True Pre-War Rookie Cards

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by botn

There is no consensus on some/many of those HOFers because as you can see early in this thread, we do not all agree on what a "card" is.

This has been discussed many times on the board, and while always thought provoking, in the end there has never been a consensus because there are entirely different schools of thought.

Which is why I have a lot of items listed for each player...to each his own. If you like only "standard size" individual cards, great (it's listed). Individual photos? Team photos? Large sized individual cards, team cards, postcards, pins, newspaper stock, supplements? Regional vs. nationally issued cards?...major league uniform only vs minor league uniform vs suit/tie/street clothes photos...how 'bout early childhood photos? Again, to each his own.

While there isn't consensus on what makes an item a "rookie" card, I tend to think that any card/photo/item that makes its way onto my checklist (which is constantly being updated), then it's a "rookie card" in my book. Even if it's not a contemporary card (like the 1974 Laughlins for many Negro League HOFers). I love learning of new/obscure items to add to my checklist, even if it's a virtually unobtainable item (either for financial reasons or scarcity). If anyone is interested, my checklist is simply an extension of Phil's checklist from years ago along with those cards that "check all the boxes".

[botn]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Which is why I have a lot of items listed for each player...to each his own. If you like only "standard size" individual cards, great (it's listed). Individual photos? Team photos? Large sized individual cards, team cards, postcards, pins, newspaper stock, supplements? Regional vs. nationally issued cards?...major league uniform only vs minor league uniform vs suit/tie/street clothes photos...how 'bout early childhood photos? Again, to each his own.

While there isn't consensus on what makes an item a "rookie" card, I tend to think that any card/photo/item that makes its way onto my checklist (which is constantly being updated), then it's a "rookie card" in my book. Even if it's not a contemporary card (like the 1974 Laughlins for many Negro League HOFers). I love learning of new/obscure items to add to my checklist, even if it's a virtually unobtainable item (either for financial reasons or scarcity). If anyone is interested, my checklist is simply an extension of Phil's checklist from years ago along with those cards that "check all the boxes".

Your list is very comprehensive and fantastic. As someone who defines rookie card very loosely I see plenty there I would deem a rookie issue though maybe not a rookie card. You have cabinets, postcards, traditional cards, photos etc and my point is that many here would reject many of those listed a rookie cards.

To me a rookie "card" is pretty simple. It is the first time a player appears on an item that has any intended or actual distribution to the public. Does not matter about the size, whether or not it has advertising, whether it was issued nationally or locally or if it features that player in the minor leagues.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by botn

To me a rookie "card" is pretty simple. It is the first time a player appears on an item that has any intended or actual distribution to the public. Does not matter about the size, whether or not it has advertising, whether it was issued nationally or locally or if it features that player in the minor leagues.

I pretty much agree with the definition above. My definition is the first cardboard collectible that was commercially distributed to the public either nationally or regionally. The only other caveat that that I have is that a minor league card would be a pre-rookie.

[barrysloate]

Sometimes a collector has to make a practical choice when deciding which rookie card to add to his collection.

Take the Just So Cy Young, for example. To my knowledge the card is unique, and the collector who owns it will not sell it in his lifetime. So if you are looking for an example of Cy Young, you will have to go with something other than Just So.

Added to the dilemma is that Just So's were distributed in the Cleveland area only, so one could argue it's a regional issue and therefore doesn't qualify.

At the end of the day, each collector has to make some decisions.

[Bicem]

Also agree that a card needs to be cardboard and intended for more than private use.

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Rookie card definitions shouldn't change based on availability or to suit one's collection.

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Or, to play the devil's advocate, the 1951 Wheaties premium (yes, it is a card, with a dot pattern, and not an actual photo), but that's opening up another can of worms! The only certainty is that the '52 is most emphatically NOT his rookie.

Best wishes,

Larry

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be hie 1951 Bowman?

Agreed, and they are wrong each time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean

True, but people do get loose with the term "rookie card" to suit their preference. How many call Mantle's 1952 Topps card his rookie card, when I think by any definition it should be his 1951 Bowman?

Even SGC does that on its flips, which is really lame.