How many feel these are RCs?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...obby1948BT.jpg



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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...BreadBerra.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...pTopBreadB.jpg




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.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ookiestars.jpg


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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

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

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!!

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."

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".


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...BreadBerra.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...pTopBreadB.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

1952 Topps is not a Rookie despite false designation
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Sure, Saint Louis isn't in Oregon.

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

That isn't what "if" means.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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."?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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. :confused:

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.



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eadwrapper.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ookiestars.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Didn't Beckett do that years ago? :D

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

What about his 1936 R312?