OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tedzan

With all due respect........this hobby has been around for approx. 150 years, so who (or what) dictates this "40 year" edict you are alluding to regarding rookie cards ?

Besides, I'll reiterate: Yogi Berra's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card qualifies as his true "rookie" card. This set was nationally distributed. So, so much for that "requirement".


.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...aseball-cards/

At 163 cards, this set was one of the largest to come out of the early post-World War II era — and in fact, it was one of the largest sets in many years. But that number is deceiving, because the ’47 Tip Top set actually was made up of a group of regional issues. The Boston Braves, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox and Detroit Tiger regional sets appear to be the toughest to assemble.

Is this article wrong? Was that Yogi Berra card available all over the country or only close to New York City?

About 40 years ago, the hobby decided to classify certain cards as rookie cards. Earlier you said that you bought up 1963 Topps Pete Rose cards in 1981, but no mention of Reds Team Issues, Jay or French Bauer.

For a long time the hobby didn't place any value on "star" cards either. I have a Card Collectors CO. catalog from the early 60s where the 52 Topps Mantle was 1.00, the same as all other cards in the high series. Most of the catalogs that I ordered from in the 60s and 70s didn't charge more for stars, or if they did, it was just a few of the biggest names. That is not to say that early issue cards that aren't rookie cards can't carry premiums, whether they are a first card issue or rookie year issue, or even a second or third year issue.

[packs]

Isn't known that the Tip Top cards were distributed regionally? That would make it decidedly not a nationally distributed set, unless you're talking about the cards as a whole and not as individual cards. That to me makes these cards a premium issue and I would call the Berra a rookie issue and not a rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

If a regionally distributed example can be considered a rookie issue but not a rookie card, that means it isn't considered a baseball card. Two questions:

1) Is it fair to say then that T215 Pirates are not baseball cards?

2) Why is it that the only people I know who don't know what a baseball card is are baseball card collectors?

[packs]

The Pirate set is a subset of a larger set that is contained to the T206 set, just as the other various backs are subsets of that one set. We give them different designations as collectors, but it's my opinion that they fall under one large master set. I'd include the Red Cross, Coupons, and their counterparts under that umbrella too. I would also say that in their time it is probably unlikely that anyone collected the cards for the backs, so the backs and their individual appeal to modern collectors is not something I think existed in the minds of the creators or collectors of the sets in the time. I would say the cards were collected for the fronts.

[darwinbulldog]

And another thing -- if 1955 Topps cards were not sold in, say, Hawaii, Oregon, Montana, or West Virginia but 1956 Topps cards were, would 1956 Topps be considered Roberto Clemente's rookie card now?

[packs]

No, you could buy a pack of 1955 Topps anywhere and have the same chance of pulling the card. Don't you see a distinct difference in NOT being able to collect New York cards in Tip Top bread packages because you lived in Saint Louis and only had access to Saint Louis cards?

[darwinbulldog]

Sure, Saint Louis isn't in Oregon.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by packs

No, you could buy a pack of 1955 Topps anywhere and have the same chance of pulling the card. Don't you see a distinct difference in NOT being able to collect New York cards in Tip Top bread packages because you lived in Saint Louis and only had access to Saint Louis cards?

So what you're saying is that my '55T Musial RC is a fake?!

[darwinbulldog]

That isn't what "if" means.

[ALR-bishop]

Who is in charge of this hobby anyway ? Whoever it is should issue an authoritative definition of a "rookie card" And while at that also define a "true variation". I have been at this since 1957 and need some clarity . Seems simple enough

[darwinbulldog]

For those who care about the regional/national distinction, let me know if I'm misinterpreting you, but I believe your position is:

If the average collector could buy a pack of cards by traveling 8 miles to a grocery store, then what is in that pack of cards might be a rookie card. If the same collector had to drive 408 miles to buy the same pack of cards, then what is in the pack is no longer a rookie card.

[packs]

If you can buy a pack of cards from a set anywhere and get any of the cards in the set no matter where the pack was bought, that's a nationally distributed set. If you could only get certain cards based on where you lived, that's a regionally distributed set.

[TanksAndSpartans]

When I started collecting around age 9, rookie card and first card would have been synonymous in my head. I’m wondering if its possible the reason for the distinction has something to do with not including too many rare or relatively rare first cards in registry sets. Red Grange is a good example from football cards - there are lots of cards that predate his '33 Goudey Sports Kings rookie.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

If you can buy a pack of cards from a set anywhere and get any of the cards in the set no matter where the pack was bought, that's a nationally distributed set. If you could only get certain cards based on where you lived, that's a regionally distributed set.

Okay, got it. And why do you want that to have a bearing on what you designate as a rookie, as opposed to just saying in some cases, "This player's rookie card is pretty scarce because it was only a regional issue."?

[packs]

I separate them for myself because I want what I consider to be the premier card, and to me the premier card is the card that was included in the biggest set. This principle applies to many other things too, not just baseball cards. A brand name has appeal across the board in many aspects of life where you can get one version of something or the name brand version of it.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I separate them for myself because I want what I consider to be the premier card, and to me the premier card is the card that was included in the biggest set. This principle applies to many other things too, not just baseball cards. A brand name has appeal across the board in many aspects of life where you can get one version of something or the name brand version of it.

So T206 is Cy Young's rookie card, or is there a bigger set I'm not thinking of?

[packs]

I don't feel the need to change your mind or feel as though I have anything to prove to you. This is a discussion about what people consider to be rookie cards. Why are you so hung up on what I think?

Just for the record though, I consider the E107 to be Cy's rookie.

[darwinbulldog]

I thought since we have a difference of opinion you might want to explain it to me is all. If I'm being hypocritical in some way in how I apply the definitions I would want to know that so I can correct it. If you'd prefer not to continue the discussion or answer some of my follow-up questions, that's fine.

[packs]

I'm happy to debate my opinions. I am not willing to wade through minutiae of what is so-and-so's rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

And it's been a while since anyone posted a rookie card, let a lone a pre-war card, so here:

[WWG]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

I consider Joe D's rookie to be the 1936 World Wide Gum (I don't care if it's Canadian) which is also his rookie season. What I don't understand is that many consider his rookie to be the 1938 Goudey which makes no sense to me.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yet, I wouldn't have been able to collect them despite living in the 4th largest city in the USA. That is why the hobby, for the last 40 years, has required a card be issued nationally for it to be a "rookie card."

I doubt if you would have seen these BOND BREAD (BB) cards while living in Houston in 1947. It is my understanding that the 1947 BB cards were inserted in the BB packages
that were shipped as far West as St Louis and as far East as Boston. BB had 50 bakeries located in 18 States in the late 1940's. I don't think the employees at these bakeries
were discretely stuffing cards into the bread packages as a function of the ballplayer's team. Not at the rate of 1.5 Million loaves of bread per day.....certainly not. These cards
were stuffed into packages randomly. And yes, wherever you resided, you could get a Berra, Hodges, Kiner, Musial, JRobby, Thomson, or any other subject in this 48-card set.

These cards were my very first Baseball cards which I collected in my youth in 1947. In the past 40 years (since I have been collecting as an adult), I have compared notes with
other collectors (who also collected them as kids) from various parts of this country, and their experiences were similar to mine.

Therefore, if you want to continue thinking that these cards were not a "nationally" distributed set, that's you prerogative. However, I know different from actual experience.









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Who is in charge of this hobby anyway ? Whoever it is should issue an authoritative definition of a "rookie card" And while at that also define a "true variation". I have been at this since 1957 and need some clarity . Seems simple enough

Didn't Beckett do that years ago?

My cynical definition - A rookie card is a card issued of a player roughly around the time they began playing in the majors, unless it's part of a subset or something. It also must exist in large enough quantities that most any dealer can profit from it without too much effort or investment.

Steve B

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by WWG

I consider Joe D's rookie to be the 1936 World Wide Gum (I don't care if it's Canadian) which is also his rookie season. What I don't understand is that many consider his rookie to be the 1938 Goudey which makes no sense to me.

What about his 1936 R312?