a #2, #3 etc., except in rare instances when other extenuating circumstances come in to play. There's just something about having the first appearnce of a comic, or in this case a ballplayer. It's special, it's them at the start of something great.

And THAT being said, due to limited funds, I'm usually ecstatic just to have any card at all by great players of old. Having a rookie is just somewhat of an added bonus, often one too pricey for me to even go after right now...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Josh, 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?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Because I have not yet bought any minor league cards.

If I ever start ... WATCH OUT!

My curse will extend to them and reap untold fortunes for those of you who already own a bunch of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: The Other One (Julie)

I believe there are 3 of them to date. Aside from the fact that it's one of the most gorgeous photos ever taken, it's rather scarce...

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

It always seemed to make a lot more sense to me that a players minor league cards would eclipse their major league rookie card in value/desirability, given that the cards came earlier, are printed in DRAMATICALLY smaller quantities, and are generally harder to find, but alas, it is not the case. For example, there are Barry Bonds minor league cards floating around that are worth much less than his major league rookies. Even though they may not be as valuable monetarily, I think sentimentally they are even nicer to own than major league rookie cards.

Are there exceptions, though? Instances where a minor league card of a hall of famer exist, but are exceedingly rare and demand an extra premium just due to rarity, even if they are lesser in stature? Would a Joe Dimaggio Zee-Nut be an exception to this rule? (BTW, I would still LOVE to see an image of a Dimaggio Zeenut if anyone has one to share - I couldn't even find an image on a Google search.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ben

Gary, here's a scan of all 3 Dimaggio brothers' zeenuts

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

Personally, I would rather own a Zee-nut Dimaggio than a 1938 Goudey Dimaggio any day of the week (course I wound't mind having the Goudey, or better yet, both, but if it was a choice - the Zee-nut)!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Just look how BI-I-I-I-I-G-G-G his head is in the Goudey!!!



If baseball is 90% mental ... than having a BIG head and BIG brain must be the reason for hitting in 56 straight!

Do you really think that the Zeenut image looks more like Joltin Joe than the Goudey "freakshow" card?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Ben: are you trying to hurt me???

Mark: the issue isn't 1954 vs. 1970, it is 1954 vs. 1955. The post regarding the disparity in Mantle card prices is in line with what I'm saying. There is a big premium on "rookie" status and my argument was simply that it isn't merely age that accounts for the premium nor is it age as a shorthand for scarcity that causes the premium. It is a construct, a perception, the same one that leads some folks to pay $100 for a share in Google.

Hal: You asked: "does ANYTHING really "make sense" about spending money on pieces of cardboard?" Depends on your perspective. I think the real question is whether it makes sense to NOT to spend money on cards when it would otherwise be squandered by the wife on junk like home improvements, douvet (sp?) covers (don't know what one is, but she just dropped $150 on it), or retirement savings. This logic is flawless; I'd even apply it to sex. What would you rather drop cash on: the dinner-show-flowers-etc. inducements needed to get the wife in the mood or a nice caramel card? We all know why caramel card prices are surging, don't we? Still not convinced? Ask yourself this question: can I go longer without booty or without cards? Since we've all done months at a stretch w/o the former, especially us married guys ("How is a gay man like a married man? Neither has had sex with a woman for a really long time." Jeff Foxworthy), I think we all know the answer. This accounts for the breadth and depth of our respective card hoards... Final question: Which is more likely to convince you to go to Cleveland: gettin' some or a card convention?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I realize that some of you from less civilized sections of the country believe that "brace yourself woman" is adequate mood enhancement, but we tend to do things a little differently in the big city...

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

"douvet (sp?) covers (don't know what one is, but she just dropped $150 on it), or retirement savings."

The wife recently bought something(s) called a shammie (sp?) which is some cover you put over a pillow, and some matching other pieces that look kind of like pillows that are NOT pillows, meaning you don't sleep on them, but when you make the bed in the morning, they go on with the shammie covered pillows. it's just too much for someone with testosterone as the dominant hormone to deal with or hope to understand...

"What would you rather drop cash on: the dinner-show-flowers-etc. inducements needed to get the wife in the mood or a nice caramel card?"

I guess this would really have to do with how long you've been married then, wouldn't it? I'm guessing you've been married a good long while

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

tell her that caramel card will go up in value and you'll promise to sell it eventually so you can have a VERY comfortable retirmenet in a few years where you'll travel, go on cruises, expensive restaurants, etc. you'll have her in bed before you know it...

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

You all have it easy with your douvets and shammies. My wife is home on maternity leave and she has decided that its open season on redecorating the house. New window treatments (as if it makes the windows feel any better), new area rugs, new bedroom comforter set (including shammies). Next on her list is a new kitchen table. And all I can think is "sure, the house looks great, but not as good as a brand new T206 Cobb."

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I nominate Adam's for post of the year!

He opened up a whole can of whoop ass ... and now all of us are faced with the reality of our desperate situations!!

Go to Cleveland for a Shoeless Joe ... or go to Cleveland for a shoeless Ho' ??

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The only forum I know where folks can engage in an (intellectual?) discussion over the relative merits of sex and vintage baseball cards. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I settled a rather sizable case last fall and brought home a big chunk of change. The glint in my wife's eye was unmistakeable. Six weeks, a paint job, a complete build-out of a home office for her (my crap is confined to my actual office), a refurbished bathroom, and new floor to ceiling hardwood built-ins for the bedrooms later, I saw my lusted-after T206 Plank disappear in a whiff of contractors' bills. Hence my prior screed.

Shammies (sp?): Oh, I have a friggin' load of those things on the bed. Every night I pull the damned things off so I can get in; every morning she puts 'em back on top. And when the cat pukes on them, guess who has to hear about it...

As far as gettin' some goes, I like it mind you, but I'd still have to go with the cards for the long haul.

Oh, and never, ever remind your spouse that there is a freewheeling market on cards; they get that unmistakeable glint in their eyes...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Two Words that will haunt you forever and cost you more than a T206 Honus Wagner in PSA 2 condition...

"WINDOW TREATMENTS"

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Its good to know I am not alone in my pain.

[Archive]

Posted By: BillL

As my wife explained to me, the difference between window treatments and curtains is about $300 per window. To keep this vintage, where are you Monkey Wards when I need you?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

Adam overlooked one element in his post that I think needs to be considered as well. When you spend all that money on dinner, flowers, show tickets, etc, you're gambling - you don't have a guaranteed outcome.

At least if you spend the money on a card you know what you're going to get! Cards don't get a headache, and they don't have to get up early to go to work tomorrow.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Granite countertops!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It looks like a lot of us are in the same boat.

In addition to "window treatments", "built-ins" and "granite countertops"...

newly-wed husbands should be scared to death of this phrase:

"But it's a one-time expense."

This usually pertains to a furniture purchase. DO NOT FALL FOR IT. Sure, the piece of furniture will last forever ... but it will be OUT OF STYLE in 18 months.

If you think you just paid for the last throw rug and coffee table you will ever need ... think again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet MD

Excellent thoughts and responses. As rookie cards of vintage players dry up, I expect to see the cards of players reflecting excellent years to garner a premium as well, eg 1957 topps Mantle or a 1962 Maris.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The duvet cover goes on the bed (why isn't it a bed cover? I guess if you use a french term women will spend more for it??); the shams are covers that go over decorative pillows. She understands that stuff but not the infield fly rule...

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Im not sure exactly why it has become necessary for me to understand this, but here goes. We dont have a duvet cover (or maybe we do). Other than the sheet(s) and the cover that is used, there is a bedspread on the bed. Is the bed spread = duvet cover? It is a somewhat plush cover which is for solely decorative use. On top of the bed spread goes the decorative pillows covered by their associated shams and the accompanying optional assortment of stuffed animals and other things which I shouldn't mess up.

Is this right?

Ummmm ...... be quiet about cards of players who have a good year appreciating. Thats what I collect. Or actually cards of the following year if the previous years performance is shown on the backs.

Gil