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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The one thing it isn't, and can never be, is Mantle's rookie card. The 1951 Bowman was issued and released a full year before it, so I see no debate whatsoever.

I agree that the '51 Bowman is his rookie card, but the simple fact that it was issued before his '52 Topps is not what makes it his rookie card. It's when the card is issued in relation to his major league debut. As I pointed out, if the card was issued in the low number series (before his major league debut) it would not have been his rookie card. See Howard's post above. His definition of a rookie card is absolutely correct (official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster). He just had the events out of order.

Derek Jeter's first regular issue card is 1993 Bowman and Topps. Is that his rookie card? He didn't debut until '95. How can you have a rookie card if you're not a rookie?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I agree that the '51 Bowman is his rookie card, but the simple fact that it was issued before his '52 Topps is not what makes it his rookie card. It's when the card is issued in relation to his major league debut. As I pointed out, if the card was issued in the low number series (before his major league debut) it would not have been his rookie card. See Howard's post above. His definition of a rookie card is absolutely correct (official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster). He just had the events out of order.

Derek Jeter's first regular issue card is 1993 Bowman and Topps. Is that his rookie card? He didn't debut until '95. How can you have a rookie card if you're not a rookie?

Just convention. At least in the 90s, cards such as the Jeter are generally accepted as RCs if they are included in a major issue. E.g. 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera. As for Mantle, the discussion above is probably hypothetical because I doubt in those days Topps or Bowman ever issued a card of someone who had not been on a roster yet. If I am wrong let me know.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

I saw this excerpt on cardboardconnection.com:

"Baseball Rookie Cards versus 1st Year Prospect

Before the 2006 baseball season, the MLBPA announced some changes that were meant to make defining rookie cards easier. Both Topps and Upper Deck were on board but, honestly, things just got more confusing and a window for a new breed of pre-rookies opened.

With the rule change, official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster. In its most basic form, it was a great idea. Collectors chase rookie cards when they're first-year players. The rule has had great success in hockey. Although not an official rule, it's like this in basketball and football too as players generally make their team's rosters fresh after the draft and don't spend several years developing in a minor league system."

If we follow this, then the Mantle 51 Bowman is a 1st Year Prospect
card, while the 52 Topps is his Rookie card.

What?! That makes no sense. Mantle played 96 games in 1951, starting in mid April.
Cards then weren't issued starting in January, but during the season. So the 51 would have been issued after Mantle was on the roster.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Just convention. At least in the 90s, cards such as the Jeter are generally accepted as RCs if they are included in a major issue. E.g. 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera. As for Mantle, the discussion above is probably hypothetical because I doubt in those days Topps or Bowman ever issued a card of someone who had not been on a roster yet. If I am wrong let me know.

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

[steve B]

Nice write up!

I didn't mean that Beckett started in 1980, but that I'd heard the term "rookie card" before then.

One thing I found most interesting was that I'm pretty sure the first time I heard it used was at the first show I went to in early 1978. When I asked why the 54 Aaron was $60 the answer was that it was his rookie card. What's interesting is that that event and your timeline of the term match fairly well.

In the second image in the second Barning article link he mentions the "Jim Rice rookie card"

The first rookie card of a new player I can recall being hyped was Joe Charboneau in 1980.

Finding more on the history of the term might be a nice project, I have a few publications from the 80's, not complete runs, but enough to give a good look. Of course they're all in random boxes somewhere....

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

Neither Steve nor Jay is 100% correct, but Jay is closer. I don't have time for a full post on this subject (which I've been meaning to write one of these days), but here are the essentials.

As several people have noted, the modern concept of a "rookie card" did not exist in the early hobby. As I documented in a previous post (here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233772), it was not until the mid-1960s that dealers even began consistently charging a premium for cards of star players, let alone "rookie cards". When the term "rookie card" was used in the hobby in the 1960s and 1970s, it referred to those multi-player "Rookie Stars" cards that Topps put out every year during that time. During this period, "sophisticated" collectors took pride in not caring who was pictured on a card, only about how rare it was and whether they needed it for their set.

(By the way, Steve is correct to say that before 1980 most baseball cards were bought by kids -- and that remained true for quite a while after 1980 -- but we're talking about the organized hobby that had existed since the 1930s. Whatever kids were doing, the adults who collected baseball cards in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s did not care in the slightest about owning the first card of a given player, as opposed to any other card of that player. Also, Steve is incorrect to say that the monthly Beckett guide began in 1980 -- the first issue was not until September 1984, by which time the rookie card craze was in full swing.)

The first time people in the hobby began caring about a player's first card came when Hank Aaron approached and then broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in 1973-74, and for a few years after that. Aaron's 1954 Topps card began commanding a significant premium on the open market, and a lot of old-time collectors were not very happy about it. When Jim Beckett distributed his first card price survey in late 1976, he asked about the price of only one non-rarity star player card -- the 1954 Topps Aaron. When Beckett presented the results of the survey in the March 31, 1977 Sports Collectors Digest, he called it "Aaron's rookie-year card #128" (see footnote 1 on page 50 below), and discussed the controversy over its pricing on the following page. (My full post about Beckett's first price surveys is at http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216495)



By this time (the mid-to-late 70s), prices of star player cards had begun to rise steadily, and cards from early in the careers of superstars were starting to command the biggest premiums. See my post of Lew Lipset's report on card auction prices in 1977-78, including a June 1978 column focusing on the 1952 Topps Mantle. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear anywhere in these columns:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243152

See also these articles from Baseball Hobby News in 1979 about the state of the hobby, including rising prices. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear in these articles either, but editor Frank Barning did discuss the top young players to invest in, which would become a key element of the rookie card craze in the following decade.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241548
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241741

In 1980-81, the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle skyrocketed beyond what anybody had though possible, and at the same time people started paying more attention to rookie cards of star players, initially just established superstars, but also younger stars. Starting in the early 1980s, the term "rookie card" became more and more prominent in the hobby press, and it expanded into popular knowledge later in the decade when the hobby approached the peak of the boom. I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by steve B

Nice write up!

I didn't mean that Beckett started in 1980, but that I'd heard the term "rookie card" before then.

One thing I found most interesting was that I'm pretty sure the first time I heard it used was at the first show I went to in early 1978. When I asked why the 54 Aaron was $60 the answer was that it was his rookie card. What's interesting is that that event and your timeline of the term match fairly well.

I don't doubt that the term "rookie card" (in the relevant context) existed before 1980; as I pointed out in the post, Jim Beckett referred to Aaron's "rookie year card" in 1977. But the term certainly wasn't very widely used before about 1980 or so.

Originally Posted by steve B

In the second image in the second Barning article link he mentions the "Jim Rice rookie card"

Nice catch! Though it's possible that Barning may have been using the term in its older sense of a multi-player card depicting "Rookie Stars".

Originally Posted by steve B

The first rookie card of a new player I can recall being hyped was Joe Charboneau in 1980.

Finding more on the history of the term might be a nice project, I have a few publications from the 80's, not complete runs, but enough to give a good look. Of course they're all in random boxes somewhere....

I have a lot of hobby publications from 1979-81, including a complete run of SCD and Trader Speaks, and the annual Beckett guides. I'm missing some Baseball Hobby Newses and Card Prices Updates from late 1979 and early-to-mid 1980, but I have enough to do a pretty thorough historical study, if I can find the time one of these days.

[pokerplyr80]

I'm using my phone and accidentally voted for the 52 as Mantle's rookie card. Hopefully the other 17 did the same. There is no definition of a rookie card that I'm aware of that would not consider the 51 Bowman his true and only RC. An auction house including the designation in a description does not change what is or is not a RC.

[vansaad]

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vansaad

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

Why doesn't it have the 1st Bowman logo?

[MattyC]

Haven't read this whole thing, but it would seem any longtime collector knows what's up:

The 1952 Topps Mantle is "the" card. Most popular of the two. Sort of the standard bearer of the Post War card hobby to the public.

The 1951 Bowman is Mantle's rookie card.

Though beauty is entirely subjective, I'd venture many collectors would say both are appealing to the eye.

For Mantle or Post War collectors, both are big cards to own.

And both present the collector with unique challenges, in terms of finding an eye appealing specimen. The 51B has endemic centering and focus issues. The 52T has endemic centering and tilt issues.

[Buythatcard]

Well as expected the majority of us believe that the 51 Bowman is the Rookie card. Since popular votes do not count, it appears that the 52 Topps is still the Rookie card.

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

Nothing would change, in terms of values. For one, most people buying the two cards know that the 51B is his rookie. Also, the dominance of the 52 Topps in regards to value is not a product of the grading companies' labels.

[vansaad]

Originally Posted by vansaad

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

And here is the '52 Topps for comparison. Future star does not a rookie make.

[orly57]

Well done Aaron. Damn well done.

[jhs5120]

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

[darwinbulldog]

The poll is comparable to one asking people to vote on how many sides they think a triangle has. What's more interesting to me, than just asking people if they know the correct answer in this one particular case (Mantle), is to force people to operationalize their terms.

If a player has a card issued in 1909 but doesn't appear in a major league game until 1910, do you consider his 1909 card a rookie card?

If you say yes, then what you what you mean by rookie card is merely earliest card, and the M101-5 Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.

If you say no, then what you mean by rookie card is a card issued during the player's rookie year (and then we can further quibble about players who didn't exceed the rookie limits during their debut seasons or who didn't have any cards issued during their rookie seasons), and the Baltimore News Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1993 SP Jeter.

I'm fine with people using either definition, but there's not much benefit in using either of them if you aren't going to be consistent about it. That is, either you're in the pre-MLB-cards-count camp (i.e., the Baltimore News Ruth and the 1993 Jeter are rookie cards) OR you're in the nothing-prior-to-MLB-debut-counts camp (i.e., the M01-5 Ruth and the 1995 Topps Jeter are rookie cards).

In neither case does it makes any sense to call a 1952 Topps Mantle a rookie card.

[Buythatcard]

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

[Touch'EmAll]

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

In 2006, Beckett published "The Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia", with some pretty silly criteria for what counts as a "rookie card" for pre-WWII players. Among other things, this led them to designate the 1933 Goudey Babe Ruths as his "rookie" cards, and I believe the same was true of the other players in 1933 Goudey. It looks like they must still be using those criteria on Beckett.com, even though nobody takes that seriously any more. Here is a thread about that book from three years ago, including a mea culpa post from Rich Klein, who worked on the book when he was at Beckett. I'm not sure if Rich has anything more to say about it now.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=181414

[ALR-bishop]

For us set collectors the poll results matter not. And if you collect variations with such sets, that means one 51 and two of the 52s, rookie or not

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

I still can't seem to understand why the rookie cards command so much hype and, imho, command so much money relative to a players other cards. Someone (Mr Mint in 1970's ?) decided to make rookie cards worth more, and the public bought it, hook, line & sinker. Maybe I have missed out on opportunity over the years, but I own not one single rookie card from Mantle/Mays/Aaron and others in the 1950's, to Pete Rose/Ryan etc, in the 1960's, to George Brett and other from 1970's. Actually, that was one reason I got into pre-war, the rookie hype is minimal. Don't always have to follow the herd. There is plenty other great investment cards to spend money on besides rookies.

I think RCs are here to stay. Certainly for post-WWII and pre-shiny insert era the RC is usually going to be the most valuable card. Other than 52T Mantle and the non-HOF 71T Munson I can't think of any exceptions. I'm the opposite of the above, if I don't have a player yet I need a very good reason to buy a card other than the RC or an earlier oddball card.

[h2oya311]

I'm the "rookie" card guy, and even I'm confused

"earliest card" or "first card" or "rookie/pre-rookie" all work for me. Personally, I'd rather have one of Jeter's 1992 minor league cards over his '93/'95 Topps "rookies". Or for the daring, try going for his 1982 Oakwood Little League Team Photo! Haha! Yes, it's all a game to jack up the price. I am paying that price.

To me, it's all about researching interesting and esoteric sets that no one else knows or cares about. I prefer the oddball to the standard Topps/Bowman issues. For instance, I just "discovered" Joe Torre's earliest card (or what I believe to be his earliest card). I always assumed it was the '62 Topps. But lo and behold, I was searching eBay and found a postcard from 1961 produced by LL Cook Co. that was postmarked in 1961! Hallelujah and eureka!! I don't plan on re-writing the books, but it's fun for me to have a checklist that no one else is pursuing - even all those "rookie" card collectors out there!

Great thread, BTW. Would love to learn more about when "rookie" cards became mainstream.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

At least they didn't depict them as 17 year olds in street clothes like some of the early 90s Bowman issues.

PS I really should bag this one in favor of the 1990 Tampa card.

[tedzan]

Here's my Jan 1986 SCD. Note the significant difference in $$$$ between the the real Mantle rookie (51B) and the his 2nd year card (52T). A factor of 5 to 1, which Mantle's
52T card's value has over his 51B card in this listing, has been (more or less) consistent since the 1980's.






......The $300 listed in this guide for Rose was really a "buy price" that most dealers were paying in the 1985-1986
timeframe. This card was so "hot" back then it was mind-boggling. Furthermore...."a rising tide lifts all ships"....was very apropo to describe the Rose card's affect on the rising
value of many other "rookie" cards of major BB Stars during the 1980's. It was a really great time to be in this hobby.









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[MVSNYC]

I actually like his 51 Bowman card, a lot...but, here's my analysis.

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

But...

His more desirable, more iconic, better looking, better investment card? The 52 Topps. The most important card, in the most important post-war set.

Look at some of the greatest players in history, and their "rookie" cards versus their "best" cards...not always the same, actually often different...

Cobb- T206, Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson- T210, Cracker Jack
Etc.

To me, "rookie" cards started mattering more in the 60's & 70's (and beyond), whereas 50's and pre-war, it's a more complicated formula, which leans towards rarity & beauty, which equates to desirability, and ultimately value.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Sure, on land.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.


Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Hey Mike

SGC pop reports have approx. the same difference (factor of 1.25)

1951 Bowman = 565

1952 Topps = 470


Take care, good buddy

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[drcy]

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many feel these are RCs?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

Because there is debate over whether certain types of issues should be considered rookie cards. Regional issue, minor league, exhibit type cards, etc. may or may not be true RCs depending on who you ask. But a main stream card issued of Mantle in a Yankees uniform in 1951 is his rookie card. One issued the following year by another manufacturer is not, despite its iconic status in the hobby.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many feel these are RCs?

My answer is no. IMO a RC should only be from a nationally issued set (Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc.), nothing oddball, team issued, etc.. But I know that some people consider them RCs and I wouldn't argue the point. It's just my opinion.

And it's my opinion that a RC should only be issued after the player is a rookie. There are too many "rookie cards" out there (especially from the late '90s to early 2000s) of players that never even played in a MLB game. How can you have a rookie card if you were never a rookie?

[packs]

I think those would be classified as "rookie issues" but not "rookie cards". I think a rookie card is a baseball card that comes in a pack of cards, not a premium or something issued in a team set.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by drcy

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

I am not sure what back in the day means, but going back to at least 1959 Topps included players with no MLB experience in their sets. Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

I agree that Topps, Bowman or Fleer don't hold a monopoly, but it must be a national set, where the majority of collectors could obtain the card. So, if Post had made a card of Willie Stargell in 1963, it would be a rookie. IDL is not. It also must be a major league set.

Also, the point of a player not having a rookie card is a valid one. It certainly doesn't need to be released by his rookie season, but if it occurs several years after, is it a rookie card? Then does the player not have a rookie or do we find a card that doesn't meet the definition, a "first card" for people to chase?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rats60

Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

Just FYI, it is more than likely that Topps made his '55 card before his major league debut. The card was part of the low number series and Koufax didn't make his MLB debut until June 24th, 1955. However, Koufax was on the Dodgers roster for two years before his debut.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think those would be classified as "rookie issues" but not "rookie cards". I think a rookie card is a baseball card that comes in a pack of cards, not a premium or something issued in a team set.

There is some force to that argument but what do you do with, for example, the Fleer Update Clemens that I think was only issued in a set? Beckett used to XRC it and others like it but to me that seems stupid.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many feel these are RCs?

I disagree with everyone who responded "no" to this question. These are all "rookie" cards in my book! The flawed logic of having to be a nationally distributed set is why Beckett lists the 1933 Goudey Ruth as his rookie card despite the 1916 M101-5 set being WIDELY distributed and the more obvious choice for even the "purists".

And to me a rookie card can be issued many years after a rookie season. In other words, it's the card that's the rookie, not the player. Perhaps there should just be a new name used for all the "rookie card" crazy people out there.

Cards should be called the "earliest" or "earliest professional" or "earliest major league" or "earliest nationally distributed" card, not "rookie" card. It is clearly confusing for everyone, me included!

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is some force to that argument but what do you do with, for example, the Fleer Update Clemens that I think was only issued in a set? Beckett used to XRC it and others like it but to me that seems stupid.

I, myself, don't consider Update or Traded series to be the rookie cards either. For Clemens, I say his rookie card is the 85 Topps. I say Ripken's rookie card is the 1982 Topps, and not the Traded as well. If a card is only issued in a factory set, that to me is not in the spirit of the "rookie card" that you pull from a pack.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I, myself, don't consider Update or Traded series to be the rookie cards either. For Clemens, I say his rookie card is the 85 Topps. I say Ripken's rookie card is the 1982 Topps, and not the Traded as well. If a card is only issued in a factory set, that to me is not in the spirit of the "rookie card" that you pull from a pack.

84 Fleer Updates of Clemens and Puckett sure feel like rookie cards to me.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I think a rookie card is a baseball card that comes in a pack of cards.

And just when do you suppose a baseball card was first pulled from a pack of cards?

[packs]

It's a factory set though and of course open to interpretation but to me if you couldn't pull the card from a pack of cards or whatever the substitute in the day was for a pack of cards, it's not a rookie card. It's a rookie issue.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

And just when do you suppose a baseball card was first pulled from a pack of cards?

If you ask me a Cracker Jack box with a Cracker Jack card inside that was bought for the baseball card is the equivalent of a pack of cards for its time. If you had to mail away for something, like an N173, that's not a rookie card in the same vein.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Just FYI, it is more than likely that Topps made his '55 card before his major league debut. The card was part of the low number series and Koufax didn't make his MLB debut until June 24th, 1955. However, Koufax was on the Dodgers roster for two years before his debut.

That would be something since Koufax was in high school in 1953 and he played for the University of Cincinnati in 1954. The Dodgers signed him on December 14, 1954 and placed him on the major league roster so he wouldn't be drafted by another team in the rule 5 draft, like happened with Roberto Clemente a few weeks earlier.

[tedzan]

After reading 94 posts here, all I can say is this "rookie" discussion is approaching the ridiculous. As, ridiculous as those votes in the poll that claim the 1952 Topps Mantle
card is the "rookie".

Anyhow, I collected these two Jackie Robinson cards as a young kid in 1947 - 1948. And, some on this forum would say that these 2 cards do not qualify as JRobby's real
ROOKIE cards (since they were not in a nationally distributed set).

...................... 1947 Bond Bread .............................................. 1948 R346 (Blue Tint)




Well then, shall we consider Yogi's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card his true "rookie" ? Hey guys....this set was nationally distributed.

.




Furthermore, I'll include these 5 additional cards into this "rookie" debate. As they obviously precede their 1948 (or 1949) BOWMAN cards, or their 1949 LEAF cards.




I hope you guys get what I'm driving at ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[darwinbulldog]

Musial at least had an earlier card that was nationally distributed. Never mind which nation it was.

[smallpaul2002]

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

Stay here and post as much as you want, I can clearly understand what you are posting, As a fellow Canadian, I've got your back!!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tedzan

After reading 94 posts here, all I can say is this "rookie" discussion is approaching the ridiculous. As, ridiculous as those votes in the poll that claim the 1952 Topps Mantle
card is the "rookie".

Anyhow, I collected these two Jackie Robinson cards as a young kid in 1947 - 1948. And, some on this forum would say that these 2 cards do not qualify as JRobby's real
ROOKIE cards (since they were not in a nationally distributed set).

...................... 1947 Bond Bread .............................................. 1948 R346 (Blue Tint)




Well then, shall we consider Yogi's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card his true "rookie" ? Hey guys....this set was nationally distributed.

.




Furthermore, I'll include these 5 additional cards into this "rookie" debate. As they obviously precede their 1948 (or 1949) BOWMAN cards, or their 1949 LEAF cards.




I hope you guys get what I'm driving at ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

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."

[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
.

[glynparson]

Nobody has ever correctly determined that the 1952 Topps was his rookie card and the 1951 Bowman was not. People incorrectly identifying something doesn't make it fact. His 1951 Bowman, by standard hobby definition, is his rookie card, because some people and services call the Topps a rookie card does not make it so. The 1952 Topps is more valuable but nobody ever said that a Rookie card needed to be a players most valuable card.