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

G1911 · #1 06-23-2021, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1975 SSPC Eckersley -- RC?

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 06-23-2021, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

G1911 · #3 06-23-2021, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah which surfaces as often as hen's teeth, I think. In my fantasies I find that a 65 Palmer and an Omaha Gibson. Or a certain person decides to sell me his.

The chase is no fun when it's easy

bcbgcbrcb · #4 06-23-2021, 02:43 PM

Peter/Bob:

Where this logic fails in today's world is that, in an effort to get every possible card an "RC" logo on it, the manufacturers issue that designation on numerous subset and insert cards. That's where everything changes in the modern and ultra-modern card markets.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 06-23-2021, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Peter/Bob:

Where this logic fails in today's world is that, in an effort to get every possible card an "RC" logo on it, the manufacturers issue that designation on numerous subset and insert cards. That's where everything changes in the modern and ultra-modern card markets.

Yes that is certainly what they've done, but what other than past convention says it's necessarily wrong? Maybe the old school view that there could be only one RC from a set is dated.

packs · #6 06-23-2021, 02:48 PM

I actually much prefer the new method of sticking an RC on contemporary releases across different products. It gives you the ability to choose your card. I often find the Heritage cards the nicest rookies and am glad I'm not stuck with whatever's available. Some really good players have awful rookies if you only go by first bowman.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 06-23-2021, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I actually much prefer the new method of sticking an RC on contemporary releases across different products. It gives you the ability to choose your card. I often find the Heritage cards the nicest rookies and am glad I'm not stuck with whatever's available. Some really good players have awful rookies if you only go by first bowman.

The only RCs I have refused to own so far are BKB cards, 1974 Topps George Gervin 1975 Topps Moses Malone and 1981 Topps Kevin McHale. All "pinheads" where you can barely see the player's face. Thankfully, all the postwar HOF baseball RCs are IMO at least presentable.

BobC · #8 06-23-2021, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes that is certainly what they've done, but what other than past convention says it's necessarily wrong? Maybe the old school view that there could be only one RC from a set is dated.

+1

And again, this rookie card fixation seems to borne from the 80's surge in collecting, fueled mostly by baby boomers remeniscing about their early Topps and Bowman cards. Because those were the card sets (and the rookies from them) primarily in collector's sights back then, the widely accepted definition of what a rookie card is, put forth by the likes of Beckett and others at that time, were based on pretty much solely those early Topps and Bowman sets. Pre-Topps/Bowman vintage, and even more so pre-war vintage, were nowhere near as popular back then as they've grown to be today. So that being the case, Beckett and other hobby influencers at that time didn't really care how their definition didn't really fit in with pre-Topps/Bowman sets. So they just tried to shoehorn those earlier sets in to fit the definition of a rookie card for the more popular Topps and Bowman sets at that time. And that's how you ended up with the stupid idea that Babe Ruth never had a rookie card till his 20th season in the majors.

Fast forward to recent years and now you have the card manufactuers purposely trying to dictate what is a rookie card, and also expand the number and variety of those rookie cards being produced every year to continue driving the way and reason cards are sold primarily online today. So why are we letting the card manufacturers call the shots on what is a rookie card today, especially since their sole reason is only to create more interest and more sales with modern collectors? Not much we can really do to change that, but here's the rub then. Hopefully at least some of these modern collectors will eventually find their way into the pre-war side that we are already into. And in so doing they will naturally lean toward a rookie card definition more in line with the way they collect modern cards now. So down the road I can see the idea that cards from different sets and types put out in the same year will be more widely accepted as all being a player's rookie cards, not just the one base card from their one main set. So if a current player's rookie card can be a die-cut, autographed, game-used, booklet, or limited number card, why for the old vintage player's can't it also be a doubleheader, super, stand-up, stamp or some other oddball kind of card or related item that can be considered a player's rookie card as well?

What it sounds like is some others are kind of suggesting that we maybe have different rules or definitions for different years or periods of time. So should we have different definitions of what constitutes a rookie card and have one for say 19th century cards before the major league as we know it today was really established? And then maybe a different definition for the pre-Topps/Bowman era starting around 1900 and going to 1947, followed by a Topps/Bowman era going from 1948 to around say 2000? And then finally a modern rookie card definition running from around 2000 through today? I don't know for sure if that will end up being what happens, but I'd like to think as a hobby that we could eventually come to a consensus and more or less agree upon one rookie card definition that covers all eras.

h2oya311 · #9 06-23-2021, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

I think you guys were referring to this one. Agreed on SSPC set being issued in 1976, not 1975.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 06-23-2021, 10:41 PM

That is the one (and maybe the only).

Pat R · #11 06-24-2021, 07:45 AM

I'm not sure if I'm right but I thought for the most part the rookie card
designation started with Beckett's.

Here's an article from the Feb. 2007 Beckett that covers some of the attributes
that they used at the time.

img534.jpg

img535.jpg

img535 - Copy.jpg

img535 - Copy (2).jpg

img535 - Copy (3).jpg

BobC · #12 06-24-2021, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat R

I'm not sure if I'm right but I thought for the most part the rookie card
designation started with Beckett's.

Here's an article from the Feb. 2007 Beckett that covers some of the attributes
that they used at the time.

Attachment 465519

Attachment 465520

Attachment 465521

Attachment 465522

Attachment 465523

Interesting how in the definition it says a rookie card is just the base card from a set put out by one of the major card companies. So is there a separate definition of what a "major card company" is somewhere? Doesn't say anything at all about having a national distribution either.

Mentions how in some instances Beckett would also go against the Major League Baseball rules of when a player was or was not a rookie, and how the card companies would also make their own designation of a card as a rookie card, also contrary to MLB, sometimes to get the card of a player out there for marketing and sales purposes.

So who in the collecting hobby ever gave Becket, MLB, or even the card companies, the right to decide for us as collectors what is or isn't a player's "rookie" card as defined by them? Beckett has attempted to assume the position of being the self-proclaimed, de facto voice of the collecting hobby, and supposedly then tell us what the rules are for what we collect and how we determine the condition and value of those items. When the initial card surge started in the 80's, let's face it, those Beckett price guides were everywhere, with their definition of what a NM or VG-EX card was, what was or wasn't a rookie card, and probably most important of all, what the perceived value was of a card and how the condition of it affected it's value as a percentage of that particular card's NM perceived price. All those new people jumping into the hobby back then used their monthly Beckett magazines they had picked up at the grocery store as their own condensed collecting bible, and blindly adopted and believed everything in them was the gospel of the collecting hobby.

Well that time has passed and no one that I know seems to really ever read or follow Beckett anymore. Yet the influence and bias of those early Beckett rules and ideas of value and condition were so pervasive back then that they still permeate and influence the hobby today. What I've always thought would be best is to eventually have some recognized group or organization formed by and for the collectors (not dealers, card companies, auction houses, TPGs, etc.) to be the one to decide what counts as a player' rookie or first year card or collectible, to determine and codify the grading standards of all cards so they are uniform and the same and subject the grading companies to independent, periodic, outside review of their grading standards and procedures, not allow each TPG to just do what they want, and to possibly set up an overall registry system for the hobby that includes all graded cards, and not just certain ones. These kind of changes would put more control and direction of our hobby in the hands of the true collectors, and not have the guidance and direction of it being dictated to us by those that have a more vested/monetary interest at heart. Probably never happen anytime soon though, but can still dream.

Exhibitman · #13 06-24-2021, 02:44 PM

1947 Sports Exchange Spahn

the-illini · #14 06-24-2021, 03:49 PM

A couple of underappreciated (IMO) and really tough to find rookie cards

shagrotn77 · #15 07-06-2021, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

As I understand it, the 1975 SSPC set was not actually issued until 1976, which would make it equal to the Topps issue unless someone has a specific date for each release.

I think Eck's rookie is a 1975 Postcard.

How tough of a find is Eck's 1975 postcard?

h2oya311 · #16 07-07-2021, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

How tough of a find is Eck's 1975 postcard?

Honestly, pretty damn hard. I know a collector of Cleveland Indians postcards and I think he still doesn�t have this one. It was part of an �update� set and is not part of the standard 1975 team issue.

I bought mine in 2014 and, while I don�t track every AH and eBay sale, my spreadsheet notes show that I have seen a total of zero since that purchase. I believe I learned of the card in 2010 or so and hadn�t seen any for sale for the four years leading up to my purchase. There�s always a chance you stumble upon one in a random postcard lot, so don�t give up hope. But I wouldn�t hold my breath either!

shagrotn77 · #17 07-08-2021, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Honestly, pretty damn hard. I know a collector of Cleveland Indians postcards and I think he still doesn�t have this one. It was part of an �update� set and is not part of the standard 1975 team issue.

I bought mine in 2014 and, while I don�t track every AH and eBay sale, my spreadsheet notes show that I have seen a total of zero since that purchase. I believe I learned of the card in 2010 or so and hadn�t seen any for sale for the four years leading up to my purchase. There�s always a chance you stumble upon one in a random postcard lot, so don�t give up hope. But I wouldn�t hold my breath either!

Gotcha. Thanks, Derek!

Peter_Spaeth · #18 07-08-2021, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Honestly, pretty damn hard. I know a collector of Cleveland Indians postcards and I think he still doesn�t have this one. It was part of an �update� set and is not part of the standard 1975 team issue.

I bought mine in 2014 and, while I don�t track every AH and eBay sale, my spreadsheet notes show that I have seen a total of zero since that purchase. I believe I learned of the card in 2010 or so and hadn�t seen any for sale for the four years leading up to my purchase. There�s always a chance you stumble upon one in a random postcard lot, so don�t give up hope. But I wouldn�t hold my breath either!

I learned of this through Derek years ago and have not seen one since.

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