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

G1911 · #1 06-22-2021, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Well, no. The American League and National League are part of the same league. The Federal League, though I guess considered a major league, was still an entirely different league.

This is not correct, they are not part of the same league. The American and National Leagues remain separate leagues to this day. They began to cooperate a bit in 1903, they remained separate. The National Commission had little power, the commissioner's office was only created in 1920. The American and National leagues even then remained separate legal entities until 2000, and remain as 2 different playing leagues to this day.

The American and National Leagues are not the only recognized Major Leagues. That a player's rookie is dependent on each major league is not a standard I have ever heard before. If it is to be a standard, it should be made the same across the board; if 3 Finger Brown now has a Federal League rookie card in Crack Jack, then Frank Robinson has 2 rookies as well.

This is an odd line to draw.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 06-22-2021, 02:00 PM

Most of the focus here has been on what a "rookie" means. This gets much more difficult at least for prewar if one focuses on the question what is a "card."

G1911 · #3 06-22-2021, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most of the focus here has been on what a "rookie" means. This gets much more difficult at least for prewar if one focuses on the question what is a "card."

I love the Socratic, start with defining what we mean, both "rookie" and "card".

I would start by proposing: A collectible trading card is a cardboard-stock item, dominated by an image, made with an intent to distribute in some way, whose image is not intended to be separated from the rest of the card and does not have pages.

Which is to say it must be card stock of some kind, must not be a sticker, and must be made with some intent of distribution to exempt home-made items that could never be catalogued or checklisted and exist in unlimited supply and type. Me gluing a photo of Barry Zito to construction paper doesn't make it a collectible card.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 06-22-2021, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I love the Socratic, start with defining what we mean, both "rookie" and "card".

I would start by proposing: A collectible trading card is a cardboard-stock item, dominated by an image, made with an intent to distribute in some way, whose image is not intended to be separated from the rest of the card and does not have pages.

Which is to say it must be card stock of some kind, must not be a sticker, and must be made with some intent of distribution to exempt home-made items that could never be catalogued or checklisted and exist in unlimited supply and type. Me gluing a photo of Barry Zito to construction paper doesn't make it a collectible card.

You just busted up half the soccer rookie cards out there by saying no stickers.

There have been endless discussions of card definition over the years here.

G1911 · #5 06-22-2021, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You just busted up half the soccer rookie cards out there by saying no stickers.

There have been endless discussions of card definition over the years here.

There are many items catalogued with cards that are not cards. I like the M101 Sporting News Supplements, but they aren't cards. I don't think a sticker is either, a sticker is intended to be removed from the piece that makes it a "card" at all, and thus is something else. Doesn't make them any less cool or less rookie, just not a card. If a thin paper sticker is a card, then most any paper-stock item is, I think.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 06-22-2021, 02:30 PM

When asked, what is art?, Picasso allegedly replied, what is not? That would be my answer. I would rather go by feel than rigid definition. I would count an M101-2 for example, but wouldn't count a Type 1 photo or pin or decal. Not sure I can define the difference in every case.

G1911 · #7 06-22-2021, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When asked, what is art?, Picasso allegedly replied, what is not? That would be my answer. I would rather go by feel than rigid definition. I would count an M101-2 for example, but wouldn't count a Type 1 photo or pin or decal. Not sure I can define the difference in every case.

A card is anything I like and want to have and need to justify having a reason to add to my card collection!

HistoricNewspapers · #8 06-22-2021, 02:32 PM

Solution:

Just buy all of the early cards of a player that you can. In the end, you can name them whatever you want.

BobC · #9 06-22-2021, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You just busted up half the soccer rookie cards out there by saying no stickers.

There have been endless discussions of card definition over the years here.

I still believe a lot of that "Beckett type" thinking comes from those early Topps sets that along with the regular, main cards sets issued every year would often have separate, ancillary, non-regular card type sets issued over the same years as well. Sets of pins, stamps, stand-ups, coins, deckle edges, transfers, and so on, were issued alongside the regular sets in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't remember a single instance during those early years where Topps ever included a player in one of those non-regular ancillary sets unless that player's card had also been included in the regular, main set of Topps cards for that same or an earlier year. And in those cases where a player's card in the regular set was deemed his rookie card, if he were also included in whatever ancillary set was issued by Topps in that same rookie year, that ancillary set item (stamp, rub-off, super, transfer, game card, whatever) was never referred to or listed as a rookie card or item for that player. And I feel that influence/bias from those collectors following Beckett's lead in what was a rookie card then, carried back to have a major influence on the rookie card definition pre-Bowman/Topps.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 06-22-2021, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

I still believe a lot of that "Beckett type" thinking comes from those early Topps sets that along with the regular, main cards sets issued every year would often have separate, ancillary, non-regular card type sets issued over the same years as well. Sets of pins, stamps, stand-ups, coins, deckle edges, transfers, and so on, were issued alongside the regular sets in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. I don't remember a single instance during those early years where Topps ever included a player in one of those non-regular ancillary sets unless that player's card had also been included in the regular, main set of Topps cards for that same or an earlier year. And in those cases where a player's card in the regular set was deemed his rookie card, if he were also included in whatever ancillary set was issued by Topps in that same rookie year, that ancillary set item (stamp, rub-off, super, transfer, game card, whatever) was never referred to or listed as a rookie card or item for that player. And I feel that influence/bias from those collectors following Beckett's lead in what was a rookie card then, carried back to have a major influence on the rookie card definition pre-Bowman/Topps.

But how many ancillary sets even included first year cards? I don't know some of the sets that well but none in 64 Giants, or 64 Standups, or 65 embossed, or 68 Topps Game, or in the coin sets I can think of, for example.

BobC · #11 06-22-2021, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But how many ancillary sets even included first year cards? I don't know some of the sets that well but none in 64 Giants, or 64 Standups, or 65 embossed, or 68 Topps Game, or in the coin sets I can think of, for example.

Didn't go looking at all the years, but remember Reggie's '69 Topps card is his rookie card. He was also in the '69 Topps Decals set, the '69 Topps Super set, and also included on the '69 Topps Team Poster of the Oakland A's. None of his items in those three ancillary sets ever get denoted as rookie cards or items. It will be the same for any other rookie in any other year I believe.

BobC · #12 06-22-2021, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But how many ancillary sets even included first year cards? I don't know some of the sets that well but none in 64 Giants, or 64 Standups, or 65 embossed, or 68 Topps Game, or in the coin sets I can think of, for example.

Killibrew's rookie is his '55 Topps card, and he's also in the Topps '55 Doubleheader set as well. And once again, his ancillary Doubleheader card is never referred to as his rookie card.

Hector Lopez's rookie card is his '56 Topps card, and he's got a'56 Topps pin issued also that is never referred to as a rookie item.

Zoilo Versalles, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Bill Stafford, Jim Brewer, and Juan Marichal alll have '61 Topps rookie cards, and are also all included in the '61 Topps Stamps set issued. And of course the stamps are never referred to as a rookie issue or item.

Don Schwall has a '62 Topps rookie card, and is also included in both the '62 Topps Baseball Bucks and Topps Stamps set issues. Jack Baldschun, Tim McCarver, Joe Torre, John Edwards, and Bob Rodgers all have '62 Topps rookie cards as well, but are only included in the '62 Topps Stamp set. And once again, with no rookie designation for items in either of these ancillary sets.

I'm going to stop there, this should be more than enough to satisfy your question. Likely more players will have items issued in ancillary sets during their rookie years as well if I keep searching. How hard did you look? LOL

packs · #13 06-22-2021, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

This is not correct, they are not part of the same league. The American and National Leagues remain separate leagues to this day. They began to cooperate a bit in 1903, they remained separate. The National Commission had little power, the commissioner's office was only created in 1920. The American and National leagues even then remained separate legal entities until 2000, and remain as 2 different playing leagues to this day.

The American and National Leagues are not the only recognized Major Leagues. That a player's rookie is dependent on each major league is not a standard I have ever heard before. If it is to be a standard, it should be made the same across the board; if 3 Finger Brown now has a Federal League rookie card in Crack Jack, then Frank Robinson has 2 rookies as well.

This is an odd line to draw.

If you say so. The Federal League was a separate league as evidenced by it's own champion and non-competition against major league baseball.

The American League champion played the National League champion in both 1914 and 1915 because those teams were part of major league baseball, or the same league.

G1911 · #14 06-22-2021, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

If you say so. The Federal League was a separate league as evidenced by it's own champion and non-competition against major league baseball.

The American League champion played the National League champion in both 1914 and 1915 because those teams were part of major league baseball, or the same league.

Major League Baseball is not a single league, the American League and the National League constitute the current MLB umbrella organization that is composed of these two leagues. This umbrella organization did not exist at all until 1903, and remained fairly toothless for quite some time after that. The Federal League has been universally recognized as a major league, along with several others, for many decades. I guess no player before 1903 has a Major League rookie, by your redefinition of what "major league" means. Cy Young's first major league card is now his E107. "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are not the same thing, one is a description of the level of play and acceptance in the stat books, the other is an actual organization.

packs · #15 06-22-2021, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Major League Baseball is not a single league, the American League and the National League constitute the current MLB umbrella organization that is composed of these two leagues. This umbrella organization did not exist at all until 1903, and remained fairly toothless for quite some time after that. The Federal League has been universally recognized as a major league, along with several others, for many decades. I guess no player before 1903 has a Major League rookie, by your redefinition of what "major league" means. Cy Young's first major league card is now his E107. "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are not the same thing, one is a description of the level of play and acceptance in the stat books, the other is an actual organization.

Again, no.

It is possible to be a rookie in one league and then another and have them both be considered major leagues. But it is still not major league baseball unless you're playing in major league baseball. Ichiro is the perfect example. He played major league baseball in Japan but it was not THE major leagues. He became an MLB rookie when he played in the MLB. It can go the other way too. If you leave MLB and go play in Japan, are you not a rookie your first season in NPB?

G1911 · #16 06-22-2021, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Again, no. Are you trying to say Kid Nichols's N172 is a major league issued card despite him playing in the Western Association?

It is possible to be a rookie in one league and then another and have them both be considered major leagues. But it is still not major league baseball unless you're playing in major league baseball. Ichiro is the perfect example. He played major league baseball in Japan but it was not THE major leagues. He became an MLB rookie when he played in the MLB.

You are not reading what was written. The Western Association was not a major league. The list of major leagues was already posted by someone else on this page. The Japanese Leagues are not recognized as a major league in the US. It is a very specific list universally recognized in the United States by the current MLB, Baseball-Reference, and essentially every other compiler of statistics. The Players League, The American Association, The Union Association and the Federal League have been universally recognized as major leagues for decades. This has recently been expanded to include 7 negro leagues as well.

Again, eliminating the Federal League does not even change any significant players rookie card. A players major league rookie card does not mean The AL and NL after 1903 only. There were other major leagues that have been universally recognized as such for decades.

Peter_Spaeth · #17 06-22-2021, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You are not reading what was written. The Western Association was not a major league. The list of major leagues was already posted by someone else on this page. The Japanese Leagues are not recognized as a major league in the US. It is a very specific list universally recognized in the United States by the current MLB, Baseball-Reference, and essentially every other compiler of statistics. The Players League, The American Association, The Union Association and the Federal League have been universally recognized as major leagues for decades. This has recently been expanded to include 7 negro leagues as well.

Again, eliminating the Federal League does not even change any significant players rookie card. A players major league rookie card does not mean The AL and NL after 1903 only. There were other major leagues that have been universally recognized as such for decades.

In other words the Federal League may have sucked but get over it.

G1911 · #18 06-22-2021, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In other words the Federal League may have sucked but get over it.

I like Federal League history, but they sucked and I think it's level of play was significantly below the NL and AL

packs · #19 06-22-2021, 02:31 PM

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

G1911 · #20 06-22-2021, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

No one has said this. The Players Association was a major league. The Federal League was a major league. Major League Baseball, the capitalized business entity, consists of the American League and the National League. No one has said the Federal League joined a partnership with the American and National Leagues under a unifying umbrella organization.

BobC · #21 06-22-2021, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

A lot of people are splittings hairs on the proper definition of a "major league". Some I think are being too literal in that they are more narrowly defining a major league team as having to belong to the legally formed and organized Major League Baseball as we know it today. But professional baseball has been around a lot longer that just the inception of the American and National League organizations as we know them today. Because of that, I think you have to look more at the overall level of talent of players in a league or on a team to determine if they are at a major league level, as opposed to only accepting players and their teams as major leaguers because they play in a league that calls itself part of Major League Baseball. When you go back to the Federal League of 1913-15, or the Player's League of 1890, they both included many stars and everyday players from the reconized Major Leagues at those times. So the players and talent were on par with the reconized Major League teams, so why shouldn't they also be considered major league teams as well. And the fact that the MLB and the HOF both recognize and count the stats of players in those non-traditional leagues as being part of their major league career total records pretty much seals the deal that those were in fact major league players on major league teams. And now that inclusion is being expanded even further with the recent recognition of Negro League stats as being part of a player's major league career stats. So in effect, MLB and the HOF have now more or less officially sanctioned the Negro League as part of major league baseball, whether you like it or not.

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