Kid Nichols Rookie Card?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

I think that’s the main issue here. I don’t collect rookie cards either, but I gather that nowadays, when there are so many cards issued of minor league prospects, “rookie card” has been (re-)defined to mean the first card issued after a player was promoted to the majors; anything earlier than that is a “pre-rookie” card. So Nichols’s OJs would be considered pre-rookie cards by this definition, with his Mayo being his “true” rookie card. These are all pretty arbitrary distinctions as far as I’m concerned, but I guess they’re potentially relevant for people who collect Hall of Fame rookie cards

So, is mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card now a pre-rookie card? What about Carl Yastrzemski's 1960 Topps card since he didn't play in the majors until 1961? A player's rookie card has always been his first card issued in a nationally released major league set. It doesn't matter if the player was in the majors yet or not. So, by definition Nichol's OJ would be his true rookie card. I am not sure where your definition comes from, I have been in the hobby 50+ years, that is a new one.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

So, is mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card now a pre-rookie card? What about Carl Yastrzemski's 1960 Topps card since he didn't play in the majors until 1961?

Yes.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Yes.

I guess I should be glad that I sold all my 85 Topps Mcgwire RCs for 200.00+ after paying .25 or less now that you came along and decided to change the hobby's definition of rookie card. Can you now sell me a PSA 8 60T Yaz for the price of a common star card?

Edit: I will also take a PSA 10 SP Jeter at the price of a common star card and a 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera PSA 10 also at the price of a regular star card. After all they are overrated Yankees and not even rookie cards. I hate the Yankees, but I just want them so I can reminisce about the old days when we had one definition of rookie card instead of each person make up their own.

[oldjudge]

Thanks guys (I think)! Phil wrote the book--it would be good to hear his view.

[paul]

I think the phrase "rookie card" has become a loaded term. I collect "first" cards, making Kid Nichols' Old Judge cards the obvious choice.

[Fred]

Let's take a pole, I'd bet most people would go with the OJ, I know I would.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Let's take a pole, I'd bet most people would go with the OJ, I know I would.

A ten foot pole?

[kkkkandp]

Originally Posted by Fred

Let's take a pole, I'd bet most people would go with the OJ, I know I would.

doh, doh, doh, doh...


And, yes, I would!

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by paul

I think the phrase "rookie card" has become a loaded term. I collect "first" cards, making Kid Nichols' Old Judge cards the obvious choice.

I agree with this.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by paul

I think the phrase "rookie card" has become a loaded term. I collect "first" cards, making Kid Nichols' Old Judge cards the obvious choice.

Perfectly stated.

Just my opinion, but I’d prefer this 1889 Heyn Studio Cabinet over any of his “traditional” “rookie” cards.

[paul]

Wow, that cabinet is beautiful.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

So, is mark McGwire's 1985 Topps card now a pre-rookie card? What about Carl Yastrzemski's 1960 Topps card since he didn't play in the majors until 1961? A player's rookie card has always been his first card issued in a nationally released major league set. It doesn't matter if the player was in the majors yet or not. So, by definition Nichol's OJ would be his true rookie card. I am not sure where your definition comes from, I have been in the hobby 50+ years, that is a new one.

+1

[Fred]

sooooo.... 1952 Topps or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Fred

sooooo.... 1952 Topps or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

Finally something we can all agree on.