Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

darwinbulldog · #1 10-13-2023, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda

An example of just what we are discussing occurred in Al's last LOTG auction. I consigned a Fleishman Casey Stengel with coupon graded SGC 1.5, which I believed to be his first MLB card. The result was somewhat disappointing. Shortly thereafter, SB in his auction offered up an Old Mill T210 Casey, which got a lot of attention and did well.
Just an example of the complexity of this issue.

It is his first MLB card and is therefore worthy of designation as his rookie card. That said, minor league cards, particularly scarce ones from popular sets that predate a player's MLB debut are understandably more expensive than the same players' later rookie cards, but I think one of the issues the hobby is close to a consensus on (and with which I agree) is that a card issued prior to the year of a player's rookie season is not a rookie card -- though as I've pointed out a few times there are more than a few -- what's a nicer word for hypocrites? -- who claim to agree but also think that Derek Jeter has a rookie card from 1993.

bcbgcbrcb · #2 10-13-2023, 12:28 PM

To me, the parameters for what constitutes a rookie card are very clearly defined here. There is no debate that the 1903 Allegheny Frank Selee is his rookie card. Given that the entire set is believed to have only one copy of each card in existence, it is a monumental accomplishment for the one individual in the world that owns it. Since this set was a prototype and never reached the commercial distribution stage, it is extremely unlikely that another set will ever surface. The same can be said for the 1894 Alpha Photo Engraving Baltimore cards which include 4 Hall of Fame rookie cards: John McGraw, Joe Kelley, Hughie Jennings and Wee Willie Keeler (unconfirmed). Only one set is known to exist, always possible one or more could turn up but after 130 years, probably not. I don’t know if the same individual owns all of these cards or they are owned by multiple collectors. Again, kudos to the owner of each, nobody else will ever own one of these unless the owner decided to part with them. There are other similar scenarios such as the 1893 Just So Tobacco Cy Young and Jesse Burkett. I think there might be a second or possibly third copy of a player or two from that set. Again, an impossible task to find one of these. So we as HOF rookie card collectors can either accept the fact that we can never obtain every one and move on with collecting them anyway or we come up with the next best thing (although it might not be the true rookie card, it allows us to continue the chase).

Shankweather · #3 10-13-2023, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

It is his first MLB card and is therefore worthy of designation as his rookie card. That said, minor league cards, particularly scarce ones from popular sets that predate a player's MLB debut are understandably more expensive than the same players' later rookie cards, but I think one of the issues the hobby is close to a consensus on (and with which I agree) is that a card issued prior to the year of a player's rookie season is not a rookie card -- though as I've pointed out a few times there are more than a few -- what's a nicer word for hypocrites? -- who claim to agree but also think that Derek Jeter has a rookie card from 1993.

One way to unify that is to go by the set, not the player. Only consider cards from MLB sets. That would eliminate minor league cards (1914 Baltimore News, 1980 TCMA) but allow for pre-debut RCs like 93 Jeter, 85 McGwire, and 60 Yastrzemski.

bcbgcbrcb · #4 10-13-2023, 03:05 PM

Exactly, Stephen. The same goes all the way back to the 1880’s and N172’s. They were issued primarily for the Major Leaguers of the day but also included numerous minor leaguers as well. Handling this way qualifies rookie cards like Kid Nichols and others.

Shankweather · #5 10-13-2023, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Exactly, Stephen. The same goes all the way back to the 1880�s and N172�s. They were issued primarily for the Major Leaguers of the day but also included numerous minor leaguers as well. Handling this way qualifies rookie cards like Kid Nichols and others.

That's right. Not giving up my Old Judge Clark Griffith "Milwaukee" RC.

bcbgcbrcb · #6 10-13-2023, 03:35 PM

Don’t.

Over the years, many changes have taken place which affected rookie card status. The majority of the time, this has to do with changes to the issue dates of certain catalogued sets. These included: Novelty Cutlery postcards, R315’s and many others. As new evidence comes forward, rookie card status sometimes has to be updated for some individuals. Ross Youngs is an example where a player’s first name was misidentified in the W514 strip card set and was not known to be Ross up until about 10 years ago. That update made the W514 his new rookie card instead of National Caramel. You just have to always be aware that this could happen and that includes spending a lot of money on what was once believed to be a rookie card and later was discovered not to be. It comes with the territory and if you want to play this game, you have to live with it. This happened to me three different times with the Novelty Cutlery postcard set and Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and Eddie Collins. Set was originally catalogued as 1907-09 but has since been determined to be a c1910 issue.

Exhibitman · #7 10-13-2023, 04:50 PM

I tend to go with the earlier collectible items and a broader definition simply because the more restrictive the criteria, the more items are left out, often to the point of absurdity. A player might have ten or more years of MLB cards, yet that history will be ignored in favor of an artificial distinction. Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It is easy in an era of nationally issued cards to demand a mainstream issue across the country to be a RC, but that just wasn't the experience before WWII.

So many of our concepts in this regard are based on tradition or inertia or some guide that someone wrote.

BioCRN · #8 10-14-2023, 12:48 AM

It would be nice to be able to accurately rank the hobby's opinions about what aspects of a pre-war RC actually matter. I'm not as experienced with the audience of opinions as some of you guys, but the people I've talked with are as all over the place as the opinions in this thread. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's something to talk about and that's part of the hobby.

There's opinions on RC's that I can understand, but I don't personally follow for my collection.

I'm not willing to die on the hills I choose to stand on in the "What's a RC" battle, but there's stuff I count as RC's that others have a legit reason to say they don't count (regional issues, (WG)game cards) and some stuff I don't count (oversized/exhibits) that others argue absolutely count.

Until the hobby finds some consensus on things most people can agree on I'm collecting my way and arguing my view on why my 1934 Batter-Up Augie Galan is his RC while others would call it a XRC and some would say it shouldn't count as either because it's a "novelty" card and not a real baseball card.

Shankweather · #9 10-13-2023, 03:19 PM

One issue I have with ultra-rare sets like W600 and E107 are the incomplete checklists. E107 says on the back there are 150 cards in the set, but only 148 have been identified. Today I'm assuming that T206 is Carl Lundgren's rookie card (it's not Allegheny!), but what if tomorrow someone discovers he was in E107?

Same with W600. Because of the way it was distributed, you could never know for sure which players were in the set, and thus our rookie card list could always be subject to change. Which seems problematic.

rhettyeakley · #10 10-14-2023, 04:07 PM

People always make this subject way more complicated than it really needs to be.

I personally want the first distributed collectible featuring that player (hopefully by themselves) doesn’t matter if it is a card, a disk, a pin, a leather, a stamp, or an 8x10 team issue.

The parameters we all put are all by their nature completely arbitrary and will make sense only to the person making them.

I will tell you this…the criteria used by Beckett are insanely stupid. They list Babe’s 1933 Goudey as his rookie! Insanely stupid!

Exhibitman · #11 10-14-2023, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

People always make this subject way more complicated than it really needs to be.

I personally want the first distributed collectible featuring that player (hopefully by themselves) doesn’t matter if it is a card, a disk, a pin, a leather, a stamp, or an 8x10 team issue.

The parameters we all put are all by their nature completely arbitrary and will make sense only to the person making them.

I will tell you this…the criteria used by Beckett are insanely stupid. They list Babe’s 1933 Goudey as his rookie! Insanely stupid!

+1

bcbgcbrcb · #12 10-14-2023, 07:17 PM

Rhett is exactly right, all seems quite simple to me as well. A Eureka stamp can be a rookie, a Cameo Pepsin pin can be a rookie, a team issued premium can be a rookie, a Colgan’s Chip disc can be a rookie & an L1 leather can be a rookie. I think I covered them all, huh?

The M101-4/5 is a Babe Ruth rookie card, it’s a rookie collectible and I think it’s safe to say that we can all agree on this one, it’s also a card. That’s the difference between all of those others that I mentioned as compared to the Ruth. For some players, their rookie “collectible” as it might be called also fits the definition of a card, like the Ruth. Those are clear and easy to determine. It’s the other cases where the rookie “collectible” comes at least one year or more earlier than their first card distributed. Collectors like Rhett would prefer to have the earliest “collectible” and would gladly take an L1 leather of GCA if it was distributed a couple of years before his rookie card. Rookie card collectors would probably go with the earliest “card” instead. This is where your collecting preference comes into play, to each their own.

Peter_Spaeth · #13 10-14-2023, 07:31 PM

Why isn't the Baltimore News Ruth a rookie card? Because he was not in the majors?

bcbgcbrcb · #14 10-14-2023, 07:55 PM

Yes, Peter, a pre-rookie card is the term for it as opposed to rookie card. This does not take anything away from the importance of that "pre-rookie card", more times than not, especially in the pre-war world, the pre-rookie will be valued significantly higher than the actual rookie card.

Baseball Rarities · #15 10-14-2023, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why isn't the Baltimore News Ruth a rookie card? Because he was not in the majors?

Since it pictures him with a minor league team in a set that features minor leaguers, I would call it a pre-rookie card, for whatever that is worth. Same thing for DiMaggio’s batting pose Zeenut card.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pre-War Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards - Who Collects Them?	bcbgcbrcb	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	33	01-05-2023 11:22 AM
Way to Collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	07-03-2012 07:28 PM
SOLD: Lot of (5) Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	06-01-2012 04:08 PM
SOLD: (5) -Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards (ALL SGC GRADED)	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	07-12-2011 09:45 PM
For Sale: Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards	bcbgcbrcb	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	06-14-2011 07:59 AM