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

[darwinbulldog]

For those raising the issue of minor league players in major league sets, is there a standard cutoff about what number or % of players in the set (or what number or % of cards in the set) can depict minor leaguers before it's no longer considered a major league set?

[tedzan]

Hey Guys

A little too much "verbiage" going on here Time for some more card displays. Lefty O'Doul is one of my favorites. Personally, I think he should be in the
Hall of Fame. His rookie year was 1919 with the NY Yankees. I'm not sure which card is his rookie card, he is featured in the 1918 ZEENUT series (but it is
a PCL card). Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


.








TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

All true and I agree with that, though I wasn't necessarily questioning why the 52 Mantle is his key card but rather why we don't have a generally accepted hobby term to describe cards like that (regardless of the interesting histories which caused them to be so).

It strikes me that if we had such a term which became generally accepted in the same way "rookie card" (by whatever definition) is today this would probably affect the way a lot of cards are valued.

Probably the best example would be players whose rookie cards are on multi-player ones, compared to their early "solo" appearance cards.

Take Gary Carter for example (I'm an Expos fan). His 1975 Topps card is his most valuable (ignoring post-career limited auto cards or whatever). But he's just a little head shared with three other guys. Its not great looking.
His 1976 Topps card in contrast is really beautiful and colorful and shows a young Gary in all his glory. The two cards are from sets that are about equal in terms of how many exist, etc. Yet the 1976 Topps Carter is worth less solely because we can't attach a commonly recognized term to it like we can for the 1975 Topps Carter even tough almost everybody would agree the 1976 is a nicer card of him.

If we collectors had a term like a player's "Key Card" (or something) that we all knew and recognized the meaning of instantly which we could attach to the 1976 Topps Gary Carter, I think it likely that it would be way more sought after than his 75 card is. But we don't, so his 1975 Topps card wins because we all know what a rookie card is (doctrinal debates about the precise definition of the term aside). Which is kind of a weird distortion of the baseball card market if you think of it.

That is just one example, there are quite a few others with much more significant value that I think one could discuss. Guys whose rookie cards are in easy to find lower series, but who have cards later in their career in hard to find high series are maybe another example.

I'm in the minority of enjoying the multi player rookie cards better, because to me it captures the essence of the time when the player was unknown and not good enough to warrant having his own card, and thus harkens back to the time when the HOFer was just first cutting his teeth.

I think threads like these, if put out in the mainstream, would simply educate collectors more and let them make determinations better, and then contrived classifications won't really matter as much.

A collector can still call the 1949 Leaf Jackie Robinson his rookie card based on the 'Beckett rule', but then also realize that there are actual baseball cards of Jackie Robinson made before the Leaf. It gives collectors more options. In this case, since the Leaf is the most expensive of all of them, it actually gives the collectors a more affordable option to have a baseball card that is earlier...and then you can wink when the Leaf card gets the press knowing you have an even earlier(more rare/better) card of Robinson.

Same for the '51 Bowman. Its nice as a collector knowing that you have Mickey Mantle's rookie card...and then you can nod with pride knowing you got a 'one up' on the other card when that gets all the press.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Peter:

You are right on the money for all three of those cards.

Again, take a look at the five simple parameters that I use, if a card fits all of those guidelines, then it qualifies as a potential rookie card, if no other qualified rookie cards of that player pre-date it.

Also important to note that all qualified rookie cards from the same year are true rookie cards, whether one was issued earlier or later in the year than another does not make it the only true rookie card. It could be considered the first rookie card produced and may sometimes be accompanied by a premium because of that but not necessarily so.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Glenn:

You are correct, sets that consist of predominantly Major League cards but also include some Minor League/Amateur players would qualify for rookie card status. Examples of these would include N172's, '85 Topps McGwire, etc. From around 2000 on, the card companies started defining what constitutes a player's rookie card so once you get modern/ultra-modern cards into the conversation, things change dramatically. That's why my parameters are designed strictly for vintage cards.

[darwinbulldog]

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

[packs]

What about a set like Cracker Jacks or some of the Coupon sets that feature a heavy Federal League presence? Are those considered major league cards?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

Yes.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

What about a set like Cracker Jacks or some of the Coupon sets that feature a heavy Federal League presence? Are those considered major league cards?

Yes, Federal League was considered a major league in its day and records are incorporated into players stats.

[packs]

Can you discuss your perception of the Federal League a little more? I brought it up to talk about perception. The Federal League was actually founded in 1913 but only the 1914 and 1915 seasons are “counted” as major league.

Personally I see the Federal League as a mirror of other “major” leagues that are not THE major leagues. Like the Japanese League and how an earlier discussion of Ichiro differentiated between Japanese rookie and MLB. Federal League players had cards issued among major league sets but I don’t think it can be said they were MLB cards if the MLB existed and they weren’t playing in it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you discuss your perception of the Federal League a little more? I brought it up to talk about perception. The Federal League was actually founded in 1913 but only the 1914 and 1915 seasons are “counted” as major league.

Personally I see the Federal League as a mirror of other “major” leagues that are not THE major leagues. Like the Japanese League and how an earlier discussion of Ichiro differentiated between Japanese rookie and MLB. Federal League players had cards issued among major league sets but I don’t think it can be said they were MLB cards if the MLB existed and they weren’t playing in it.

Understood but I think the acid test for a US league is whether the stats count.

[packs]

Who counts the Federal League stats though? Baseball Reference or MLB? I honestly don’t know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Who counts the Federal League stats though? Baseball Reference or MLB? I honestly don’t know.

I think both?
Contributions of those four other groups — the American Association (1882-1891), Federal League (1914-15), Union Association (1884) and the Players' League (1890) — were recognized in a 1969 report by MLB's Special Committee on Baseball Records.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Yes, Bob C., that is correct. Those are some of the easiest cards to classify as rookie cards, no doubters.

Thanks. And agree with you.

[G1911]

The Federal League is counted as a major league by MLB, also by Baseball-Reference and basically every other compiler of statistics readily available. I'm not sure that it SHOULD be but it is universally recognized as a major league. Further, I'm not aware of any significant players whose rookie card is a federal league card, or of federal league cards from 1913, so I'm not sure this is relevant anyways.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by JLange

I prefer the term “First Card.” To me this says what I need to know - that this is the first known card of a player. You could also add further qualifiers like First MLB Card to distinguish from minor league issues, or First Card with XYZ Team, or First Solo Card to differentiate from multiplayer cards, etc. Everything else that comes after that are not the first card. They may be key or mainstream or more desirable, but they are not the first. Even with my preference for a term like “First Card,” I am not opposed to clarifying or re-defining what is meant by “Rookie Card,” as right now it’s not an overly helpful hobby term.

I substituted "first" with the word "earliest"...but this is a great post. I have "earliest" photos that pre-date "earliest" cards. There's a lot of grey area out there, so why not allow people to collect what they like!

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Federal League is counted as a major league by MLB, also by Baseball-Reference and basically every other compiler of statistics readily available. I'm not sure that it SHOULD be but it is universally recognized as a major league. Further, I'm not aware of any significant players whose rookie card is a federal league card, or of federal league cards from 1913, so I'm not sure this is relevant anyways.

It would be everyone's Federal League rookie card.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Is N172 predominantly major leaguers? I'm sure that's a stupid question, but I really don't know.

There are certainly several "rookie" cards of HOF players that were not yet in the majors.

For instance, Kid Nichols' 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Omaha of the Western Association (minor leagues). Similarly, Clark Griffith's 1889 Old Judge pictures him with Milwaukee of the Western Association.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Understood but I think the acid test for a US league is whether the stats count.

Interesting point. So with the recent acceptance and inclusion of Negro League player stats now counting as major league baseball stats, are there any cards or sets for those Negro League players that crossed into the majors that could possibly now be considered their true rookie or first cards, instead of the Bowman or Topps cards that had previously been considered their rookie or first cards? I do not really know of anything myself.

[packs]

I'm not aware of any officially licensed Negro League cards but many Negro League stars have rookie cards in Cuban and Caribbean sets.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

It would be everyone's Federal League rookie card.

So Frank Robinson has a National league rookie card and an American League rookie card? I suppose this can be technically so (just as every player has a "rookie card with X team" or any other qualifier one wants to add on), but I don't think this is a definition used by anyone or relevant to the discussion here.

[packs]

Well, no. The American League and National League are part of the same league. The Federal League, though I guess considered a major league, was still an entirely different league.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Well, no. The American League and National League are part of the same league. The Federal League, though I guess considered a major league, was still an entirely different league.

This is not correct, they are not part of the same league. The American and National Leagues remain separate leagues to this day. They began to cooperate a bit in 1903, they remained separate. The National Commission had little power, the commissioner's office was only created in 1920. The American and National leagues even then remained separate legal entities until 2000, and remain as 2 different playing leagues to this day.

The American and National Leagues are not the only recognized Major Leagues. That a player's rookie is dependent on each major league is not a standard I have ever heard before. If it is to be a standard, it should be made the same across the board; if 3 Finger Brown now has a Federal League rookie card in Crack Jack, then Frank Robinson has 2 rookies as well.

This is an odd line to draw.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Most of the focus here has been on what a "rookie" means. This gets much more difficult at least for prewar if one focuses on the question what is a "card."

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is not correct, they are not part of the same league. The American and National Leagues remain separate leagues to this day. They began to cooperate a bit in 1903, they remained separate. The National Commission had little power, the commissioner's office was only created in 1920. The American and National leagues even then remained separate legal entities until 2000, and remain as 2 different playing leagues to this day.

The American and National Leagues are not the only recognized Major Leagues. That a player's rookie is dependent on each major league is not a standard I have ever heard before. If it is to be a standard, it should be made the same across the board; if 3 Finger Brown now has a Federal League rookie card in Crack Jack, then Frank Robinson has 2 rookies as well.

This is an odd line to draw.

If you say so. The Federal League was a separate league as evidenced by it's own champion and non-competition against major league baseball.

The American League champion played the National League champion in both 1914 and 1915 because those teams were part of major league baseball, or the same league.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not aware of any officially licensed Negro League cards but many Negro League stars have rookie cards in Cuban and Caribbean sets.

It's surprising one of the successful Negro League teams didn't put out a team set somewhere along the line.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

If you say so. The Federal League was a separate league as evidenced by it's own champion and non-competition against major league baseball.

The American League champion played the National League champion in both 1914 and 1915 because those teams were part of major league baseball, or the same league.

Major League Baseball is not a single league, the American League and the National League constitute the current MLB umbrella organization that is composed of these two leagues. This umbrella organization did not exist at all until 1903, and remained fairly toothless for quite some time after that. The Federal League has been universally recognized as a major league, along with several others, for many decades. I guess no player before 1903 has a Major League rookie, by your redefinition of what "major league" means. Cy Young's first major league card is now his E107. "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are not the same thing, one is a description of the level of play and acceptance in the stat books, the other is an actual organization.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

Major League Baseball is not a single league, the American League and the National League constitute the current MLB umbrella organization that is composed of these two leagues. This umbrella organization did not exist at all until 1903, and remained fairly toothless for quite some time after that. The Federal League has been universally recognized as a major league, along with several others, for many decades. I guess no player before 1903 has a Major League rookie, by your redefinition of what "major league" means. Cy Young's first major league card is now his E107. "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are not the same thing, one is a description of the level of play and acceptance in the stat books, the other is an actual organization.

Again, no.

It is possible to be a rookie in one league and then another and have them both be considered major leagues. But it is still not major league baseball unless you're playing in major league baseball. Ichiro is the perfect example. He played major league baseball in Japan but it was not THE major leagues. He became an MLB rookie when he played in the MLB. It can go the other way too. If you leave MLB and go play in Japan, are you not a rookie your first season in NPB?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most of the focus here has been on what a "rookie" means. This gets much more difficult at least for prewar if one focuses on the question what is a "card."

I love the Socratic, start with defining what we mean, both "rookie" and "card".

I would start by proposing: A collectible trading card is a cardboard-stock item, dominated by an image, made with an intent to distribute in some way, whose image is not intended to be separated from the rest of the card and does not have pages.

Which is to say it must be card stock of some kind, must not be a sticker, and must be made with some intent of distribution to exempt home-made items that could never be catalogued or checklisted and exist in unlimited supply and type. Me gluing a photo of Barry Zito to construction paper doesn't make it a collectible card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I love the Socratic, start with defining what we mean, both "rookie" and "card".

I would start by proposing: A collectible trading card is a cardboard-stock item, dominated by an image, made with an intent to distribute in some way, whose image is not intended to be separated from the rest of the card and does not have pages.

Which is to say it must be card stock of some kind, must not be a sticker, and must be made with some intent of distribution to exempt home-made items that could never be catalogued or checklisted and exist in unlimited supply and type. Me gluing a photo of Barry Zito to construction paper doesn't make it a collectible card.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Again, no. Are you trying to say Kid Nichols's N172 is a major league issued card despite him playing in the Western Association?

It is possible to be a rookie in one league and then another and have them both be considered major leagues. But it is still not major league baseball unless you're playing in major league baseball. Ichiro is the perfect example. He played major league baseball in Japan but it was not THE major leagues. He became an MLB rookie when he played in the MLB.

You are not reading what was written. The Western Association was not a major league. The list of major leagues was already posted by someone else on this page. The Japanese Leagues are not recognized as a major league in the US. It is a very specific list universally recognized in the United States by the current MLB, Baseball-Reference, and essentially every other compiler of statistics. The Players League, The American Association, The Union Association and the Federal League have been universally recognized as major leagues for decades. This has recently been expanded to include 7 negro leagues as well.

Again, eliminating the Federal League does not even change any significant players rookie card. A players major league rookie card does not mean The AL and NL after 1903 only. There were other major leagues that have been universally recognized as such for decades.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are not reading what was written. The Western Association was not a major league. The list of major leagues was already posted by someone else on this page. The Japanese Leagues are not recognized as a major league in the US. It is a very specific list universally recognized in the United States by the current MLB, Baseball-Reference, and essentially every other compiler of statistics. The Players League, The American Association, The Union Association and the Federal League have been universally recognized as major leagues for decades. This has recently been expanded to include 7 negro leagues as well.

Again, eliminating the Federal League does not even change any significant players rookie card. A players major league rookie card does not mean The AL and NL after 1903 only. There were other major leagues that have been universally recognized as such for decades.

In other words the Federal League may have sucked but get over it.

[G1911]

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.

There are many items catalogued with cards that are not cards. I like the M101 Sporting News Supplements, but they aren't cards. I don't think a sticker is either, a sticker is intended to be removed from the piece that makes it a "card" at all, and thus is something else. Doesn't make them any less cool or less rookie, just not a card. If a thin paper sticker is a card, then most any paper-stock item is, I think.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In other words the Federal League may have sucked but get over it.

I like Federal League history, but they sucked and I think it's level of play was significantly below the NL and AL

[Peter_Spaeth]

When asked, what is art?, Picasso allegedly replied, what is not? That would be my answer. I would rather go by feel than rigid definition. I would count an M101-2 for example, but wouldn't count a Type 1 photo or pin or decal. Not sure I can define the difference in every case.

[packs]

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Solution:

Just buy all of the early cards of a player that you can. In the end, you can name them whatever you want.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

No one has said this. The Players Association was a major league. The Federal League was a major league. Major League Baseball, the capitalized business entity, consists of the American League and the National League. No one has said the Federal League joined a partnership with the American and National Leagues under a unifying umbrella organization.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When asked, what is art?, Picasso allegedly replied, what is not? That would be my answer. I would rather go by feel than rigid definition. I would count an M101-2 for example, but wouldn't count a Type 1 photo or pin or decal. Not sure I can define the difference in every case.

A card is anything I like and want to have and need to justify having a reason to add to my card collection!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A card is anything I like and want to have and need to justify having a reason to add to my card collection!

I wouldn't go quite so far, but I trust my instinct for what feels like or close enough to a card more than I would some abstract definition, I think. The Malcolm Gladwell school of rookie cards.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Anyone, on this forum have an idea which card of Lefty (wearing a Major League uniform) is his rookie card ?


.

Take your pick...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

I was getting mixed up between major league issued sets and major leagues when you brought up Cy Young cards. Sorry about that re: Kid Nichols.

Accounting aside, there is a very practical way of looking at things and that's by looking at what happened. The Federal League was obviously not part of MLB or it would have participated in the league's play, which did include participation from both the American and National Leagues. You can define major league baseball in your own way but you cannot say the Federal League was part of one overall league. It was not.

A lot of people are splittings hairs on the proper definition of a "major league". Some I think are being too literal in that they are more narrowly defining a major league team as having to belong to the legally formed and organized Major League Baseball as we know it today. But professional baseball has been around a lot longer that just the inception of the American and National League organizations as we know them today. Because of that, I think you have to look more at the overall level of talent of players in a league or on a team to determine if they are at a major league level, as opposed to only accepting players and their teams as major leaguers because they play in a league that calls itself part of Major League Baseball. When you go back to the Federal League of 1913-15, or the Player's League of 1890, they both included many stars and everyday players from the reconized Major Leagues at those times. So the players and talent were on par with the reconized Major League teams, so why shouldn't they also be considered major league teams as well. And the fact that the MLB and the HOF both recognize and count the stats of players in those non-traditional leagues as being part of their major league career total records pretty much seals the deal that those were in fact major league players on major league teams. And now that inclusion is being expanded even further with the recent recognition of Negro League stats as being part of a player's major league career stats. So in effect, MLB and the HOF have now more or less officially sanctioned the Negro League as part of major league baseball, whether you like it or not.

[CharleyBrown]

Away from my research atm, but 1st card (facsimile) in set of 13 was issued first. June/July of 1947. When I'm at my computer, I can provide the exact month.

That said, I'd still classify both the set of 48 and first in set of 13 to be his RC.

Old Gold Kneeling first distributed Sept 1947

Originally Posted by tedzan

Packs

Do we know which Jackie Robinson card was issued first....the regular issue 1947 BOND BREAD card shown here, or his special series of 13 cards (example, your scan) ?

I remember pulling the regular issue cards from BOND Bread packages in the Fall of 1947.

The special series cards of Jackie were never available in our neighborhood in Hillside, NJ.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

Impressive list, Derek! Majority of those items I didn't know existed.

[MikeGarcia]

...if you didn't want to wait until 1947....


...

[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.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I substituted "first" with the word "earliest"...but this is a great post. I have "earliest" photos that pre-date "earliest" cards. There's a lot of grey area out there, so why not allow people to collect what they like!

It's not ready for prime-time yet, but I've been working on a project to share the earliest collectibles/images including a checklist of items for each baseball HOFer. Take a look and let me know what you all think:

https://imageevent.com/derekgranger/hofearliest

Great website Derek. Thanks so much for putting that together.

[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