When Did RC Become Most Important?

[D. Bergin]

I would say the introduction of Fleer and Donruss to the baseball card market in 1981 really started to escalate the RC phenomenon.

They also brought in the advent of the sought after "Error" card, though most of those have mostly been forgotten about or marginalized, except by the most hardcore variation collectors today (many of which reside on this very site. ).

It was a big deal that Fleer did NOT have a Tim Raines card, and that Donruss did NOT have a Fernando Valenzuela card.

Topps had them both on triple player cards, and then again by themselves in the Traded set...though at the time, the traded cards were in no way, shape or form, considered Rookie cards at the time.

I think the Joe Charboneau talk gets exaggerated a bit. Maybe his card got up to a buck briefly, but he was pretty much seen as a late bloomer, serious injury case, very early on. It was all about Raines and Valenzuela by the middle of 1981.

Then Ripken and a bunch of other prospects showed up in 1982 (Steve Sax, Mike Marshall, Kent Hrbek, Johnny Ray, etc. etc...), and it really started blowing up then, and collectors started to really go back in their collections and start pulling the Rookies of almost any promising player they could find.

I remember I had a particular fascination with Damaso Garcia of the Blue Jays, for a time. Thought I discovered an up and coming player that everybody else overlooked.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I think the Joe Charboneau talk gets exaggerated a bit. Maybe his card got up to a buck briefly, but he was pretty much seen as a late bloomer, serious injury case, very early on. It was all about Raines and Valenzuela by the middle of 1981.

T

It was, but considering what you could get for $1 in 1981 and what even some "bigger" cards went for that was a pretty crazy price for a card straight out of a pack.

[jchcollins]

Not much before the early 1980's. Hobby publications from the 70's have a lot of stuff about error cards, which for a time were all the rage. But like in 1978, a Nolan Ryan rookie or something was not worth more than the Mantle or the Mays from the same set. Ryan then was not the legend he is now, but he was a superstar pitcher in the prime of his career with 4 no-hitters and a single season K record under his belt.

I started buying packs at age 9 in 1986, and by then of course rookies were all the rage. The obtainable one for my friends and I was the '84 Topps Don Mattingly. The most famous vintage rookie card then was probably the '63 Pete Rose, or the '52 Mantle - yes, people were referring to it as a RC even then - though we know the "First Topps" card designation is more accurate.

I too would agree that cards from an MVP or best season, or even a last season card to include the few that capture all career stats - should have some type of premium placed on them. As a kid who did not have the luxury of owning many vintage rookie cards, I would shoot for when the player was in his prime, or often just throw that out the window in favor of an "older is better" mantra. To my child's eye, a '51 Bowman Duke Snider was going to be more valuable than his '56 Topps - simply because it was older. Does that make any sense? It seemed to a lot more back then as compared to now.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not much before the early 1980's. Hobby publications from the 70's have a lot of stuff about error cards, which for a time were all the rage. But like in 1978, a Nolan Ryan rookie or something was not worth more than the Mantle or the Mays from the same set. Ryan then was not the legend he is now, but he was a superstar pitcher in the prime of his career with 4 no-hitters and a single season K record under his belt.

Ryan had a career record of 151-145 and was coming off a 10-13 season. Mantle and Mays were legends. How many sets today have a RC worth more than the regular Mantle in it?

At that time Ryan's RC was only 11 years old. It was in the 2nd series and easy to find. There were a few RCs worth more than the regular Mantle card in it's set, Seaver, Carew, Rose, Brooks Robinson. Rookies in high number series that were in shorter supply.

The Ryan RC was his most valuable card as were the rookie cards of most players. The exception was when a star player had a difficult to find high number card, such as Mantle's 1952 Topps high number card. Rookie cards were definitely a big thing by 1979.

[bobbvc]

Haven't read all the other comments but I would say 85 or 84. Possibly 83 but definitely no sooner. At least not in San Diego at the time.

[ncinin]

Rookie Cards may have been a thing in other areas of the country but I never heard of a premium for a rookie card or the importance of a rookie card until 1981.

Tim Raines and Fernando Valenzuela were sought after and I began hearing the importance of a rookie card.

I thought it was a short term fad and argued that a card of a player of worth alot more than other years was stupid but I lost that argument. I still think it is silly that a rookie card is worth multiples over other years without regard to series the card is in, etc but I don't make the rules.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Ruth has so many earlier and rarer cards than his Goudey cards it is so comical that Beckett would do such a thing.

Maybe it was done as a way of making them more valuable because they are more common and more transactions could be done with them.

As opposed to the better earlier cards where they weren't sold as often because they are more scarce.

Same thing with 1949 leaf Jackie Robinson being proclaimed as his rookie card, which it isn't, and given a huge premium as a result. He has earlier, rarer, and more attractive cards than the Leaf.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by ncinin

Rookie Cards may have been a thing in other areas of the country but I never heard of a premium for a rookie card or the importance of a rookie card until 1981.

Tim Raines and Fernando Valenzuela were sought after and I began hearing the importance of a rookie card.

This is how I remember it. Fernando and Raines in 1981. They would sell for $3-5 each when you could get the whole set for $15-20. The card shop in my area (an L.A. suburb) would advertise discounted Fleer sets with “No Nando.”