True Pre-War Rookie Cards

[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

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

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

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, I'd take this Campy "rookie" over any Bowman card any day...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

and all the tpgs got that one wrong too...fwiw, that premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

As for me, i'd take this campy "rookie" over any bowman card any day...

+100000

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

And all the TPGs got that one wrong too...FWIW, that ['51 Wheaties] premium was likely issued in 1953, not 1951.

Some hold that opinion, and they're welcome to it, but not everyone does. Just be aware that it is in fact only an opinion. I've seen the so-called "proof," and am not impressed (if you wanted a photo of Mantle in his home, pinstriped uniform, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to obtain one in ways other than air-brushing out the road uniform characteristics from the photo taken during the '52 World Series with Brooklyn and putting the pinstripes in so that they were just right--sounds like a true pain in the a__, most likely because it would be--plus, look closely--the shadows are distinctly different on the bat and by his chin in their depth. Why in the world would you go to the additional trouble of changing them? Mantle would have taken exactly the same stance from the right side every time he assumed it--that's called habit, built out of playing and practicing since he was three years old or so). I recall reading that they came out when a Wheaties exec retired (don't think they were seen before the late '80's at the earliest), and he reportedly told Bob Lemke that they were created in 1951. Plus, the other photo premiums from the set were the basis of drawings issued with Wheaties in 1951. I personally believe that it will remain labeled a 1951 long after we all are gone, but as I stated, to each his own.

Highest regards,

Larry

[bcbgcbrcb]

Derek:

I have been asked and expressed this opinion many times before regarding the Old Judge "minor leaguer" cards. By and large, the N172's are a Major League issue but do include some players on their minor league or pre-Major League teams. I would classify those as rookie cards due to the nature of the set overall.

[BeanTown]

Great thread and agreed there are many rookie cards of HOFers. Supplements, team cards, magazines, pins, Postcards, caramel cards, tobacco cards, etc... Common ingredient is they were all designed for distribution.

[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.