Joe DiMaggio's Rookie Card?

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Paul S

This is why people in Toronto go to Buffalo to do their shopping

I love Buffalo. Best beer selection I have ever seen.

[PhillyFan1883]

The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by PhillyFan1883

The 1936 WWG is Dimaggio’s Rookie card to answer the post.
I also say who cares where the card is from. Lots of great Canadian issues that are very tough. I look at the Zeenuts as Joe Ds minor league first issue, but the batting pose as the first a better card more than the throwing pose.
The throwing pose is a tweener IMO. Not his true minor league first,
but not his pro rookie. All three are great cards but his true rookie is the WWG. If you make an argument for the 38’ Goudey it’s just not logical. The premiums are just that premiums— not cards.

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

Ha! Another good question.

I think people use "rookie" and "inaugural" interchangeably. I do think there should be a distinction but I doubt you'll ever get the industry to make that distinction. "Rookie" is too ingrained to change.

I was just reading an article the other day about the N172 set being filled with "rookie" cards. Um, ok. Perfect example where inaugural would fit much better.

[JoeDfan]

R311

Technically, probably too big, but I love it.

Although the National Chicle is a stunning action shot, so that is right up there too.

[PhillyFan1883]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Good points. Now the next question is do all player’s have rookie cards? The answer in my opinion is “no.”

Great question and I tend to agree. The problem only really comes into play with these lets say pre 1940's players. I like the inaugural thought and it makes sense, but again with the earlier players it doesn't feel right not to attach the RC designation to one of the players cards. Tricky stuff lol. Then there is a guy like Shoeless Joe who really makes an interesting conversation with his 1909 E90-1 Pro rookie but then in 1910 the famous T210 minor league card.. Fun conversations for sure.

[PolarBear]

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

I'm with you on 1 an 2. Definitely not on 3 and 4. By the way, 1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan....NOT his rookie card.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'll just throw this out there:

My personal definition of "rookie card" would have pretty strict criteria, which I bet 99% of the collecting community would disagree with.

1. It has to be a card, not a picture, which means it's on card stock and card sized.

2. It has to be from the players rookie year with his rookie MLB team. No "pre-rookies" and no later cards, which would be an "inaugural" card, not a rookie card.

3. It must be from a U.S. available set. Something that a U.S. kid could have actually acquired at the store during the rookie year.

4. No multi-player cards. It must be a single subject card. Here's where I lose most people I think, but to me it isn't a "rookie" card, it's a "rookies" card. It just doesn't work for me. There's no way I'd ever pay thousands of dollars for something like a 1973 Mike Schmidt with John Hilton front and center.

That said, I realize there will never be a strict definition of a "rookie" card and certainly not my definition. Heck, most people think the 52 Topps is Mantle's rookie, even people right here on the forum. So "rookie" really just boils down to "most desirable" card as far as most people are concerned.

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

1. How big is a card? Are T206s too small to be considered baseball cards? What about E254s? Are T3s too large? Exhibits?

2. Fine. Most people tacitly (if not explicitly) reject this in not accepting that Derek Jeter's rookie cards are, by this definition, from 1995 or 1996.

3. Would you say that there is no such thing as a Canadian baseball card or that there are Canadian baseball cards but none of them are rookie cards?

4. Can there be more than one player in the picture if there's only one player named on the card (e.g., see below)?

My personal definition of "card sized" would fit into a standard PSA/SGC slab, so yes T206 etc. are cards. I never really thought about it before but I think they need to be square/rectangle. I personally wouldn't consider E254's "cards" by that definition.

Of course there are Canadian baseball cards. I just wouldn't consider them a true "rookie". How far do we want to go beyond that? It's easy to include Canada since they have a baseball tradition and the cards are in English. What if Japan issued a "rookie"? Most people wouldn't count it. As I said, these are the lines I draw, which I expect most people will disagree.

I'd consider cards with a single named player, who is the main subject, to be cards of that player. Plenty of modern action shot cards are obviously meant to be for that player even though others may be in the shot. (1973 Topps is pretty bad about this though and sometimes you can't tell what player they were trying to shoot)

For what it's worth, I don't buy into all the "rookie" hype or "most desirable" hype anyway. Like I said up thread, if I wanted a DiMaggio, I'd get one of the Play Ball issues instead of anything from 36-38. I just don't care about "rookie" cards.

[rhettyeakley]

I don’t understand why a Canadian card would not be considered a card. The reality is that it was more likely a kid in New York City would have access to a Canadian card made in Ontario than they would a Zeenut card made and distributed in California. Maybe it is because I grew up in Maine and Had daily interactions with Canadians but I have never thought of Canada as a “foreign country” in the same way do other places like England or Australia.

Also the definition of a rookie card in the modern card market is very different than it was when most of us collected as kids. Today the definition is a card from the season you make your debut in the Major Leagues (preferably pictured with the big league club). Mike Trout’s “rookie” is considered to be the 2011 Topps Update and sets made at that time but he was pictured on cards dating back to 2009 but those aren’t considered his rookie but merely his first cards and many are worth far less than his Toops Update card, even though they are earlier. Some players today are featured on cards MANY years before they make their debut (I was looking at a player the other day That had their first card in 2010 but didn’t make the majors until 2016).

Many of the rookies we collected back in the day wouldn’t be collected as rookies now, chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, etc. I have never seen someone really selling a 2003 Miguel Cabrera as a rookie even though that was his debut year.