OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

[CW]

Originally Posted by Fred

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey????

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by CW

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

[Fred]

Jay, you beat me to it.... yup no "rookie" cards way back then.

Here's something to ponder... Topps first year for BB cards was 1951. Could you imagine if Mantle was on a blue back Topps in 1951, let's also say it was an SP to boot. I wonder which card would be more desirable, the Topps or the Bowman?

Thank goodness Joplin didn't put out a minor league card of the Mick in 1950.... where would we be then?

[Bigdaddy]

William Edward White, Moses Fleetwood Walker or Jackie Roosevelt Robinson - who was the first African American major league ball player???

I would say that most of us recognize Jackie as the first, but I'm sure some baseball nerds will point to one of the other two gentlemen.

And so just like the above example, I would assume that most people outside our group of baseball nerds would say Mick's 52 Topps is his RC, and we'll all jump up and down and and be technically right that it was his 51 Bowman.

So, Jackie or Moses or William White???? 51 Bowman or 52 Topps??

BTW, I voted for the 52 Topps and Jackie is my choice.

[steve B]

Yes, "rookie card" is a hobby invention. But at the time, not an unreasonable one.

And it was around at least a few years before 1980.

The reasons they were worth more were
The general human obsession with things that are "first"
Before the mid-late 70's maybe a touch earlier, most cards were bought by kids. And most kids only collected for 3-4 years. At the time, many players didn't become stars right away. So the chances of having a players first card were fairly slim, and the chances of that card surviving the new hobby/mom cleaning/interest in cars/girls/ move to college .....were poor.
Using the 54 Aaron as an example, if you got one, which card went in the spokes? The established star? Favorite player? Local hero? Or that kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers? And if 54 was the last year you were into cards, it likely got tossed with the rest of the collection a few years later.

So yes, there's a reason rookie cards especially in better condition are worth more.

Calling the 52 Mantle a "rookie card" is generally ignorant. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they call it that. Especially dealers.
The 52 Mantle is the most overhyped double printed card of a great but somewhat hyped player in a regional market that thrives on hype. (Any questions how I rate the card? )

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by steve B

Yes, "rookie card" is a hobby invention. But at the time, not an unreasonable one.

And it was around at least a few years before 1980.

The reasons they were worth more were
The general human obsession with things that are "first"
Before the mid-late 70's maybe a touch earlier, most cards were bought by kids. And most kids only collected for 3-4 years. At the time, many players didn't become stars right away. So the chances of having a players first card were fairly slim, and the chances of that card surviving the new hobby/mom cleaning/interest in cars/girls/ move to college .....were poor.
Using the 54 Aaron as an example, if you got one, which card went in the spokes? The established star? Favorite player? Local hero? Or that kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers? And if 54 was the last year you were into cards, it likely got tossed with the rest of the collection a few years later.

So yes, there's a reason rookie cards especially in better condition are worth more.

Calling the 52 Mantle a "rookie card" is generally ignorant. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they call it that. Especially dealers.
The 52 Mantle is the most overhyped double printed card of a great but somewhat hyped player in a regional market that thrives on hype. (Any questions how I rate the card? )

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Burdick was a set collector though - I don't think he was much of a baseball fan. I think rookie card sets like the HOF rookie set tend to be popular among those who are fans first and collectors second as the idea of having one card each of a lot of all-time great players may be more appealing than collecting company issued sets.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

Neither Steve nor Jay is 100% correct, but Jay is closer. I don't have time for a full post on this subject (which I've been meaning to write one of these days), but here are the essentials.

As several people have noted, the modern concept of a "rookie card" did not exist in the early hobby. As I documented in a previous post (here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233772), it was not until the mid-1960s that dealers even began consistently charging a premium for cards of star players, let alone "rookie cards". When the term "rookie card" was used in the hobby in the 1960s and 1970s, it referred to those multi-player "Rookie Stars" cards that Topps put out every year during that time. During this period, "sophisticated" collectors took pride in not caring who was pictured on a card, only about how rare it was and whether they needed it for their set.

(By the way, Steve is correct to say that before 1980 most baseball cards were bought by kids -- and that remained true for quite a while after 1980 -- but we're talking about the organized hobby that had existed since the 1930s. Whatever kids were doing, the adults who collected baseball cards in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s did not care in the slightest about owning the first card of a given player, as opposed to any other card of that player. Also, Steve is incorrect to say that the monthly Beckett guide began in 1980 -- the first issue was not until September 1984, by which time the rookie card craze was in full swing.)

The first time people in the hobby began caring about a player's first card came when Hank Aaron approached and then broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in 1973-74, and for a few years after that. Aaron's 1954 Topps card began commanding a significant premium on the open market, and a lot of old-time collectors were not very happy about it. When Jim Beckett distributed his first card price survey in late 1976, he asked about the price of only one non-rarity star player card -- the 1954 Topps Aaron. When Beckett presented the results of the survey in the March 31, 1977 Sports Collectors Digest, he called it "Aaron's rookie-year card #128" (see footnote 1 on page 50 below), and discussed the controversy over its pricing on the following page. (My full post about Beckett's first price surveys is at http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216495)



By this time (the mid-to-late 70s), prices of star player cards had begun to rise steadily, and cards from early in the careers of superstars were starting to command the biggest premiums. See my post of Lew Lipset's report on card auction prices in 1977-78, including a June 1978 column focusing on the 1952 Topps Mantle. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear anywhere in these columns:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243152

See also these articles from Baseball Hobby News in 1979 about the state of the hobby, including rising prices. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear in these articles either, but editor Frank Barning did discuss the top young players to invest in, which would become a key element of the rookie card craze in the following decade.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241548
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241741

In 1980-81, the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle skyrocketed beyond what anybody had though possible, and at the same time people started paying more attention to rookie cards of star players, initially just established superstars, but also younger stars. Starting in the early 1980s, the term "rookie card" became more and more prominent in the hobby press, and it expanded into popular knowledge later in the decade when the hobby approached the peak of the boom. I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

It was much earlier. The 1963 Topps Pete Rose was the first hyped "rookie card." By 1979-1980, it was selling for over 100.00. In 1982, it was counterfeited. By 1985, it was over 1000.00.

New rookie cards were definitely being hyped by 1983 (Fleer Ron Kittle) and 1984 (Mattingly and Strawberry). Also with the Cubs reaching the postseason in 1984 for the 1st time since 1945, Ryne Sandberg's 1983 rookies were also being hyped.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

+1
It's a hobby invention.

Dilly dilly!

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I AGREE, the term "rookie card" is useless. Why should it be worth anymore than a second year card if the sets were produced equally? This term began being bounced around in about 1980 when the monthly Beckett guides starting coming out.

Strictly a sales pitch and many older collectors will remember there was hype around future Hall of Famer Bob Horner and his "rookie card." Ooops

















'rookie card
'