Rookie Cards of Baseball Hall of Famers

[DanP]

Phil,

I have to mention one more time, you can't possible have this card as Ferrell's only RC since he's not even on the card, could you?

Rick Ferrell (1931-32 4-on-1 Exhibits)

Why not at least offer his 33 Goudey as a 2nd card?

BTW, I'm not objecting because I don't have the Exhibits card just because it doesn't seem right.

I was thinking about a hunger strike until you made the change, but I guess I'll let it go after this final objection!

Thanks

[Matt]

You're including W600s, stickers and cabinets, but not M101-1s?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

Based on the overwhelming response, I have already removed the two stickers and I have previously mentioned why no studio cabinet cards were included (not sure if you are referring to the N142 Davis, which was part of a nationaolly distributed set). Same thing with the W600's, they were also part of a nationally distributed set and although they are larger than typical trading cards, their obvious function was to be collected as specified by the issuer.

The M101-1's are just way too large and although they were also issued with the intent to be collected and were a nationally distributed series, I think you would have a very hard time finding many serious collectors who would classify them as cards. This in no way prevents them from Rookie status just not Rookie Cards.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Dan:

I know that we have agreed to disagree in the past on the Ferrell RC. I guess it is a good thing that his is the only one that falls into this category amongst HOF Rookie Cards. Since this is a unique situation, I am going to add his '33 Goudey & Worch Cigars to my listing and mark them as Second Cards. BTW Ferrell is misrepresented once again on his 1933 4-on-1 Exhibits as well so I won't bother listing that one.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Matt:

Based on the overwhelming response, I have already removed the two stickers and I have previously mentioned why no studio cabinet cards were included (not sure if you are referring to the N142 Davis, which was part of a nationaolly distributed set). Same thing with the W600's, they were also part of a nationally distributed set and although they are larger than typical trading cards, their obvious function was to be collected as specified by the issuer.

The M101-1's are just way too large and although they were also issued with the intent to be collected and were a nationally distributed series, I think you would have a very hard time finding many serious collectors who would classify them as cards. This in no way prevents them from Rookie status just not Rookie Cards.

Would you count T3s? It seems the size thing is a bit arbitrary - W600s are in, I imagine T3s would be in as well, but M101-1s are 'way too large' to be considered.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Matt:

I would say that T3's are similar to W600's and would be included, although there aren't any that qualify as Rookie Cards. Part of it too is the thicker paper stock of the T3's, W600's, N142's, etc. as compared to the thin paper of the M101-1's, which are really premiums or supplements as opposed to cards.

Personally, I would love to call the M101-1's Rookie Cards as I have close to a dozen that would qualify as Rookies but I also am aware of the general concensus that they should not be classified as cards.

[Danny Smith]

Great list. Thank you for the work. This is one of the most informarive and enjoyable threads ive read on here in a while.

[Yoda]

Phil, the Board owes you a debt for what I would consider the definite, go-to reference on HOFer's RC. I have already printed and embedded it in my file on the subject. Many thanks. John

[dougscats]

I am a long-time fan of Phil's list, which is the one I use for my H-o-F RC collection.

"If anyone would like an updated entry to be made to my original list, I would be happy to do this." [Phil]

As no one has done this, I'll submit this update for discussion and ultimately Phil's approval.

I've only done the players' RC's, though I've included the entire list of H-o-F inductees for those who are interested.

According to Phil's rules as I understand them, the RC is the card issued in the player's first year in mlb or, as the case may be, the Negro Leagues. If no card was issued in the player's first year, the RC is the first card printed thereafter. Where there is a conflict or a question or I'm uncertain, I've indicated a question mark and tried to list all alternatives.

H-o-F Inductees since 2017:

Year Name Rookie Year Rookie Card

2022 Bud Fowler 1858-1913 ?

2022 Gil Hodges 1943/47 ?1947 Bond Bread, 1947-56 Exhibit, 1949 Bowman

2022 Jim Kaat 1959 1960 Topps

2022 Minnie Minoso 1946/49 ?1946/47 Caramelo Deportivos [sic], 1947-66 Exhibit? 1952 Topps, Bowman?

2022 Buck O'Neil 1937

2022 Tony Oliva 1962 1963 Topps

2020 Derek Jeter 1995 1995 Topps, etc.

2020 Marvin Miller 1917-2012

2020 Ted Simmons 1968 1971 Topps

2020 Larry Walker 1989 1989 ML card, 1990 Topps, etc.

2019 Harold Baines 1980 1981 Topps, etc.

2019 Roy Halladay 1998 1998 Bowman, Topps

2019 Edgar Martinez 1987 1987 ML card? 1988 Fleer, Donruss

2019 Mike Mussina 1991 1991 UD, Score, Leaf

2019 Mariano Rivera 1995 1995 bowman, Topps

2019 Lee Smith 1980 1982 Topps, etc.

2018 Vladimir Guerrero 1996 1996 Topps

2018 Trevor Hoffman 1993 1993 Topps, etc.

2018 Chipper Jones 1993 1993 Topps, etc.

2018 Jack Morris 1977 1978 Topps

2018 Jim Thome 1991 1991 Bowman, Upper Deck,

2018 Alan Trammell 1977 1978 Topps

2017 Jeff Bagwell 1991 1991 UD, etc.

2017 Tim Raines 1979 1981 Topps

2017 Ivan Rodriguez 1991 1991 Topps, UD,

2017 John Schuerholz 1940-Living

2017 Bud Selig 1934-Living

[rats60]

Derek Jeter 1993 Topps, Bowman, Score, Select, Pinnacle, Upper Deck, SP
Roy Halladay 1997 Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman's Best
Mariano Rivera 1992 Bowman
Trevor Hoffman 1992 Bowman
Vladmir Guerrero 1995 Bowman, Bowman's Best
Chipper Jones 1991 Topps, Bowman, Score, Upper Deck


Carl Yastrzemski didn't play in the majors until 1961, but his rookie card is 1960 Topps, not 1961 Topps. Why would 2nd or 3rd year cards for these be rookie cards instead of their first year MLB cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Marvin Miller. 1994 issue from Ken Burns baseball set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Derek Jeter 1993 Topps, Bowman, Score, Select, Pinnacle, Upper Deck, SP
Roy Halladay 1997 Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman's Best
Mariano Rivera 1992 Bowman
Trevor Hoffman 1992 Bowman
Vladmir Guerrero 1995 Bowman, Bowman's Best
Chipper Jones 1991 Topps, Bowman, Score, Upper Deck


Carl Yastrzemski didn't play in the majors until 1961, but his rookie card is 1960 Topps, not 1961 Topps. Why would 2nd or 3rd year cards for these be rookie cards instead of their first year MLB cards?

The hobby consensus is clearly that the cards identified by rats are rookie cards, not the one's on Doug's list. The rule applicable at the time was first appearance with base card in major league set, irrespective of whether in the major leagues yet.

[G1911]

I don't think I've ever before seen 1995 cards stated as Jeter's rookies instead of his 1993's. Except by people who have 1995 Jeter's for sale

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Derek Jeter 1993 Topps, Bowman, Score, Select, Pinnacle, Upper Deck, SP
Roy Halladay 1997 Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman's Best
Mariano Rivera 1992 Bowman
Trevor Hoffman 1992 Bowman
Vladmir Guerrero 1995 Bowman, Bowman's Best
Chipper Jones 1991 Topps, Bowman, Score, Upper Deck


Carl Yastrzemski didn't play in the majors until 1961, but his rookie card is 1960 Topps, not 1961 Topps. Why would 2nd or 3rd year cards for these be rookie cards instead of their first year MLB cards?

Not in the hall, but 85T McGwire is clearly his RC even though he wasn't in the bigs yet.

[rjackson44]

Terrific

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by DanP

Phil,

I have to mention one more time, you can't possible have this card as Ferrell's only RC since he's not even on the card, could you?

Rick Ferrell (1931-32 4-on-1 Exhibits)

Why not at least offer his 33 Goudey as a 2nd card?

BTW, I'm not objecting because I don't have the Exhibits card just because it doesn't seem right.

I was thinking about a hunger strike until you made the change, but I guess I'll let it go after this final objection!

Thanks

To me, the Exhibit is his "true rookie". BUT I'm perfectly satisfied having the '33 Goudey and considering it "a rookie". I don't really have all that much of an interest in the Exhibit, but at some point my opinion may change. Basically '33 is perfectly acceptable to many. I think we need a list of "latest acceptable rookie cards" as a counterpart to the "true rookie card" and the "earliest collectible" lists.