Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   6 HOF RCs in one year (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=303590)

Peter_Spaeth 06-14-2021 06:50 PM

6 HOF RCs in one year
 
1991 may never be topped:
Mussina
C. Jones
Thome
P. Martinez
Bagwell
I. Rodriguez

I think I only came up with one year where there were 5, 1957:
F Robinson
B. Robinson
Bunning
Drysdale
Mazeroski

But I may be missing something.

2018 has a lot of promising players, we'll see.

G1911 06-14-2021 07:01 PM

If you use Beckett, T206 has like 30 of ‘em ;)

Peter_Spaeth 06-14-2021 07:04 PM

This is a post-war section, son.:cool::eek:

Gr8Beldini 06-14-2021 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2113806)
1991 may never be topped:
Mussina
C. Jones
Thome
P. Martinez
Bagwell
I. Rodriguez

I think I only came up with one year where there were 5, 1957:
F Robinson
B. Robinson
Bunning
Drysdale
Mazeroski

But I may be missing something.

2018 has a lot of promising players, we'll see.

1957 also includes RC of Whitey Herzog.

Peter_Spaeth 06-14-2021 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini (Post 2113832)
1957 also includes RC of Whitey Herzog.

True, but to my mind that doesn't count.

Vegas Cards 06-14-2021 09:06 PM

Okay, next step is figuring out the most collectible RC for each player.

How much will you give me for a nicely centered 1991 Topps Chipper Jones PSA 8?

Casey2296 06-14-2021 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Cards (Post 2113853)
Okay, next step is figuring out the most collectible RC for each player.

How much will you give me for a nicely centered 1991 Topps Chipper Jones PSA 8?

Interesting question, monetarily would be 51 Bowman, I think next would be 54 Topps.

rats60 06-15-2021 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2113855)
Interesting question, monetarily would be 51 Bowman, I think next would be 54 Topps.

I think it is 1949 Leaf, 1951 Bowman, 1955 Topps, 1954 Topps, 1952 Topps.

rats60 06-15-2021 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2113813)
If you use Beckett, T206 has like 30 of ‘em ;)

If you use PSA, 1949 Leaf has 9 because they think the set was released in 1948 despite all of the cards having stats from the 1948 season. The real number is 5 with the other 4 having 1948 Bowman cards.

Peter_Spaeth 06-15-2021 03:03 PM

How about years with none? 1953, right? And only one from 1956 and 1958 and 1959 (counting only players not managers). 1950, none also I think.

packs 06-15-2021 03:11 PM

No rookies in 1955 Bowman either are there?

Peter_Spaeth 06-15-2021 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2114063)
No rookies in 1955 Bowman either are there?

No but I was thinking in terms of years not sets.

Also none in 1970. 1985?

Peter_Spaeth 06-15-2021 05:22 PM

1988 weighs in with 5: Alomar, Biggio, Glavine, Smoltz, and E. Martinez.

rats60 06-16-2021 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2114064)
No but I was thinking in terms of years not sets.

Also none in 1970. 1985?

1985 has Kirby Puckett.

Peter_Spaeth 06-16-2021 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2114434)
1985 has Kirby Puckett.

No, 1984 has Kirby Puckett. I don't buy that XRC nonsense Jim Beckett came up with. IMO, his only RC is 1984 Fleer Update.

rats60 06-16-2021 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2114459)
No, 1984 has Kirby Puckett. I don't buy that XRC nonsense Jim Beckett came up with. IMO, his only RC is 1984 Fleer Update.

Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.

Peter_Spaeth 06-17-2021 12:14 PM

You're right, no 1986 either, although I suspect McGriff and/or Bonds eventually will make it.

I just don't see how you can call a 1985 Puckett a rookie when he has a nationally distributed card from a top three brand in 1984, but whatever.

Peter_Spaeth 06-17-2021 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2114465)
Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.

So why is 1992 Topps Traded Garciaparra indisputably his rookie card? And 1991 Topps Traded Bagwell and I Rod? And the 1989 Griffey traded and update cards? And the 1988 Alomar and Biggio traded and update cards? The only difference I see is that Beckett dropped the XRC after 1987.

frankbmd 06-17-2021 01:01 PM

All disputes in this thread may be attributed to rookie mistakes.

rats60 06-17-2021 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2114569)
You're right, no 1986 either, although I suspect McGriff and/or Bonds eventually will make it.

I just don't see how you can call a 1985 Puckett a rookie when he has a nationally distributed card from a top three brand in 1984, but whatever.

Calling a set that most card shops didn't order and was never available at retail a "national" distribution is a stretch. Michael Jordan's RC is universally recognized as the 1986 Fleer and not the Star issues that had similar distribution problems and were the only NBA license at the time.

1986 Topps Traded was the first set of its kind to have any type of wide spread distribution. That would be differentiating point to me. Sets that are restricted from the collecting public intentionally by manufacturers don't meet the RC definition. A RC should be widely available to the hobby, not just to a select few.

ALR-bishop 06-17-2021 03:46 PM

I collected all Topps, Fleer and original Bowman sets. A lot of folks do not think you need the Traded/Update sets to be complete. I do but have no idea how many set collectors have the 84 Fleer Traded set. I would bet however that every Kirby Puckett master collector has his 84 Fleer card

Peter_Spaeth 06-17-2021 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2114605)
Calling a set that most card shops didn't order and was never available at retail a "national" distribution is a stretch. Michael Jordan's RC is universally recognized as the 1986 Fleer and not the Star issues that had similar distribution problems and were the only NBA license at the time.

1986 Topps Traded was the first set of its kind to have any type of wide spread distribution. That would be differentiating point to me. Sets that are restricted from the collecting public intentionally by manufacturers don't meet the RC definition. A RC should be widely available to the hobby, not just to a select few.

It won't come as any surprise that I view the 101 as Jordan's true rookie.:eek:

I'll go with first officially licensed card in a major league set. I think that works across the board for me but maybe there are exceptions. Qualities such as "readily available" are too subjective for me.

How do you feel btw about cards in Topps Tiffany and Fleer Glossy sets? Those were intentionally restricted, yes?

shagrotn77 06-17-2021 06:24 PM

It’s pretty simple: rookie card = first card. That’s the whole draw of rookie cards, to have the player’s first card. And, of course, I’m not including minor league issues since they’re a whole different ballgame. The whole XRC thing is and always was nonsense. If you really think 1985 is the year for rookie cards for Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, etc., then you just don’t get it.

wdwfan 06-17-2021 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagrotn77 (Post 2114647)
It’s pretty simple: rookie card = first card. That’s the whole draw of rookie cards, to have the player’s first card. And, of course, I’m not including minor league issues since they’re a whole different ballgame. The whole XRC thing is and always was nonsense. If you really think 1985 is the year for rookie cards for Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, etc., then you just don’t get it.

So with that mindset, is the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout considered his RC? Or is it 2011? I've always though of 2011 as his rookie year and not 2009. Same way I think 1985 is Puckett's rookie year and not 1984.

todeen 06-18-2021 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdwfan (Post 2114695)
So with that mindset, is the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout considered his RC? Or is it 2011? I've always though of 2011 as his rookie year and not 2009. Same way I think 1985 is Puckett's rookie year and not 1984.

The 2011 cards are his RC, first year in the majors. The Bowman 1st cards have become popular, but those players are in the minors, and those sets are correctly labeled as Draft Pick, etc, and should be viewed as a minor league card. But, first cards have been and remain popular. Derek Jeter in 1992, Joey Votto in 2002, and Mike Trout in 2009.

And then there was MLB and Topps decision to create the official RC stamp that creates further confusion about 1990 RCs.

Because Topps Traded in the 1980s are generally recognized as RC, I consider any 1980s Traded set to be a RC. I disagree with XRC labels.

Note: this argument is meant solely for modern 1980 - present.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Exhibitman 06-18-2021 10:04 AM

1954 Topps was pretty spectacular in terms of quality: Aaron, Banks, Kaline. All are top-tier HOFers.

1975 Topps had a pretty good run too: Brett, Yount, Rice, Carter.

packs 06-18-2021 10:20 AM

The 1949 Bowman set has a lot more rookies than I remembered too:

Campy
Early Wynn
Robin Roberts
Richie Ashburn
Duke Snider
Bob Lemon

And could break the tie at 6 if Hodges ever gets in.

Peter_Spaeth 06-18-2021 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2114787)
1954 Topps was pretty spectacular in terms of quality: Aaron, Banks, Kaline. All are top-tier HOFers.

1975 Topps had a pretty good run too: Brett, Yount, Rice, Carter.

1955 -- Koufax, Killebrew and Clemente.

egri 06-18-2021 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2114787)
1954 Topps was pretty spectacular in terms of quality: Aaron, Banks, Kaline. All are top-tier HOFers.

1975 Topps had a pretty good run too: Brett, Yount, Rice, Carter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2114848)
1955 -- Koufax, Killebrew and Clemente.

1951 Bowman had Mantle, Mays, and Ford.

JustinD 06-18-2021 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2114459)
No, 1984 has Kirby Puckett. I don't buy that XRC nonsense Jim Beckett came up with. IMO, his only RC is 1984 Fleer Update.

Here, here! ;)

XRC is sham, 1985 Mcgwire is not an XRC and is not even a major league card...

The emperor has no clothes over there in their designations.

For me personally, I consider the first card issued in a major league uni the RC and agree fully that includes the Star sets, the 86' Fleer is years away from being a RC and easily the most overvalued and over hyped card in the hobby other than the 2nd year 1952 Mantle which is first place hands down.

I know that not everyone has the same thoughts nor do I expect them to. These are my thoughts and beliefs and I would personally never call either a rookie.

Chris Counts 06-18-2021 04:37 PM

The '49 Bowman set also has Larry Doby and George Kell, along with Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige, whose true rookies are up for debate, considering that the 1948 Leafs came out in 1949.

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2114794)
The 1949 Bowman set has a lot more rookies than I remembered too:

Campy
Early Wynn
Robin Roberts
Richie Ashburn
Duke Snider
Bob Lemon

And could break the tie at 6 if Hodges ever gets in.


JollyElm 06-18-2021 05:02 PM

What in high mother effin' heck is XRC??? The "RC" part has gotta be 'Rookie Card,' but 'X'??? Is this some sort of a modern collecting acronym???

HistoricNewspapers 06-18-2021 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2114465)
Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.


Unless Beckett asked every collector, then it is Beckett who made the final determination.

That premise established by Beckett is slowly being chipped away. 1984 Fleer Update Roger Clemens and Kirby Puckett are their rookie cards and are far more desirable cards than any of their 1985 cards. The fact they were harder to obtain makes it even appealing...not worse. As long as they are baseball cards, and not photos or something, how they were distributed (widespread or not) is meaning less and less in the eyes of many collectors. At this point, I prefer the regional and/or tougher issued cards. The 'traditional' counterparts get a little boring since there are so many of them in circulation.

The 'true rookie card' has always been a moving target and viewed differently by everyone and is a contrived notion much like the Holiday of Sweetest Day is...so it doesn't really matter at that point.

What it comes down to is if the 1984 Fleer Update is a better card than any of the 1985 issues. I say 100% yes they are. The fact they are more rare is a far more appealing factor than what Beckett says is a rookie card or not...but to each their own. Nobody will convince anyone who already has their mind made up on that topic anyway.

steve B 06-18-2021 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2114925)
What in high mother effin' heck is XRC??? The "RC" part has gotta be 'Rookie Card,' but 'X'??? Is this some sort of a modern collecting acronym???

X for extended.... Some liked the update sets, and considered them the rookie cards. But then more dealers came along who were just dealers and didn't know cards and often didn't qualify to buy direct from Topps or any of the other companies. They complained (whined) that they couldn't just buy the update sets so they shouldn't count. And regionals shouldn't count, and ......

So Beckett settled on a sort of fake definition, which I've reworded somewhat cynically.

Rookie card- A card issued sort of near the year a player debuted in the league, and was also sold in quantities large enough that every dealer who wanted to could capitalize on the hype.

XRC - A card issued possibly in the players actual first year, but sold to actual businesses, not just guys working out of their garage and the local flea market. OR that were available to any dealer but most of them didn't think the player had potential/had their cash tied up in the football release and didn't buy any.

By 88 it was just silly. Score rookies counted, because there were a ton of them avialable through Toys r Us etc. I forget which year Topps started selling the update set in packs, so they counted after that, while companies that didn't still got the XRC designation.

Going by the logic of "it should only count if everyone could buy it" ...
75 minis were regional, so a 75 Brett is a RC while a 75 mini Brett shouldn't be.
Many areas were serviced by distributors that didn't buy the high numbers. So high numbers were in fact regional and shouldn't count. (but they do!)

To my mind, once the hobby progressed into a somewhat more major hobby the whole RC thing became stupid.
Old days, most kids only collected for 3-4 years, and only the big stars or favorite players survived the wrath of mom. So while Mantle got saved, that kid in Milwaukee (Aaron) probably didn't.
Say around 1977 and people bought hundreds of Joe Charboneau figuring he would become a big star. Since then at least nearly every rookie card has been hoarded and saved in huge qauntities. I would go so far as to say that 89UD Griffeys are more common than any other 89UD card.

Peter_Spaeth 06-18-2021 07:52 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 2114911)
Here, here! ;)

XRC is sham, 1985 Mcgwire is not an XRC and is not even a major league card...

The emperor has no clothes over there in their designations.

For me personally, I consider the first card issued in a major league uni the RC and agree fully that includes the Star sets, the 86' Fleer is years away from being a RC and easily the most overvalued and over hyped card in the hobby other than the 2nd year 1952 Mantle which is first place hands down.

I know that not everyone has the same thoughts nor do I expect them to. These are my thoughts and beliefs and I would personally never call either a rookie.

I would call McGwire a RC because it's in a Topps set, I don't care about the ML uniform thing.

Agreed on 101 vs 57.

G1911 06-18-2021 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 2114911)
Here, here! ;)

XRC is sham, 1985 Mcgwire is not an XRC and is not even a major league card...

The emperor has no clothes over there in their designations.

For me personally, I consider the first card issued in a major league uni the RC and agree fully that includes the Star sets, the 86' Fleer is years away from being a RC and easily the most overvalued and over hyped card in the hobby other than the 2nd year 1952 Mantle which is first place hands down.

I know that not everyone has the same thoughts nor do I expect them to. These are my thoughts and beliefs and I would personally never call either a rookie.


Amen.

seanofjapan 06-19-2021 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2113806)
1991 may never be topped:
Mussina
C. Jones
Thome
P. Martinez
Bagwell
I. Rodriguez

I think I only came up with one year where there were 5, 1957:
F Robinson
B. Robinson
Bunning
Drysdale
Mazeroski

But I may be missing something.

2018 has a lot of promising players, we'll see.

One thing that kind of puts me off on 1991, compared to earlier sets like 1957, is that there is no one set which has all those guys init. Like Topps is missing Mussina, Bowman is missing Pedro, UD is missing Thome, Fleer is missing almost everyone, etc.

Peter_Spaeth 06-19-2021 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanofjapan (Post 2115018)
One thing that kind of puts me off on 1991, compared to earlier sets like 1957, is that there is no one set which has all those guys init. Like Topps is missing Mussina, Bowman is missing Pedro, UD is missing Thome, Fleer is missing almost everyone, etc.

Funny, to me that makes it that much better.

ALR-bishop 06-19-2021 09:39 AM

For a player collector maybe, but not a set collector. On the other hand, if you are a set collector the RC debate does not matter as much

butchie_t 06-19-2021 09:56 AM

Then in 1982 Topps has Ripken in the regular set and the traded set. In my mind the three card rookie card is his actual rookie card but the traded card sure gets a lot of attention as being his rookie card.

HistoricNewspapers 06-19-2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by butchie_t (Post 2115083)
Then in 1982 Topps has Ripken in the regular set and the traded set. In my mind the three card rookie card is his actual rookie card but the traded card sure gets a lot of attention as being his rookie card.

Slightly different topic, but I actually prefer when a player has a rookie card that is shared with other players. To me, it captures the time when the player was not known or good enough to even have his own card...capturing the essence of what it means to be the 'rookie'....sort of a baseball card hazing of a rookie :).

I love that aspect of the Pete Rose rookie card...and that card takes it even further by not even giving him a neck in the photo, lol.

The 82 Topps Traded clearly came after the three player card. Some like the Traded card because of the opposite of what I said above. It is also less plentiful, and that probably accounts for it being more valuable.

Peter_Spaeth 06-19-2021 01:35 PM

In 1962 Gaylord Perry had his own rookie card. In 1963 he shared a card with three other players.

HistoricNewspapers 06-19-2021 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2115141)
In 1962 Gaylord Perry had his own rookie card. In 1963 he shared a card with three other players.

Yes indeed. Then some guys get two years being on a multi-player rookie card like Dale Murphy.

Off topic, but I hope Murphy is the one guy from the 80's that gets HOF nod from the veterans committee at some point.

It is funny how the HOF criteria of "character and sportsmanship" is used against candidates for enshrinement, but never used FOR enshrinement. Maybe it is time to change that and put that criteria to positive use and apply it to Murphy to put him over the top.

ALR-bishop 06-19-2021 02:32 PM

Bill Davis was on a Topps Rookie card in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 ( all multi players)

Lou Piniella appeared on Topps Rookie cards in 1964, 1968, 1969 ( multi players) and 1970 ( stand alone Rookie Award)

mikemb 06-19-2021 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2115157)
Bill Davis was on a Topps Rookie card in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 ( all multi players)

Lou Piniella appeared on Topps Rookie cards in 1964, 1968, 1969 ( multi players) and 1970 ( stand alone Rookie Award)

Wasn't Bill Davis on 5 cards? He was also in the 1965 Topps set, #546.

Dick Simpson was on a rookie card 4 times: 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966.

Mike

JollyElm 06-19-2021 10:48 PM

Another pertinent excerpt from my 'New Collectorisms' thread...

59. Small Photatoes
Players who are so easily forgotten about that they appear on rookie cards in multiple years.

See also: Knucklestaller - the person at Topps who decided Gaylord Perry should appear on a multi-player rookie card the year after he had his own ‘regular’ card.

bb66 06-20-2021 08:49 AM

How many HOF players have appeared on more than one Rookie Stars card(2 or more players on a card). I can think of Niekro quickly not sure how many more.

Peter_Spaeth 06-20-2021 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemb (Post 2115206)
Wasn't Bill Davis on 5 cards? He was also in the 1965 Topps set, #546.

Dick Simpson was on a rookie card 4 times: 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966.

Mike

Al used to be infallible.

Peter_Spaeth 06-20-2021 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb66 (Post 2115322)
How many HOF players have appeared on more than one Rookie Stars card(2 or more players on a card). I can think of Niekro quickly not sure how many more.

If he ever gets in, Tony Oliva.

HistoricNewspapers 06-20-2021 11:03 AM

1978 Topps can get up to five HOF rookies with Lou Whitaker getting a lot of support.

Same for 1975 Topps with Keith Hernandez getting a lot of support.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.