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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tedzan

With all due respect........this hobby has been around for approx. 150 years, so who (or what) dictates this "40 year" edict you are alluding to regarding rookie cards ?

Besides, I'll reiterate: Yogi Berra's 1947 TIP-TOP Bread card qualifies as his true "rookie" card. This set was nationally distributed. So, so much for that "requirement".


.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...aseball-cards/

At 163 cards, this set was one of the largest to come out of the early post-World War II era — and in fact, it was one of the largest sets in many years. But that number is deceiving, because the ’47 Tip Top set actually was made up of a group of regional issues. The Boston Braves, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox and Detroit Tiger regional sets appear to be the toughest to assemble.

Is this article wrong? Was that Yogi Berra card available all over the country or only close to New York City?

About 40 years ago, the hobby decided to classify certain cards as rookie cards. Earlier you said that you bought up 1963 Topps Pete Rose cards in 1981, but no mention of Reds Team Issues, Jay or French Bauer.

For a long time the hobby didn't place any value on "star" cards either. I have a Card Collectors CO. catalog from the early 60s where the 52 Topps Mantle was 1.00, the same as all other cards in the high series. Most of the catalogs that I ordered from in the 60s and 70s didn't charge more for stars, or if they did, it was just a few of the biggest names. That is not to say that early issue cards that aren't rookie cards can't carry premiums, whether they are a first card issue or rookie year issue, or even a second or third year issue.

[packs]

Isn't known that the Tip Top cards were distributed regionally? That would make it decidedly not a nationally distributed set, unless you're talking about the cards as a whole and not as individual cards. That to me makes these cards a premium issue and I would call the Berra a rookie issue and not a rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

If a regionally distributed example can be considered a rookie issue but not a rookie card, that means it isn't considered a baseball card. Two questions:

1) Is it fair to say then that T215 Pirates are not baseball cards?

2) Why is it that the only people I know who don't know what a baseball card is are baseball card collectors?

[packs]

The Pirate set is a subset of a larger set that is contained to the T206 set, just as the other various backs are subsets of that one set. We give them different designations as collectors, but it's my opinion that they fall under one large master set. I'd include the Red Cross, Coupons, and their counterparts under that umbrella too. I would also say that in their time it is probably unlikely that anyone collected the cards for the backs, so the backs and their individual appeal to modern collectors is not something I think existed in the minds of the creators or collectors of the sets in the time. I would say the cards were collected for the fronts.

[darwinbulldog]

And another thing -- if 1955 Topps cards were not sold in, say, Hawaii, Oregon, Montana, or West Virginia but 1956 Topps cards were, would 1956 Topps be considered Roberto Clemente's rookie card now?

[packs]

No, you could buy a pack of 1955 Topps anywhere and have the same chance of pulling the card. Don't you see a distinct difference in NOT being able to collect New York cards in Tip Top bread packages because you lived in Saint Louis and only had access to Saint Louis cards?

[darwinbulldog]

Sure, Saint Louis isn't in Oregon.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by packs

No, you could buy a pack of 1955 Topps anywhere and have the same chance of pulling the card. Don't you see a distinct difference in NOT being able to collect New York cards in Tip Top bread packages because you lived in Saint Louis and only had access to Saint Louis cards?

So what you're saying is that my '55T Musial RC is a fake?!

[ALR-bishop]

Who is in charge of this hobby anyway ? Whoever it is should issue an authoritative definition of a "rookie card" And while at that also define a "true variation". I have been at this since 1957 and need some clarity . Seems simple enough

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Who is in charge of this hobby anyway ? Whoever it is should issue an authoritative definition of a "rookie card" And while at that also define a "true variation". I have been at this since 1957 and need some clarity . Seems simple enough

Didn't Beckett do that years ago?

My cynical definition - A rookie card is a card issued of a player roughly around the time they began playing in the majors, unless it's part of a subset or something. It also must exist in large enough quantities that most any dealer can profit from it without too much effort or investment.

Steve B