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

BobC · #1 06-21-2021, 03:55 PM

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

Peter_Spaeth · #2 06-21-2021, 04:00 PM

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

h2oya311 · #3 06-21-2021, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

you mean this one?

And since we are trying to stick to pre-war, I'll add that most forget about this one of Big Country:

Aquarian Sports Cards · #4 06-21-2021, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

BobC · #5 06-21-2021, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

The old SCD catalogs blindly followed Beckett in many cases. Even they listed '49 Bowman as Reese's rookie card. For the rcord, I consider both his '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards as his rookies.

G1911 · #6 06-21-2021, 04:54 PM

It seems to me there are three reasonable standards, off the top of my head:

1) A "rookie card" is exactly literal, it means a players first (rookie) card. His first season is his rookie year, his first card is his rookie card. Thus, a 1960 Topps is Yaz's rookie, the 1947 Bonds Jackie's rookie, 1947 Tip Top is Berra's, and 2009 is Trout's. 1 of these guys probably has an earlier card I don't know about and I am wrong, but it illustrates the picture.

2) a "rookie card" means a card from the players first year, the rookie reference is not to the card itself (as it has nothing to do with whether it is his first card), but is a card from his rookie season (not his debut season, which is different) in the major leagues, a "card of a rookie". Thus Trout's Rookie is a 2012 because while he debuted in 2011, it was not his rookie year. If Trout's 2009 cards are not rookies because a rookie card has nothing to do with what card came first, but is based on being the card from his rookie year, then his 2011 isn't a real rookie either. Yaz's rookie is a 1961, Jackie's still a 1947 Bond Bread.

3) A "Rookie card" is a card from a players debut season, the term is a misnomer but it is too late to change its widespread use in the hobby to "debut card". And thus, Trout's real "rookie card" is a 2011, even though his rookie year was 2012, because he first appeared in a major league game in 2011. Yogi Berra just doesn't have a rookie card, since he debuted in 1946. Yaz's is his 1961 again.

2 and 3 both mean that many players simply do not have a rookie card, because no card was made in their rookie or debut season. 1 means many players rookie cards are obscurities or pictures them in a non-major league uniform (1985 McGwire, tons of modern guys in minor-league team sets).

Arbitrary standards that have been concocted for profit or to make collecting easier so that nothing but Topps cards and a handful of other sets counts don't seem reasonable to me (it also makes pre-war rookies non-existent except for maybe Goudey, arguably T205 and T206); it's adding completely arbitrary rules designed to be enforced selectively and to create the outcome that is desired. This isn't a rational methodology. I think one should pick 1 or 2 or 3 (or a fourth non-arbitrary standard that is not rooted in selectively picking the rules to create a pre-determined outcome if there is one) and follow the standard the same way for every player and card.

I personally lean towards the literal 1, the first card, no matter the uniform he is in, if it is ugly or beautiful, if it is a regional or a super-printed in the tens or hundreds of thousands Topps card. I think 2 is fully reasoned as well, 3 a bit less so but still reasonable. The standards chosen must be applied equally and the same across the board, or it is not a standard definition at all and simply cherry picking favorites (though "first card of this player I want in my collection" is a perfectly fine thing to collect if one so chooses). The standards should be chosen on reasonable grounds, without regard for whether or not it achieves the outcome one desires or is ones fiscal interest.

Any system in which the rules are different for different things it is applied too, or the selective rules are arbitrarily picked to determine what it was desired would be determined, is an inherently unreasonable and illogical system and should thus be dismissed.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 06-21-2021, 05:13 PM

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

Pat R · #8 06-21-2021, 05:46 PM

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

h2oya311 · #9 06-21-2021, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat R

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

Amazing that I�ve been in the �rookie� card game for this long and didn�t know that. I thought it stood for extreme, not extended. Bwahahaha!

G1911 · #10 06-21-2021, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

Peter_Spaeth · #11 06-21-2021, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

IMO
85 McGwire Olympic is a rookie -- it's in a Topps Major League set.
86 West Palm Beach Randy Johnson is not a rookie -- it's in a minor league team set.
92 Rivera in street clothes is a rookie -- it's in a Bowman Major League set.

Here's one that has me stumped though. Why isn't 2016 Topps Now Aaron Judge -- issued after his ML debut and in a Yankees uniform -- his RC? I believe lots of Topps Nows have RC designations, why not this one?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1888 N135 "Talk of the Diamond" Cards	Ben Yourg	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	9	01-23-2019 07:44 PM
1888 N135 "Talk of the Diamond" Cards "graded"	Ben Yourg	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	1	01-16-2018 07:22 AM
1888 N135 "Talk of the Diamond" Cards	Ben Yourg	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	3	01-13-2018 08:13 AM
1931 Blum's Premium " I thought the PSA cover this month looked familiar"	bigfanNY	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	01-28-2017 03:29 PM
CLOSED, thanks to those that looked * T205 PSA 4 Otis Crandall "T not crossed"	FrankWakefield	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	4	03-16-2011 11:09 PM