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

[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."

[G1911]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

I wouldn't go quite so far, but I trust my instinct for what feels like or close enough to a card more than I would some abstract definition, I think. The Malcolm Gladwell school of rookie cards.

[HistoricNewspapers]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Not baseball, but the other one that immediately springs to mind is O.J. Simpson's Super Glossy and Topps Super cards in 1970, alongside his regular issue "RC". Sellers seem to consider them RC's, buyer's not so much

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Right. Of course if the JD McCarthy postcard is actually 1968, and the uniform would suggest that, then what?

[BobC]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

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

Good finds. I'm all in favor of deeming cards in those sets rookies along with the base set.