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

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

[z28jd]

It seems like the older the card/player, the less I care about getting his rookie card. The break point is probably the start of the Topps era. Never really thought about why, but I can't think off-hand of any pre-52 rookie that I wanted because it was a rookie. On the other hand, I can think of tons of HOF players that I wanted their rookie. Some I still haven't got around to buying like Steve Carlton

[glchen]

My opinion on one of the reasons for that is the lack of consensus for some of the prewar rookie cards. For example, Ty Cobb has something like 5+ rookie cards. If there is consensus and some set rules that collectors can agree with, then I think they would be more popular for prewar. For example, modern cards often have multiple rookie cards for a player also. However, I think the rule is something like the most valuable card for that player with a print run greater than XYZ. (That way certain short prints won't be included.) For example, I think right now, there is general agreement among that M101-5/4 is Ruth's rookie card, so auction houses have commonly advertised this when selling these cards. Same thing with the 1925 Exhibits Gehrig (sorry, Adam).

[bcbgcbrcb]

As an aside, I have asked Bob Lemke if I could forward him a list of pre-war rookies that a small group of us worked on a couple of years ago. The intent is to label those with the "Rookie" designation in the SCBC. The answer was "no" because the topic is too controversial. Well, it's going to remain controversial until someone defines it.

[paul]

Phil's original question was why interest in HOF rookie collecting has diminished in the last few years. I always thought the reason for this was the HOF election of 2006. When all those Negro Leaguers were elected, many people lost hope of getting the rookie card of each HOFer. The rookies of Pete Hill and Jose Mendez are in the Punch set. Good luck finding them. Biz Mackey is no walk in the park either. I think this discouraged a lot of people.

The lack of consensus over what is a rookie card is also a factor. But that factor was present even in the hey day of HOF rookie collecting.

[Kenny Cole]

Paul, Pete Hill's "rookie" (or first card as I would define it) is actually in the Cabanas set. The Cabanas were issued a year earlier than the Punch set if I understand things correctly.

[oldjudge]

I have never understood the hoopla about rookie cards. I agree with an earlier poster that it was just a vehicle for some dealers to charge more for them. For me, I would think that a collection of one card, regardless of the year but issued during the player's active playing days, of each HOFer would be a nice collection. I don't like the '51 Bowman Mantle but I do like the '52 and '56 Topps cards, so that would be what I got. I would get the Collins McCarthy Ruth rather than the M101 card. I would get the Goudey Gehrig and the Zeenut DiMaggio.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

This is a very difficult topic to discuss in regards to what specifies a 'rookie card'. I know my definition, or collecting niche you can call it, is that I consider the first card of a player in a mainstream set. That mainstream set needs to be readily available pretty much nation wide, not just a specific region or state. Obviously, a lot of players do not have this, so if I have no 'rc' for that said player, I just try to get the ealiest signed card available for that player. An example of this is Honus Wagner. There are early 1900's cards of him, non are signed to my knowledge. The earliest 'true card' signed I've seen of him is a '40 Play Ball.

In my collecting of HOF signed 'rookies', I do not consider magazine photos, or clippings to count.

But I guess the number one, most important thing is to collect what you want. Everyone has there own opinions and views on what an 'rc' is, but in regards to your own collection, it's only your opinion that matters. I know I have a TON of pre-war cards that aren't 'rc's' like my Gehrig DeLong, Rousch, and tons of others. But they will do, because I consider them to fit my set, and I'm so happy I have them. I still get chills when I see my Gehrig signed DeLong, because I never thought I would EVER even own a Gehrig autograph, or an autographed card. But that's what makes me happy, and when it's broken down to whether it's a rookie or not, in the end, you just gotta be happy with it.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

OK, Phil, basically what I envision (and I certainly would be ok being the one starting this unless someone else wants to) is developing a website that encompasses all of these issues in one location. Yes, I know there is a lot out there, but for some reason, we keep coming back to these same threads and asking virtually the same questions....so that must mean that the "super minds" of this near impossible type-card collection still have yet to come up with all the answers on all the information available.

SOOOOOO......why not develop a similar list of HOF RCs like the work you published on Oldcardboard.com (but more in-depth), add a forum for discussion much like Net54 geared towards discussing HOF related cards with a focus on RCs (but certainly other things, too, like Negro Leaguers, managers, etc.), and develop a section to where HOF collectors can post their want lists or send a direct link to their want list.

I was just telling Derek a couple days ago that we need to help each other out in our quests, but heck, that's only two people. If we can centralize a location for all of us "crazies" into one spot, we could have a group researching, trading, and conversing together. Some people will be more experts in Negro League cards, some in executives, some in 19th century and so forth.

I love the Oldcardboard.com section on the HOF stuff, but I think a lot more could be done to it. More on that later as this idea formulates.

[tedzan]

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.



. . . .


. .


TED Z

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.

TED Z

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

[HRBAKER]

Jimi,
I am aware of Phil's tireless efforts. I applaud his focus and
have contributed a scan or two. I was merely commenting
on his lamentation about the seeming lack of appeal of RC
collecting.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

Jimi

One cannot live by pre-war stuff alone

Actually, my collection comprises of cards (sets) from 1887 to 1987.

Best regards,

TED Z