Let's talk about "over-looked" true Rookie cards....Pre-war and early Post-war

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fact? Honestly you are the only person on this thread who thinks Puckett's rookie is 85 not 84. Perhaps we should take a poll?

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are about a trillion 1986 Barry Bonds cards out there between Topps Traded, Fleer Update, and Donruss Rookies. Does anyone except James Beckett seriously maintain that 1987s are his rookie cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Need some pictures.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by G1911

Another vote for 1984 Fleer Update as the obvious Puckett rookie. It's not like this was even a remotely difficult issue, it had a very large print run and was available across the country. PSA has graded over 4,000 Puckett's and 5,000 Clemens', representing a small minority of the available cards.

1984 Fleer Update was more widely available than the 1967 Topps final series. Is that not Tom Seaver's rookie card anymore?

Beckett's definition, which is not even consistently applied (Who thinks 1992 Upper Deck is Pedro's Rookie?), has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with $$$.

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was moot long before the internet IMO, there was a well-developed mail order business for baseball cards.

Correct as well. That was in place even before Topps came onto the scene.

[ledsters]

Regional cards are some of the best rookie cards. Limited quantities and many times different size than the regular issue. My favorite is the 1978 Family Fun Centers Ozzie Smith RC….
AB6C810A-435E-42F3-863F-8EF2B310FA09.jpg

[tedzan]

Here's a classic example of a player's "unrecognized" Pre-war rookie card, which was over-shadowed by a post-war so-called "rookie" card (1948 BOWMAN Rizzuto).




NOTE.... the two 1949 cards of Rizzuto just happen to be on the same scan as the 1941 Double Play card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Here's a classic example of a player's "unrecognized" Pre-war rookie card, which was over-shadowed by a post-war so-called "rookie" card (1948 BOWMAN Rizzuto).




NOTE.... the two 1949 cards of Rizzuto just happen to be on the same scan as the 1941 Double Play card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Spot on. That Rizzuto example is perfect. The hobby needs more information like this out in the mainstream.

Jackie Robinson has a few cards that pre-date his recognized leaf rookie card. The Bond cards, the Swell Sport Thrills, etc....pre-date and are great cards hardly anyone knows about.

Great thread showing these.

PSA won't do an article on all these cards that pre-date the Beckett recognized Rookie cards. It probably doesn't help their bottom line. It doesn't make the earlier rookie cards any less of a rookie though.

I don't think 'anyone' in general knows about the 1946 Minoso card talked about above. How do treasures like that go almost completely unnoticed to the collecting masses?

There is no harm in recognizing more than one rookie card.....especially pre-1950 where cards and sets were more unique in their production/appearance/ than what is made in more modern times. But it all leads back to the sort of silly notion of having a 'true rookie card'. The cards have merit that go beyond that definition and that is what really matters.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Correct.

Good point about the Seaver rookie and high number series not being available everywhere.

There were also probably kids across the country in 1952 that had no chance to buy Topps packs that year because their local store may not have had them. So do you have to ding status of the Mantle as a result of some contrived 'rule'?

The internet has made the 'available across the country' completely moot anyway.

The Beckett rookie definition is a complete joke.

No need to ding the 52 Mantle since the 51 Bowman was his rookie.

[packs]

My Ichiro rookie (maybe?):

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah I think there are three 1993 Japanese Ichiros, the Takara I posted, the Tomy, and the more common BBM.

[Kidnapped18]

People can call a card what ever they want but calling a Rookie Card when it clearly is not doesn't make it so...generally to me a Rookie Card is the players first card(s) issued at or very close to their MLB debut year
If a player debuted in 1933 and a card was made in 1933 that would be his Rookie Card and subsequent years 1934, 1935 etc would not be Rookie Cards

If a player debuted in 1933 but his first card was made in 1934 then that would be his Rookie Card

If a player debuted in 1933 but his first card was made in 1953 then I would say the player has no Rookie Card

1951 Bowman is Mantle's rookie card, the 1952 Topps is not, it is simply his first Topps card

Players can have multiple Rookie Cards ie Ken Griffey Jr's 1989 Bowman/1989 Donruss/1989 Score/1989 Upper Deck etc.

Modern Rookie Cards should be clearer with a few exceptions such as Ichiro
I would consider his 2001 US cards as his Rookie Cards since that was his first year in MLB
I would not consider his Japanese cards as Rookie Cards since he was not in MLB

Vintage Rookie Cards can be more problematic since players could have played a few years before a card was ever issued

[maniac_73]

So since Mike Trouts 2011 Topps was in Update does that make his 2012 Topps his true Rookie?

Personally I feel his 2009 Tristar Prospects card is his Rookie but only because thats the one I have lol

[darwinbulldog]

I'm just here to remind everyone that Derek Jeter was the 1996 Rookie of the Year.