Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Discussion

G1911 · #1 10-14-2023, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So why is (just to use one example from the early 90s) a 1992 Bowman Mariano Rivera a rookie card? He was three years away from the majors. 1985 Topps Mark McGwire, at least a year away and maybe it was two. Or are you going to be consistent and go against overwhelming hobby consensus here and call those pre-rookies?

The traditional reason is that those are major league sets, and thus the collegiate and minor league players are still rookies. It�s all structured around achieving the outcome that the Topps card is the rookie, since people can profit more off of mass produced hype cards instead of obscure cards that not enough people can get onboard the profit train with to inflate.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 10-14-2023, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The traditional reason is that those are major league sets, and thus the collegiate and minor league players are still rookies. It�s all structured around achieving the outcome that the Topps card is the rookie, since people can profit more off of mass produced hype cards instead of obscure cards that not enough people can get onboard the profit train with to inflate.

Sure, that was the rationale until the RC logo came along, but can you make an intellectually honest and consistent case for why the Ruth is not a rookie but the Rivera is?

G1911 · #3 10-14-2023, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure, that was the rationale until the RC logo came along, but can you make an intellectually honest and consistent case for why the Ruth is not a rookie but the Rivera is?

�. No� that�s my point.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 10-14-2023, 09:08 PM

What's Yaz' RC?

Exhibitman · #5 10-14-2023, 09:34 PM

Quite a few modern collectors treat the 1987 Topps McGwire as the RC and the 1985 as a pre-rookie, on the Zeenut DiMaggio theory. Not that it matters to most. Personally, I prefer the first card, not necessarily the first MLB card. I'd much rather own the 1977 Chong Modesto A's Ricky Henderson than the 1980 Topps RC.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 10-14-2023, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Quite a few modern collectors treat the 1987 Topps McGwire as the RC and the 1985 as a pre-rookie, on the Zeenut DiMaggio theory. Not that it matters to most. Personally, I prefer the first card, not necessarily the first MLB card. I'd much rather own the 1977 Chong Modesto A's Ricky Henderson than the 1980 Topps RC.

Adam do those same people do the same for all the early to mid 90s cards issued before major league debuts? That would be news to me but not disputing it. I can't imagine calling all the 93 Jeters pre rookies for example.

And never heard of anyone call the 60 Yaz a pre rookie.

bcbgcbrcb · #7 10-15-2023, 02:30 AM

Comparing pre-war and post-war cards is like comparing apples to oranges. All of the post-war rookie cards have already been identified in the hobby for many years now. The challenge is to identify the pre-war cards. Any monthly magazine, annual guide or standard catalogue been able to do that yet? And, Beckett listing every ‘33 Goudey as a rookie card does not count.

Shankweather · #8 10-16-2023, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure, that was the rationale until the RC logo came along, but can you make an intellectually honest and consistent case for why the Ruth is not a rookie but the Rivera is?

The rationale is that 1992 Bowman is a major league set, and 1914 Baltimore News is a minor league set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

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

Nobody thinks Goudey is the Babe's RC, not even Beckett. But fixing it now would mean fixing Beckett's entire pre-war database and they're not going to do that. Beckett has always been a post-war resource.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

I'm ok with the rookie issue/rookie card separation, but we don't really need to designate the rookie issue for all these players. Just look at the catalog and take the first one. Identifying the rookie card is the challenge, but I think it's worthwhile if we actually want to make collecting pre-war rookie cards a more appealing corner of the hobby. If you're a pre-war rookie issue collector, other people being pre-war rookie card collectors won't have any effect on you.

steve B · #9 10-16-2023, 10:21 AM

Nevermind a card not picturing a player in a major league uniform, that 92 Rivera doesn't even show him in any uniform. when I first saw cards from that set, I was thinking it's nice they included the groundskeepers.

bcbgcbrcb · #10 10-16-2023, 12:00 PM

Although it might seem like a pretty easy task on the surface, all pre-war baseball issues are catalogued, at least in the SCBC, in alphabetical order by set name. Thus, just looking for the first issue of a player and coming up with an instant answer is not only an impossible task but would take countless hours, literally months or even years to complete. As luck would have it, I already tackled this endeavor about 15 years ago now and posted a comprehensive list of every Hall of Famer's "earliest collectible" here on Net54. Separately, there is another thread which identifies rookie cards specifically. When I have a chance later today, I will post the links here so that anyone who is interested can easily access the info. Why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, right?

brianp-beme · #11 10-16-2023, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

Nevermind a card not picturing a player in a major league uniform, that 92 Rivera doesn't even show him in any uniform. when I first saw cards from that set, I was thinking it's nice they included the groundskeepers.

I always thought the Baseball Hall of Fame should have a separate wing devoted to best groundskeepers of all time.

Brian

bcbgcbrcb · #12 10-16-2023, 03:18 PM

Here is a link to the Rookie Card list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...s+hall+of+fame

Here is a link to the Earliest Collectible list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...llectibles+hof

Rhotchkiss · #13 10-16-2023, 03:44 PM

Phil. These are great. Thanks for creating and posting

Shankweather · #14 10-17-2023, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Here is a link to the Rookie Card list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...s+hall+of+fame

Here is a link to the Earliest Collectible list:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...llectibles+hof

This is awesome work Phil. I see in it a dozen ways you and I disagree on identifying rookie cards, even post-war (Jackie Robinson?), but your methodology is consistent and has a lot of support in the pre-war community. Post-war collectors will think you're nuts, but that's ok. Part of the fun of my 1882-2023 collection is I get to butt heads with all of the above.

steve B · #15 10-17-2023, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I always thought the Baseball Hall of Fame should have a separate wing devoted to best groundskeepers of all time.

Brian

It should.
I'm not sure how to calculate WAR for the guy sloping the foul lines depending on if the team bunts a lot or not, or making sure the footing at first is not great when Henderson was playing...

Svabinsky78 · #16 10-17-2023, 11:59 AM

I am a long the lines of Derek in that I try (in most cases) for the earliest issue (accessibility and cost in consideration) of a player, be it a team issue, a supplement, strip cards (in most cases, still can't get myself to get the Frisch), Exhibits, etc. I am content with my Manush and Duke. I won't be running out to get the Goudey and Bowman "rookies" of these two. I am happy to call these two issues rookies, even though they don't fit the traditional definition of a card.

I am the same way with books. I used to collect first editions and I would always prefer the advanced reading copies/uncorrected proofs as they preceded the "first editions," even though the first editions are more valuable and the ARCs traditionally have been ignored.

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