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

[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

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Absolutely right. And of course the sellers want to claim those others as rookies, so they can mark them up and charge even more .

[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

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

Don't disagree with your point at all. I'm still saying though that the baby boomers who fueled the initial surge in card collecting popularity and prices back in the 80's were most familiar with Bowman and Topps sets that came out when they first started collecting. So no surprise then when Becket first comes out and primarily bases the concept and definition of what is a rookie card on those early Topps and Bowman sets. That subconcious bias is a main reason why lots of people still make certain claims, like Ruth's rookie cards are his '33 Goudeys, which is his 20th season of playing major league ball. Makes no common sense at all.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

Yeah and parallel insert cards get the RC treatment too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks! And I don't disagree with you at all. However, Beckett definition purists will of course argue against us. And I can more understand their disagreement over including something like a '56 Topps pin or a '69 Topps team poster as a rookie card item. But then you look at the '55 Topps Doubleheaders or '69 Topps Super cards, which are actual cards issued in a player's rookie year playing in the majors. You look at Topps today and all the different sets they put out each year, including Bowman which they still own, and for every different set they release they can designate a separate rookie card of a player for each and every different Topps set issued. So why isn't the same definition and thinking being applied to these 50's and 60's Topps sets we're looking at and talking about?

It is a debate that will likely continue for as long as people collect baseball cards.

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's your feeling about an All Star card from the base set, like the higher number 60T McCovey? Also a RC? I think multiple cards from the same set get RCd these days.

Look at all the modern sets with the subsets, numbered versions, as well as the auto and game used variants within them that all get the RC designation today. So if that is the case with today's sets, why shouldn't it also apply to a 1960 Topps set, right?

[Exhibitman]

Ted I am not sure of an exact date on the Paige exhibit