Quote:
Originally Posted by PolarBear
I'll just throw this out there:
My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.
1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.
2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.
3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.
4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.
That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.
|
1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?
2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.
3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?
4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?