Why don't more people collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards?

bcbgcbrcb · #1 03-06-2013, 03:06 PM

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

bcbgcbrcb · #2 03-06-2013, 03:08 PM

That's correct, Gary, a minor league card of Jeter that pre-dates his SP rookie would be a pre-rookie card not a rookie card. A collector just has to decide if they would prefer pre-rookies included in their collection or Major League rookie cards only.

jimivintage · #3 03-06-2013, 03:20 PM

I figure I should chime in. I am in the middle of cooking dinner for the kids right now, so it'll have to be short, and I will write more later.

Right now, my focus is on postwar HOF RCs and obtaining a card that appeals to me for each prewar HOFer. My budget will not allow for RC prewar, but I'd like to think that with patience over time, I can come close as I inch my way closer to that lofty goal.

Minor league cards really don't have a place in my collection for post war stuff. Even a 1952 Parkhurst Alston would not count. I tend to collect mainstream RCs, but I do make exceptions like the 1975 SSPC Eckersley features him in an Indians uniform one year prior to the 1976 Topps card, so I consider that his RC. Some would disagree. Who cares though, right? Collect what you want!

I agree, team cards do not count. Nothing wrong with Topps RCs that have 3 or 4 RCs on it though like the '78T Molitor/Trammell RC also featuring two others on it. It was intended to be a RC after all. However, a 1978 Topps Brewers Team card with a small picture of Molitor on it would not count.

Then there are the unique copies of 19th century guys and Negro Leaguers. I simply just go for the earliest copy I can get. If it has to be the '74 Laughlin set, then so be it.

I do have an idea on how we can all come together as a unit on collecting HOF RCs, and helping each other....BUT, I have to go finish making dinner. More later, guys!

Happy collecting!

Jimi

Kenny Cole · #4 03-06-2013, 03:55 PM

I guess my take on it is a little different. I like to collect "first" cards of pre-war HOFers when I can, but I don't really worry about whether or not the card is a a "rookie" as I define the term.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but IMO, a true "rookie" card is a card that was issued the first year the player started playing in the majors -- when he was actually a rookie -- not X number of years before or X number of years after he started playing.

For example, IMO, Candy Cummings doesn't have a "rookie" card. The first single card of him was issued after he had been dead for about 15 years. By then he had been retired from baseball for 60 years. It doesnt' make sense to me that a card which is first issued after a player has been dead for years can accurately be called his "rookie." If you choose to call the 1876 CDV of him on the Hartford team his "first" card, that's fine with me but it can't be a "rookie" because he started pitching professionally well before 1876.

The debate about what constitutes a pre-war "rookie" card hurts my head and makes me tired. However, assuming that there is some general agreement about what a "card" is, I can usually figure out the "first" card of a given player. With respect to pre-war players, I'm content with that.

cardaholic · #5 03-06-2013, 04:03 PM

1. Cost is prohibitive even in low grade for some players - or the supply isn't there (the Just So Jesse Burkett, with 1 known example - and it has been rebuilt -is by far the worst in this regard).
2. There's no clear answer as to what counts as a rookie for many players, mainly due to arguments over whether postcards, minor league cards, Cuban cards, Exhibits, premiums, etc. (and don't get me started on Beckett's refusal to count tobacco cards and caramel cards) should count.
3. Most collectors don't feel the same emotional attachment to players from older eras.
4. Many people progress linearly while collecting - get the post-WWII HOF rookies, and then consider going back further.
5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

jimivintage · #6 03-06-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardaholic

5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

Knowledge is key. I mean Beckett still puts "RC" on a ton of 1948 Bowman cards and 1933 Goudey cards. Ridiculous! It's misleading to everyone!

HRBAKER · #7 03-06-2013, 04:36 PM

It's hard for me to grasp the concept of collecting something
that no two people agree on what it is. When someone says
they collect T206s, we all know what that is. To me literally
there is no such thing as a Rookie Card, there is what we each
prefer to call an RC if we are so inclined. It's a hobby construct
on which there will never be wholesale agreement. That's
fine for some but I think that is a major contributor to the
narrowness of the appeal of the RC pursuit.

jimivintage · #8 03-06-2013, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

It's hard for me to grasp the concept of collecting something
that no two people agree on what it is. When someone says
they collect T206s, we all know what that is. To me literally
there is no such thing as a Rookie Card, there is what we each
prefer to call an RC if we are so inclined. It's a hobby construct
on which there will never be wholesale agreement. That's
fine for some but I think that is a major contributor to the
narrowness of the appeal of the RC pursuit.

I understand this point of view, and one thing that Phil attempted to do at Oldcardboard is give the collector the first 5 known cards for each player. That has allowed me to decide what I think is the right card to represent that HOFer in my collection. I'd just like to see it organized differently to where things can be separated into minor leagues, first major league card, and so on. It would be tricky for some players given that they were featured on multiple issues and controversial issues, too. Heck, even the 1988 Alomar card varies for some collectors. I personally prefer to have the 1988 Donruss card to represent him because I know it was issued before any of the Traded issues midway through the 1988 season.

I'm certainly open to starting some sort of database that attempts to keep all HOF RC collectors "happy" with options. Since there isn't an exact HOF card for many of the HOFers, then this is just the best that can be done, right?

FirstYearCards · #9 03-06-2013, 04:49 PM

Jimi, I think I have been working on a site that you might envision. For 20 years I have been a Red Sox HOF collector but have expanded to MLB HOF. I have been expanding on OCB among various other sites to put together a more detailed list of hall of fame rookies and prior cards/memorabilia. It's very time consuming and enjoyable.

Like Gary said, there's few who collect these specifically anymore, but maybe it will rebound like it did in the 80's with a little more knowledge in a centrally located site. Bill

http://www.firstyearcards.com/

jimivintage · #10 03-06-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstYearCards

Jimi, I think I have been working on a site that you might envision. For 20 years I have been a Red Sox HOF collector but have expanded to MLB HOF. I have been expanding on OCB among various other sites to put together a more detailed list of hall of fame rookies and prior cards/memorabilia. It's very time consuming and enjoyable.

Like Gary said, there's few who collect these specifically anymore, but maybe it will rebound like it did in the 80's with a little more knowledge in a centrally located site. Bill

http://www.firstyearcards.com/

Nice work, Bill! Yes, this is along the lines of what I meant, but still thinking of making a site that would the "mecca" for RC collectors to converse, share, buy/sell/trade their stuff, etc. in addition to the work you've put into the informational side of it. I'd like to see this future site also include categories for postcards, exhibits, cabinets, and more, so that a collector could simply click that button and see a list of each of those subcategories with their respective HOFers. So, say you click the "Exhibit" button. The next page would list and show a gallery of those HOFers who have an Exhibit in their first year (or two), and include a brief caption that might have the rarity of it and anything else we'd want to put.

Sorry, Phil, I feel like I'm highjacking your thread. Didn't mean to get off topic, but I guess in a sense I'm promoting what you're saying and trying find a way to enhance your original ideas. Give it a boost!

bcbgcbrcb · #11 03-06-2013, 04:56 PM

Well, Jeff, we all agree that a '55 Topps Roberto Clemente is a rookie card, no? I don't think that anyone will dispute that.

I think the term is well defined enough in the hobby for collectors to know what it means, there will still be disagreements though.

HRBAKER · #12 03-06-2013, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Well, Jeff, we all agree that a '55 Topps Roberto Clemente is a rookie card, no? I don't think that anyone will dispute that.

I think the term is well defined enough in the hobby for collectors to know what it means, there will still be disagreements though.

Phil,
What % of HOFers is there near quasi-universal agreement on
what their RC card, not cards, is. That's hardly a representative
example IMO. It's like arguing about the greatest player ever,
makes for great banter but hardly a consensus. That's just my
POV, but the lack of consensus keeps it from being a more popular
niche IMO.

nolemmings · #13 03-06-2013, 04:59 PM

I'm generally unenthusiastic about rookie cards, especially in the post-war era of players I saw play. Add to that the almost certain extra expense, whether warranted or not, and I have no problem staying away.

I want to see cards depicting the player when he is in his heyday, when some kid would have been most excited about having a copy in his collection. Take Harmon Killebrew--'55Topps or earlier depending on how esosteric you go in defining "card". Killer would not become a regular much less prove himself on the big stage for several years after that card--after many cards were issued of him. I want to see him in a Twins uni during those years he was a force, and those are the cards of him I like most by far. So too with Koufax--do you really think there are a lot of Brooklynites that admired him when his '55-57 Topps came out? I bet not, and any great interest by them in those cards would seem almost odd to me. Finally take Joe Morgan, who had success in Houston and Philly, but who will always be a Red to me-- his '73 and '75 cards are easily my favorites of him. I realize that some make a splash right away and the reasoning doesn't always hold, but in general I want the cards of players in their prime.

Exhibitman · #14 03-07-2013, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

Your concept falls a few feet short of the plate. I'd try not to pay that much but if I am assembling a set and the card is in the set I will have to get it to make the set. I can't very well stick a 27 in a 26 set, can I? It has nothing to do with rookie cards, it is set building.

While we're on the subject, one of the things I do like to get are postally used PCs of players in their rookie years. I recently picked up a 1957 Drysdale PC signed and mailed from Brooklyn in 1957 and a 1954 Bob Turley Baltimore team issue PC. I suppose those don't make the RC cut for some collectors but they are issues of the players that are as early as the gum cards that are treated as RCs and indisputably originate in the rookie years by virtue of the postmarks. If they're not some sort of RC then the whole exercise starts to lose its explanatory value as the exceptions eat up the rules

bcbgcbrcb · #15 03-07-2013, 06:12 AM

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

bcbgcbrcb · #16 03-07-2013, 06:19 AM

I just want to mention something along the lines of what Ken & David are saying, I too began my quest by buying the earliest card of each member that I could afford and constantly tried to upgrade by going back year(s) earlier. In this manner, I learned a lot about many different players and card issues over the years and it was certainly a lot of fun.

Strictly from a financial standpoint, however, I wish now that I would have had the patience to wait for the right card at the right price to purchase the true rookie card for each member. I believe that doing it the other way cost me tons of money over the years as many times my buy and subsequent sell due to an upgrade ending up costing me money and very rarely did I make money on the switch.

That being said, collect what you enjoy.

DanP · #17 03-07-2013, 08:40 AM

There are quite a few reasons why I stopped my quest to get a RC of every MLB player:

1. Impossible: Some players only have one (i.e. Cy Young) or a few RC's

2. Expensive: When I got down to the last 20 or so, many cost $10k+

3. Moving target: I had what I believed was Rabbit Maranville's RC only to find out that there's a 1912 Boston PC. However, after reviewing the information available, most would agree that Maranville would not have been on a card in 1912 (so the card was most likely produced later than 1912, see N54 post). Or how about Tris Speaker? I lost out bidding over $2k (luckily) on his 1907-09 Novelty PC. After I lost I find out that the Novelty PC's were most likely produced after 1910. So in reality, it was no more his RC then the T206 that I already had.

4. Definition: I got tired off hearing different definitions of what is a "card"? How is a sticker or photograph called a card?

I still collect RC's but now only of players I am interested in. I only decided to get back into collecting when I built my family room and theater room. I wanted to have a sports theme for each. I'm doing more autographed baseballs and football helmets (nothing expensive), statue's (i.e. Hartland, Danbury Mint) and graded cards. I love going down into the room and just looking around.

Oh well, that's my 2 cents worth!

Phil, keep up the good work!

Exhibitman · #18 03-07-2013, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Adam:

I do understand the concept of set building (I'm not an idiot), my point was to question whether you would pay $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set and were not interested in it because it was a rookie when it would cost $650 less if it were not a rookie. I guess if you could never get one for under $750, then you would have to.

Regarding team issued postcards, used or not, those would be considered rookie cards if from the same year as their mainstream rookie card such as your Drysdale example.

Never said you were [as far as you know

]. The cost of the 'rookie' cards in some of the Exhibit sets is one reason why I haven't pursued the prewar sets with the same vigor as the postwar issues.

I consider the PCs to be rookies also but I know a lot of collectors who would disagree. To each his own...

bcbgcbrcb · #19 03-07-2013, 02:57 PM

The main reason why I gravitated towards Rookie Cards of HOF'ers rather than any random cards of HOF'ers is that had been my primary interest since I was 12 years old. Even though I was only collecting modern Topps, Fleer and Donruss cards at the time, I was after Fernando Valenzuela rookie cards, Tim Raines rookie cards, etc.

As I got older and noticed the volatility of that market from season to season, I decided to go a safer route and do retired HOF'ers instead. Thus, where I am today.

To me, focusing on rookie cards poses a finite number of items for the collection as opposed to any card that you like of an individual, which obviously would be infinite. The rookie card set also gives you an opportunity to measure your collection against all others going after the same cards just like T206 or any other set. How can you compare a '32 Sanella Margarine Babe Ruth to a Sporting News Babe Ruth, which two different collectors have as their Babe Ruth representation for their HOF collection?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Way to Collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	07-03-2012 07:28 PM
SOLD: Lot of (5) Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	06-01-2012 04:08 PM
SOLD: (5) -Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards (ALL SGC GRADED)	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	07-12-2011 09:45 PM
For Sale: Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	06-14-2011 07:59 AM
Sale of Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards-ALL SOLD!	MBMiller25	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	03-27-2010 01:18 PM