Football Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Collection

[Dan Carson]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

I completely agree, Carl. To me its silly to call a 1988 Arnie Herber his rookie card. I believe the rookie card phenomenon is a manifestation of two things:

1) It seems to have always been the unwritten rule that a rookie card has to come from a "mainstream" set that was distributed nationally if at all possible. I'm not sure if this rule was pushed by Topps and other card manufacturers or came from dealers wanting to make sure they had plenty of rookie cards to sell.

2) The grading companies would never advocate that rookie cards be designated in scarce sets like Star Player Candy as then hardly anyone would work on a HOF registry set as completing it would be pretty much hopeless and hopeless equals less grading fees for them!

Either way it is clear that the driver behind rookie card designations is $$$$, not what is truly the players first card.

I'm very content to focus on trying to get "pre-rookie" cards of HOFers from the scarce sets you mention even if these cards aren't designated as rookie cards. I agree its a lot more fun chasing those but don't begrudge anyone who wants to try and complete an official rookie card set ... that's still a tall task!

jeff

+1

[S_GERACE]

Haven't posted in awhile. Here are some of my iconic RC's.

[Jdoggs]

Nice centering on Namath psa 6.5 rookie.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Is this one iconic? I actually voted for this when PSA did the Mount Rushmore of football cards. HOFer, popular set, from a rare series. And aesthetically, there's just something I like about that Penn uniform. The Met made a comment about the use of primary colors when they put Burdick's collection on display for the SB - it made me think of this card:

[S_GERACE]

Thanks for the comment on the Namath. It's one of my favorites. I equate it to the 1952 Topps Mantle version of football cards. Short print from a popular set, charismatic NY star and unrealized potential due to injury (what-if mystique).

Hi John,
I don't know if I would consider the 1948 Leaf Bednarik to be an iconic card. I don't mean that as a slight to the card at all. I don't even own one...yet (nice copy by the way). I think it's totally undervalued but I don't consider Bednarik to be on the same plane as Baugh with respect to legacy and historical significance. It is a great set & great player but you could also make a case for the Luckman being an iconic card as well. At some point I think you have to make a cutoff and I just stopped at Baugh.

Also, what I posted isn't an all-inclusive list of "iconic" cards, just some that I chose (my favorites).

[DBesse27]

Wow, what a bunch of great cards!!

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks Scott - it's an interesting discussion. I'm probably biased towards the 48 Leaf Bednarik because it's the first vintage card I ever bid on (I actually thought it meant something that I was leading the auction with 5 days to go - I was pretty clueless). I agree the 48 Leaf Baugh is iconic, but it wasn't on CU's radar. I think the 35 Nags and 65 Namath are pretty much no-brainers. Their last two were 57 Unitas and 58 Brown:

http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...football-cards

I like the idea of including 57 Topps because I think its an iconic set, but an argument could have been made for the Starr too. I get including Jim Brown, but as far as the card goes - there's no rarity component and the "keyhole" set isn't particular attractive in my opinion. I'd take the 33 Goudey Grange over that one which wasn't in the discussion at all. But, the 81 Montana was in the discussion - I didn't really get that one either except fans who never heard of Friedman, Baugh, Graham, Luckman, etc. all think Montana is the goat (unless they only remember as far back as Brady and Manning, then its one of those two). And finally, there was one guy who voted for the Steve Largent rookie - no idea who that could have been