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

[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?