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

[Exhibitman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?