Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb
In an effort not to lose potentially valuable information months/years from now inside a thread entitled Bob Feller Rookie Cards, I thought it best to continue the ongoing discussion about Baseball Hall of Fame rookie cards in a separate thread whereby the appropriate search will be able to locate it. Although the conversation might center around Hall of Famers, the same parameters would apply for all rookie cards.
While there is a pretty widely accepted list for most post-war HOF rookie cards thanks to Beckett including the RC notations in their monthly/annual price guides for many years, the same cannot be said for pre-war rookie cards. In my opinion, this facet of vinatge card collecting has been widely underappreciated and under-collected (if that is a word). As most collectors who might have thought about trying it would likely attest, there is no consensus on which cards to go after for each player. When I came to this realization back in the late 2000's, I thought it would be a great idea to share much of the knowledge that I had acquired during years of research in compiling my own card collection. That's when Lyman Hardeman and I got together and compiled the webpage on the OldCardboard website which has been the go to source for identifying HOF rookie card candidates since 2010. Derek Granger's more recently created website looks fabulous, kudos to all of his time and effort in accumulating all of the images that he has. I'm sure that when finished it will surely be a gold mine for rookie card information and leave many choices up to the collector.
Since that time, collectors have made it known through card values (based on how much they are willing to pay for certain things) as to which items meet the definition of a rookie card, with "card" being the key word. As we can just about all agree unanimously, "cards" bring higher values than original photos, paper premiums, etc. Thus a W600 Wagner in nice condition sells for $50K+ and an E107 Wagner for easily $50K+ for over a decade now. Going back in time, an M101-1 or National Copper Plate Wagner could be had for $10K or so. After the recent boom, that might not be the case any longer but I'm also sure that the E107 in decent condition can't be found for under $100K any more either.
So, I strongly believe that the first step in identifying rookie cards, especially pre-war, is to have a consensus where the vast majority of collectors agree on what constitutes a card and what does not. Working towards that goal will make it possible one day to have that definitive rookie card list available as opposed to those trying to find fault with the system and arguing every parameter that is trying to be established by the majority of us collectors. I believe that if you break down the parameters that I have previously identified one by one, you will find that each and every one makes sense and there might not be a better alternative. If there is a better one though, then we all should try and champion the cause to follow that through.
The first parameter that I created for identifying rookie cards is that neither minor league nor amateur cards be included. My reasoning for this is that they have their own clearly defined designation as being pre-rookie cards. This includes things such as Zee-nuts, PCL Exhibits, etc. This in no way deters the value of these kinds of items as many are more highly sought after than their MLB counterparts, it is simply something that does not meet the definition of what we are trying to define as a rookie card.
Secondly, no team cards are considered to be rookie cards as each individual player image can be so small as to possibly not even be discernable. Since Topps, the leading card manufacturer for over 70 years now, used this definition over the years limiting rookie cards to a maximum of 4 players on a card, I have done the same for rookie card qualification.
Next, I have chosen not to include 1-of-a-kind items for the obvious reason that this entire endeavor is being done to grow the interest in pursuing pre-war rookie cards and an impossible task as searching for only one item in existence is only going to frustrate the collector. Instead, I move on to the next possible option going in chronological order. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to own the "true" rookie for that player, kudos to you but then no one else can.
The next item that I address is the exclusion of stickers, stamps, paper premiums, etc. as the various item names indicate. they are not cards and whether or not they are encapsulated by a TPG company does not change that.
Another requirement for my rookie card qualification is that the card must be catalogued. Typically, the old Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards is the go to source for this. Unfortunately it's been a number of years since the most recent update to this previously annual issue. Now that Bob Lemke is no longer around RIP, I guess Krause never found anyone to pick up the editing duties.
Finally, I do not include team issued items as being considered for rookie card status. Most of these have been paper photos over the years and are not cards. Some did issue postcards which makes them more of a gray area but since they are not part of any kind of advertising or regionally/nationally distributed set, I choose not to count them. This is probably the one parameter that could be argued either way but mostly comes into play with post-war rookies and the main focus of this entire endeavor is to identify pre-war rookie cards.
When Mr. Lemke was still at Krause, I had conversations with him about identifying pre-war rookie cards in the Standard Catalogue. While he was okay with doing that for a few consensus cards such as the Sporting News Ruth, the Play Ball Ted Williams, etc., by and large he wasn't comfortable enough to take on the challenge of going further with the process and, thus, things never moved forward from there.
It is my hope that one day, we can still make this happen but will take a lot of support from well-respected individuals in the hobby such as we have here on the Net54 board. What are everyone's thoughts on this topic, do we agree, disagree, etc.?
|
Great topic Phil. The modern definition of a rookie card stems IMO from the rise of the Baby Boomer generation in step with the start of Bowman and Topps sets that have been ongoing for years and years. Prior to those sets, the longest continuous sets put out by anyone were about three years, and that was it (Playball 1939, 1940, and 1041). So the more modern definition of a rookie card was based on those post war Topps/Bowman sets. And even if there was another Topps specialty (ie: Doubleheader, Hocus Focus, etc.) or other regional/limited issue set put out the same year, or even in a prior year, the nationally distributed Topps/Bowman sets set the standard of which card was considered a player's true rookie card. This thinking was also promoted IMO by the people putting out the Beckett and other price guides starting back with the hobby boom in the 80s to make sure there were tons of these various rookie cards for dealers to be able to sell. To say there was no relationship and support between dealers and the likes of Beckett would be foolish IMO. And those early price guides were really geared toward the Baby Boomer generation who were mostly focused on the cards from their youth, the 50s and 60s Topps/Bowman cards. Not the earlier vintage and pre-war cards. And thus I think you have a problem.
Just as today's baseball fans look at advanced stats and other metrics that are geared more towards the modern game and modern players, it is definitely biased against older players, especially pre-war dead-ball era players and 19th century players. The game was played differently then, under different rules and conditions and context, just like the baseball card and collectibles issued before the advent of the Topps/Bowman era took over were also issued in a different manner and context. For example, talk about a rookie card having to come from a nationally issued set makes perfect sense in the Topps/Bowman era as they sold cards all over the country. But back before then, major league baseball itself was just a regional sport in truth, with all 16 teams basically no farther West than the Mississippi, and no farther South than St. Louis, MO. So is it really fair and proper to use the same definitions from the last 74-75 years since the Bowman/Leaf sets first came out, of what constitutes a nationally distributed set and the cards eligible to be rookie cards from it, and impose those same standards on the cards and other issues for the approximately 80 years before those late 40s Bowman/Leaf sets were first issued? Ever since the late 40s when the Bowman/Leaf sets first started coming out, there has been at least one nationally issued, continuing card set put out every single year. Prior to that, what is/was considered as being a nationally issued card set was not put out every single year since the first pro-team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, was formed in 1869, through the 1947 season before the Leaf/Bowman sets started coming out in the following years.
I've heard and seen the arguments about who is the greatest this or that of all-time in baseball, and have said that to properly compare and rate players using different standards, measures, and context over the differing years and eras is not fair or proper. In my thinking, you can only reasonably determine who may have been the best by looking at and comparing just the players in particular eras, subject to similar rules, equipment, context, and so on. Otherwise, you end up getting the idiots who will try to tell you that Hyun Jin-Ryu was a much better pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. I hate to say it, but I think you have to not push for one standard definition of a "card" and a "rookie card" over the entire history of major league baseball. From 1948 going forward, yes, you can use the base cards in the nationally distributed sets that have come out from the major card manufacturers every single year since then to define your rookie cards. But prior to 1948, they did not issue those types of sets every single year, and thus I think you may have to modify your definition of what constitutes not just a "rookie card", but what constitutes a "card" itself.
For example, you mentioned not considering paper premiums, stamps, stickers, etc. as not being "cards", per se. But what about games? There were various issues with baseball players that were issued as playing cards in a game, and not issued separately or in packs. Do you include game cards as cards eligible for rookie card status then, like the Tom Barker, National Game, and Polo Grounds sets? And if so, then what about the 1921-30 Major League Die-Cut game piece/cards, shouldn't those be considered as "cards" as well then? Are the 1921-30 ML Die-Cuts really that different from say the 1934-36 Batter-Up or the 1937 O-Pee-Chee cards? Or do you then exclude the Batter-Ups and OPCs as eligible "cards" for "rookie card" status as well because they are die-cuts themselves? And that adds another question regarding the 1904 Allegheny Card Co, cards. The 1904 Allegheny Card Co. cards are supposedly a game card issue as well, not issued specifically as separate collectible cards. And to top it off, only a single proof/test set was issued, so only one Allegheny card of each player exists. You had said that there could be no 1-of-1s in your rookie card definition, but to my recollection, isn't the Allegheny card of HOFer Frank Selee the only card of his out there, at least while he was still alive and actively managing in the majors? So, if the Allegheny Card Co. card doesn't count in your definition, now he doesn't have any rookie card at all, yet a "card" of him does exist. How do you explain that away?
Because of this lack of continuous, nationally distributed baseball card sets for over half the time MLB has been in existence, I think you have to at least bifurcate your rules and definition of what constitutes a "card" and therefore a "rookie card". For anything prior to 1948, I believe you have to be more inclusive and flexible, and in some cases collectible premiums, stamps, stickers, pennants, silks, die-cuts, and the like, actually should be considered as potentially on par with "cards", and thus also eligible for "rookie card" consideration. For example, M101-2 Sporting News Supplements were issued as separate, easily detachable/removable inserts in issues of the Sporting news magazines, and were fully intended to be collected as a set. Helmar Stamps, German Transfers, and BF2 Pennants were issued as collectibles in a set also, along with many other different and oddball type issues from back in the day. Now postcards were not typically issued as collectible sets, CDVs and cabinets were not issued as collectible sets, and game cards were not technically issued as collectible sets either. So where do you draw the line(s)?
For pre Leaf/Bowman/Topps years, i think you have to use an entirely different set of rules and definitions as to what constitutes a collectible/card since there were no nationally distributed card sets coming out every single year like there was after 1947, through to today. Just like the game of baseball has different eras, rules and the way the game was played, so do the collectibles/cards that were issued for the major league ballplayers have different circumstances and eras as well. Also, why continue the modern bias. Instead of imposing the modern card definitions of "cards" and "rookies" onto earlier years, remember that those earlier years before Leaf/Bowman/Topps sets started coming out are actually greater (80+/- versus 74-75) than the modern era of continuous nationally distributed sets. So why aren't you maybe using more relaxed definitions and rules based on the earlier, longer period before 1948 to define what a "card" and a "rookie card" is? Again, I disagree with this often unfair, modern bias that was established starting back in the 80s, based primarily on the Baby Boomers and the emergence/boom of the hobby. And back then, the modern bias was even more disparaging as there was still 80+/- years since MLB collectibles started coming out up till the Leaf/Bowman/Topps sets started being produced, but that modern Leaf/Bowman/Topps era was only around 35-40 years old then, barely half the time of the earlier collecting era. So why did the much shorter era's definition of "cards" and "rookie cards" get to define what those items were in the much longer era preceding it? Seems to me the Beckett's, Tuff Stuffs, and other early baseball guides and booklets pushed collectors to an improper and incorrect set of definitions and thinking. If they could honestly say with a straight face that they thought a '33 Goudey was Ruth's rookie card, they never deserved to tell and dictate anything to anyone in the hobby as to what a "rookie card" was, IMO.
02-18-2023, 09:59 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode