1952 topps "rookies"

[Rookiemonster]

As long as I can remember people referred to the mantle & mays cards as rookies. What gives? Does topps only has the right to make rookie cards.
I just was reading a article and it said a 52 mays rookie sold for (a lot). But I'm like that's not his rookie.

So how did this happen and will it ever stop?

[swarmee]

Not a rookie. It's a "First Topps Card" which was kind of coined in the late 80s/early 90s when we started getting RC, XRC, and FTC in the Becketts. Doesn't mean it will ever stop.

[pokerplyr80]

I think it started because even non collectors know the 52 Mantle and because it's so valuable they assume it's his rookie. I didn't realize that happens with the Mays as well. I don't think it will ever stop either but would assume anyone in the hobby realizes which cards are the true RCs.

[bobsbbcards]

When I was younger, I heard so often that the 1952 Topps Mantle was his rookie card that I became convinced that 1952 happened before 1951. I assumed it was only recently that years started occurring chronologically.

[ALR-bishop]

I was born in 1950 and distinctly remember 1952 coming after 1951. But why does anyone care if someone calls the Mantle 52 card a rookie card ? What is the accepted hobby definition of a rookie card ? Will exposing the 52 Mantle as a rookie card fraud decrease it's value relative to the 51 Bowman ?

Plus Bob is like me and was born old

[almostdone]

In my experience I've come to the conclusion that 99.9% of collectors know which Mantle is his rookie and which is not. The difference is that some people care about semantics much more than the rest.
Drew

[Rookiemonster]

When I was a kid and would frequent the cards show. I was told that 1952 topps was the rookies of both mantle and mays.this made me want those cards. I don't think I knew about 1951 Bowman being the true rookie for a few more years.thats when my interest turned to that. So it does create a want for the 52s
That might not have been as strong if not for "a rookie mistake"💥

As far as what if changing the designation.I don't know if it will change the value, but I believe it already has.

[Leon]

The '52 Topps might be the all time most collected set of baseball cards. It is also (arguably) better looking than '51 Bowman. Personally I have never thought the '52 Mantle was his rookie. It is the other characteristics that make the '52 more desirable and valuable. But it's not his rookie card.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I remember when the "rookie" card became a big deal around 1979 or 80. I thought then as I do now, what difference does it make that it is someone's first card? They are printed in equal numbers for the most part with other cards, it is just a card, why should it be worth more than say his third year card?

Of course high numbers and short prints are another matter as far as value is concerned.

[Volod]

What makes this somewhat more ironic is that Topps could have printed actual rookie cards of Mantle and Mays in its 1951 Redback or Blueback sets, but since that year was Topps "rookie" year as a BB card publisher, the company was leery of using any but veteran players in those sets. But I have to wonder if there had been '51 Topps Mantle and Mays cards, would collectors still have spurned them in preference to the '52's?