Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[bcbgcbrcb]

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

Phil I assume that where a player has an issue in a regular season set you intended to exclude an update set from a different manufacturer even thought it would be from the same year? E.g. Maddux Fleer Update, Griffey Topps Traded?

[dougscats]

Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dougscats

Thank you again, Phil--
You're the Man!--

However, where is your Master List located?
I don't see the updates in the list on page 1.
Am I missing something?

This list is to your credit, even more so as you're not collecting them anymore.
You are also the authority on the rules, so I look to you for the final word.

Right at the bottom of his first post.
LATEST HOF INDUCTEES

Craig Biggio (1988 Score Traded/Fleer Update)
Bobby Cox (1969 Topps)
Tom Glavine (1988 Donruss/Fleer/Tops/Score)
Ken Griffey Jr. (1989 Upper Deck/Bowman/Fleer/Donruss)
Randy Johnson (1989 Upper Deck/Topps/Fleer/Donruss/Score)
Tony LaRussa (1964 Topps)

Greg Maddux (1987 Donruss/Leaf)
Pedro Martinez (1991 Upper Deck Final Edition)
Mike Piazza (1992 Bowman)
John Smoltz (1988 Fleer Update)
Frank Thomas (1990 Leaf/Bowman/Topps/Score)
Joe Torre (1962 Topps)

[dougscats]

Thanks for pointing that out, Peter.
I was looking for them in alphabetical order and missed the new additions at the bottom.

And thanks again, Phil.
I see there were several other new inductees that I left out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess it's not clear to me why a 1989 Topps Traded Griffey wouldn't also be a rookie card, for example, since he was not in the Topps regular series. It's still a 1989 card and while it was released later than the regular issue sets from that year, if priority within the year matters we would have to research which of the regular sets was issued first and only pick the first one. Just my opinion.

[bcbgcbrcb]

After 1981, when Fleer and Donruss entered the game along with Topps, more and more sets were produced throughout the year by the card manufacturers. Anything issued during the same calendar year would also be considered a rookie card if a base card (not an all-star card, league leader card, etc.) from a set such as Topps Traded, Fleer Update, Donruss "The Rookies", Upper Deck Final Edition, etc. In recent years, there are so many and all are so plentiful that I don't bother making an exhaustive list. If you are doing a BB HOF RC collection, you may only be looking for one example for each anyway.

So, yes, the 1989 Topps Traded Griffey is definitely a rookie card example, also known as an XRC because it comes from a traded/extended set issued later in the year via hobby sources only.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Phil in that case I think you may be missing several Griffeys and Madduxes from your list. Griffey had at least a Topps and Score Traded and Maddux had a Fleer Update and Topps Traded. Also Piazza had a 92 Fleer Update.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I have just updated my master list with the rookie cards for the past three years' inductees which were missing. I have not done extensive research on these as I had in the past because I no longer collect them and have no vested interest other than to help out fellow board members with their collections. If you feel I have made an error, please post here and we can discuss and I can always update the master list again as necessary.

Thanks again to everyone for your interest in this topic.

I don't feel you made an error, but would like to ask why the 36 world wide gum over the Joe dimaggio zeenut? I have heard others claim the 38 goudey is his true rc. I would like to pick up a dimaggio rc but want to make sure I get the one accepted by most as the rc.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

[pokerplyr80]

Thanks for the quick response Phil that makes sense. I am a fan of both cards and hope to have one of each eventually. I collect HOF RCs though and a dimaggio rc would fit in nicely.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

I definitely get the idea of pre-rookie vs. MLB rookie cards, but then wonder why a card like Kid Nichols' N172 is considered a rookie as it pre-dates his big league career. What makes this different than any Zeenut pre-rookie card?

Will say, I'm more than happy to own either, or both, or many versions of these early cards, rookie or not... Zeenut Dimaggio, 1936 R312 Dimaggio, 1938 Goudey Dimaggio, etc.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Peter:

I knowingly included just regular issues and left out update sets whenever that was the situation. All would still be rookie cards as I mentioned previously.

For the most part all of the post-1948 HOF RC's are pretty well identified in Beckett's price guides. There are a few cases where my choice may differ from theirs, but for the most part, a collector can look up any post-1948 baseball card and if deemed a rookie card, it will have the RC designation in the catalogue. As more and more of the modern era guys start getting into the Hall that have 10 - 20+ rookie cards each, it doesn't make sense to me listing 20+ different choices so I pick a few of the best ones and leave it at that. Again, just about every choice is plentiful and easy to obtain.

The real value in this master list and the reason that I created it was for the pre-1948 rookie cards as almost none are identified in the guides, at least not correctly. When I spoke with Bob Lemke at one time about the possibility of adding some, he wasn't comfortable with doing it so things never moved forward.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

67 Topps Venezuela was mostly or overall a major league set I think, so why not Bobby Cox?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Ian:

The Nichols question is a good one and also applies to Clark Griffith in the same way from the same N172 set.

My view on it is that the N172 set, while it does contain a number of minor league team appearances, has a huge following for it's Major League appearances and I consider the overall set to be a Major League set and, thusly, allow the Nichols and Griffith cards to be considered rookie cards. Others have disagreed with me in the past, I could live with it either way, just my choice.

The Zeenuts, of course, were strictly minor league cards.

Thanks for the explanation Phil, makes sense enough. I'm not trying to complete anything, nor do I worry about the definitions within my collection, but I do have fun picking up some of the earliest examples of HOFers I can. Thanks to the board, and in large part this list for opening my eyes to some cards I'd have otherwise never gone after--- R315 Hubbell, Chong Rickey Henderson, Dietsche Cobb, Bond Bread Robinsons, etc.

[JMANOS]

I have both on a auction on the BST ending tonight (nice plug for me) This is the rookie card per Old Cardboard's website?? There are 2 variations to the 1908 PC...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jesse:

There are 2 different Zeenut J. DiMaggio cards, one issued in 1934 and the other in 1935. Both picture him in his San Francisco Seals minor league uniform and are minor league cards, thus excluding them from rookie card potential. Both are pre-rookie cards, however, and many collectors desire them more so than the 1936 DiMaggio. You have to collect what you like but if you want to stick with the strict definition of a rookie card, the Zeenuts do not qualify. The same holds true for many other MLB HOF'ers from the 1910's - 1930's, who appeared in Zeenuts sets over the years.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks for the correction on the Cox RC, Peter. I am making the change right now to the master list.

[pawpawdiv9]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Zeenut-...EAAOSwUuFWz4lb

Don't see them with a coupon often.

Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

Yep I saw that one and wow!!!
I never liked the Goudey

SCP auctions had a PSA 2(MK) 'throwing' with coupon 4/26/2015 sell for 10,278, which sold in REA in 2013 for 14,220 when it was 1st discovered.
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1933_...-LOT30683.aspx
Goodwin had a PSA 2(MK) 'batting' w/o coupon autographed 1of1 on 7/30/2010 for 4327.53 it looks like.

I agree, I don't like the big heads and design of the 38 goudey. That zeenut is a pretty cool card but a little out of my range at this point.