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

[packs]

My personal rule for dealing with modern is that if the card you're on refers to you as a prospect in some way then that's not your rookie card, whether it appears in a major league set or not. You are still a minor leaguer and nobody becomes a major league rookie until they debut.

First Bowman cards are almost always part of a prospect subset. Many early 90s Topps cards referred to the players as draft picks, etc. You don't become a rookie when you get drafted. You become a minor leaguer. Your true rookie card is the first card issued of you after you make your major league debut.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

My personal rule for dealing with modern is that if the card you're on refers to you as a prospect in some way then that's not your rookie card, whether it appears in a major league set or not. You are still a minor leaguer and nobody becomes a major league rookie until they debut.

First Bowman cards are almost always part of a prospect subset. Many early 90s Topps cards referred to the players as draft picks, etc. Your true rookie card is the first card issued of you after you make your major league debut.

So 60 Topps is not Yaz' rookie, that's hard to take.

[packs]

No. His rookie card is 1961 Topps. His 1960 card is of a minor leaguer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No. His rookie card is 1961 Topps. His 1960 card is of a minor leaguer.

What percentage of the hobby do you think agrees with you?

[packs]

They don't have to agree with me if they can explain how a player who never appeared in a major league game is considered a rookie.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

They don't have to agree with me if they can explain how a player who never appeared in a major league game is considered a rookie.

I'll explain it to you, to me it's a rookie because it's his first appearance in a big league set.

I am going to start a separate thread to collect opinions on some representative controversies.

[packs]

If you appear in a major league set but never play a major league game, were you ever a rookie?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

If you appear in a major league set but never play a major league game, were you ever a rookie?

Brien Taylor? I guess so.

[packs]

He was never a rookie and his card is a draft pick. I saw your other thread. Just wondering why you make the distinction for Trout that his rookie is the 2011 Bowman and not the 2009? I'm assuming it's because he was a prospect in 2009. But Taylor and even the 1993 Jeters are the precursors to the "1st Bowman" craze. Their initial Topps cards are as draft picks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

He was never a rookie and his card is a draft pick. I saw your other thread. Just wondering why you make the distinction for Trout that his rookie is the 2011 Bowman and not the 2009? I'm assuming it's because he was a prospect in 2009. But Taylor and even the 1993 Jeters are the precursors to the "1st Bowman" craze. Their initial Topps cards are as draft picks.

Isn't that 2009 set a prospect set, not a major league set?

In any event, maybe it's a bit of a copout, but once there are official MLB designations I think we have to abide by those?

[packs]

If the companies get to make up their own definitions I think you get to make up your own too. Officially the MLB doesn't consider you a rookie until you've exceeded rookie limits.

Fun discussion though.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Brien Taylor? I guess so.

At the time I thought this Topps Gold was a great pull.

img528.jpg

img529.jpg

[D. Bergin]

What's Mark McGwire's Rookie card?

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me, what somebody determines is a Rookie card, or not a rookie card.

I would naturally gravitate towards earliest available card, even if it's a minor league / college league / or even little league issue. I think they're all interesting choices.

How you actually assign value to each one of these using the word "Rookie", I have no idea, but just like everything else it's going to be based on supply/demand, or simply holding out for the right price for your rarity.

The only thing that bothers me is when a card's actual issue date is misrepresented by the seller, or you see a fantasy card (again, I have no problems with these in theory either), with an issue date on the back, that has been completely concocted by the card artist, and is being passed off as a Rookie card.

If you think baseball is complicated, you should check out some of the more obscure sports. I've been getting into Formula 1 lately, and I've seen nearly every card issued of any particular important driver, described as a "Rookie" card by one seller or another. I've also seen certain sets misidentified purposely, as being issued earlier then they actually were. The knowledge base is so limited, and there's enough new collectors interested in these things, that it's easy to pull the wool over a lot of eyes if you don't pay close attention.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

What's Mark McGwire's Rookie card?

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me, what somebody determines is a Rookie card, or not a rookie card.

I would naturally gravitate towards earliest available card, even if it's a minor league / college league / or even little league issue. I think they're all interesting choices.

How you actually assign value to each one of these using the word "Rookie", I have no idea, but just like everything else it's going to be based on supply/demand, or simply holding out for the right price for your rarity.

The only thing that bothers me is when a card's actual issue date is misrepresented by the seller, or you see a fantasy card (again, I have no problems with these in theory either), with an issue date on the back, that has been completely concocted by the card artist, and is being passed off as a Rookie card.

If you think baseball is complicated, you should check out some of the more obscure sports. I've been getting into Formula 1 lately, and I've seen nearly every card issued of any particular important driver, described as a "Rookie" card by one seller or another. I've also seen certain sets misidentified purposely, as being issued earlier then they actually were. The knowledge base is so limited, and there's enough new collectors interested in these things, that it's easy to pull the wool over a lot of eyes if you don't pay close attention.

Same with soccer. The word is abused by ebay sellers.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This Feller card predates his 38 Goudey but I don't think it's generally recognized as a RC (or the other 37 issues).

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I believe a lot of the hobby believe "Rapid Robert's rookie card is his 1936 WWG. I know it is Canadian but i love Canada.

If he is in that issue it's news to me.

[Yoda]

He definitely is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

He definitely is.

37 O Pee Chee yes. 37 Goudey Premium, yes. 36 WWG, please post one.

[Yoda]

Peter, you are absolutely right. I got my 30's Canuk sets mixed up. Joe D. and Lou G. appear in the WWG issue which was issued in 1936. I'll do better the next time.

[packs]

Would have been a sweet card.

[Seven]

I'll still call it, "overlooked" at least because of the fact you can still find one at a much cheaper price point, but Mantle's 1951 Bowman Issue, it's his technical RC as we all know, yet so many times the mystique of his 52 topps Issue, takes over the conversation.

Even though both have skyrocketed in price, you're still finding his true rookie to be a third of the price, his 52 topps is. Hell if were looking at release dates, and of course someone please correct me if I am wrong, Wouldn't his 52 topps technically be his 6th issue? In the following order it would be

51 Bowman
51 Wheaties
52 Berk Ross
52 Bowman
52 tip top Bread
52 topps

Just something to think about, in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

51 Wheaties is likely later and not a 51 issue.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

51 Wheaties is likely later and not a 51 issue.

thanks for pointing that out, Peter. Even eliminating that one, we're still looking at a handful of cards that came before his 52 topps, yet you still see the headlines of "Mickey Mantle Rookie Sells for X"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

thanks for pointing that out, Peter. Even eliminating that one, we're still looking at a handful of cards that came before his 52 topps, yet you still see the headlines of "Mickey Mantle Rookie Sells for X"

It is and always will be THE Mantle card, rational or not.

[h2oya311]

I think my whole collection is comprised of "overlooked" true rookies...at least by my definition, which includes minor league cards, regionals, postcards, etc. And while I love team and multi-player cards, I prefer individual shots/photos.

Here are a few major league cards that fit the bill (last names A-B) - '32/33 Appling, '48 Ashburn, '67 Bench, '47 Berra, '74 Brett, '55 Bunning:

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Scocs

Don’t have a picture handy, but a 1956 Kahn’s Weiners Frank Robinson beats out his Topps rookie by a year.

Not the best example, but it's an example, and it's my example. And it's definitely not his nicest card (did he just wake up?):

[BobC]

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Of all the questions regarding different sets and years and what are or aren't rookie cards according to the Beckett thinking, Ted Z already pointed out one of the most egregious errors with Phil Rizzuto's 1941 Double Play card being completely ignored as his true rookie card, in favor of it being his '48 Bowman card. But it isn't just Rizzuto, HOFers Pee Wee Reese, Lou Boudreau, Luke Appling, and Bobby Doerr are also in the '41 Double Play set, yet all of their rookie cards are supposedly from the '49 Bowman set. I've never heard of the Double Play set referred to or considered a non-major or just a regional set or issue, but even if you have some people still trying to make such an argument, then explain to me how they get away with the same ridiculous and unreasonable logic in regards to the Playball sets? The Play Ball sets exactly match the standards and criteria established by Topps and Bowman in later years for what constitues a major set. The Play Ball sets included all of the major league teams, they weren't just limited to a small regional area, they were actual cards sold in packs, they were put out each year with a new issue using unique images, and they were issued over multiple, cosecutive years, 1939, 1940, and 1941. (The only reason they stopped at three years was because of the onset of WWII.) And yet the Play Ball sets (at least according to Beckett thinking) don't qualify to include anyone's rookie card?

So even if you ignore those aforementioned HOFers in the Double Play set, what about the Pee Wee Reese, Dom Dimaggio, and Bobby Doerr (and I may be forgetting some others) cards in the '41 Play Ball set then? How are those not their rookie cards instead of ones from the '49 Bowman set?

And here's a hypothetical question to show how stupid the Beckett definition of what constitutes a set from which you can recognize a rookie card is. Babe Ruth actually started in the majors playing a few games with the Red Sox in 1914, and ended his playing career in a partial season with the Boston Braves in 1935. A total of 22 different seasons he played in, but according to Beckett thinking, no rookie card till his 20th season in 1933 with his Goudey cards. (Just reading that last statement out loud makes it sound even dumber and more absurd than it is.) So what if Ruth only played 19 seasons in the majors and retired after the end of the '32 season, and never got into the Goudey set? He'd have still played an extremely long and legendary career, but according to Beckett he never would have had a rookie card then!!!!!!! (Or would they have designated it one of those cards he's on in the '62 Topps set. Yuck!)

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

[tedzan]

Reminiscing......I got back into this "glorious" hobby....circa 1977.

If I recall correctly back then, Rookie cards were not such a big thing. Much of this started as the result of the excitement generated in 1978,
when Pete Rose challenged Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Rose's hitting streak ended with 44 games. It was amazing, Rose's rookie
card went from $5 in 1979 to $50 by 1980. And by 1983....$250.

In 1980, Mantle's so-called "rookie" card (1952 TOPPS) sold for $3000 at a an Auction in Philadelphia. His actual rookie card (1951 BOWMAN)
was listed in Beckett for only $400 that year.

-----------



Anyhow, one of my first challenges, 40+ years ago, were to acquire the 1949 BOWMAN Satchel Paige card, in order to complete this 1949 set.
A tough Hi #, but quite available if you didn't mind at that time paying $400 for it. The price for this card was (relatively speaking) pretty high,
since it was considered his "rookie" card.





In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Most people consider 1941 Play Ball the Pee Wee Rookie, I believe

The old SCD catalogs blindly followed Beckett in many cases. Even they listed '49 Bowman as Reese's rookie card. For the rcord, I consider both his '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards as his rookies.

[G1911]

It seems to me there are three reasonable standards, off the top of my head:

1) A "rookie card" is exactly literal, it means a players first (rookie) card. His first season is his rookie year, his first card is his rookie card. Thus, a 1960 Topps is Yaz's rookie, the 1947 Bonds Jackie's rookie, 1947 Tip Top is Berra's, and 2009 is Trout's. 1 of these guys probably has an earlier card I don't know about and I am wrong, but it illustrates the picture.


2) a "rookie card" means a card from the players first year, the rookie reference is not to the card itself (as it has nothing to do with whether it is his first card), but is a card from his rookie season (not his debut season, which is different) in the major leagues, a "card of a rookie". Thus Trout's Rookie is a 2012 because while he debuted in 2011, it was not his rookie year. If Trout's 2009 cards are not rookies because a rookie card has nothing to do with what card came first, but is based on being the card from his rookie year, then his 2011 isn't a real rookie either. Yaz's rookie is a 1961, Jackie's still a 1947 Bond Bread.


3) A "Rookie card" is a card from a players debut season, the term is a misnomer but it is too late to change its widespread use in the hobby to "debut card". And thus, Trout's real "rookie card" is a 2011, even though his rookie year was 2012, because he first appeared in a major league game in 2011. Yogi Berra just doesn't have a rookie card, since he debuted in 1946. Yaz's is his 1961 again.


2 and 3 both mean that many players simply do not have a rookie card, because no card was made in their rookie or debut season. 1 means many players rookie cards are obscurities or pictures them in a non-major league uniform (1985 McGwire, tons of modern guys in minor-league team sets).


Arbitrary standards that have been concocted for profit or to make collecting easier so that nothing but Topps cards and a handful of other sets counts don't seem reasonable to me (it also makes pre-war rookies non-existent except for maybe Goudey, arguably T205 and T206); it's adding completely arbitrary rules designed to be enforced selectively and to create the outcome that is desired. This isn't a rational methodology. I think one should pick 1 or 2 or 3 (or a fourth non-arbitrary standard that is not rooted in selectively picking the rules to create a pre-determined outcome if there is one) and follow the standard the same way for every player and card.


I personally lean towards the literal 1, the first card, no matter the uniform he is in, if it is ugly or beautiful, if it is a regional or a super-printed in the tens or hundreds of thousands Topps card. I think 2 is fully reasoned as well, 3 a bit less so but still reasonable. The standards chosen must be applied equally and the same across the board, or it is not a standard definition at all and simply cherry picking favorites (though "first card of this player I want in my collection" is a perfectly fine thing to collect if one so chooses). The standards should be chosen on reasonable grounds, without regard for whether or not it achieves the outcome one desires or is ones fiscal interest.


Any system in which the rules are different for different things it is applied too, or the selective rules are arbitrarily picked to determine what it was desired would be determined, is an inherently unreasonable and illogical system and should thus be dismissed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Derek what about the 65 Palmer.

you mean this one?



And since we are trying to stick to pre-war, I'll add that most forget about this one of Big Country:

[Pat R]

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Does Beckett still use the XRC (extended rookie card) that's what they used to use for the update and traded rookie cards.

Amazing that I’ve been in the “rookie” card game for this long and didn’t know that. I thought it stood for extreme, not extended. Bwahahaha!

[Peter_Spaeth]

That Palmer, and your Omaha Gibson, are true hen's teeth.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Here are some pretty basic parameters for determining Rookie Card eligibility for vintage baseball cards:

- No minor league or amateur baseball card issues (those qualify as pre-rookie cards)

- No team cards (maximum of 4 individuals on a card)

- No stamps, stickers, paper premiums, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

- Must be catalogued "CARD" (nothing bigger than cabinet card size)

- No team issued items, i.e. photo packs, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

These are the parameters that I used for publishing my 4-Sport Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Guide. I believe that following these rules takes much of the bias out of things while enabling one to make clearly defined choices for rookie card status.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In recent years, research has revealed that the 1949 LEAF Paige card is his true rookie card. The 2nd series (referred to as the Single-Prints)
was issued in the Summer of 1949. The 1949 BOWMAN Paige was issued several months later in the Fall of 1949.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The Paige on the left with 'An Exhibit Card' is a 1949 issue as well and has picked up steam in the last year or two as a RC.

[JLange]

This is Larry Doby's “First Card" - a 1947 picture pack photo from the Cleveland Indians set that year. This was the first year in a string of picture packs for Cleveland going well into the 1960s. The Larry Doby card pre-dates his regular issue Leaf and Bowman cards by 2 years. This set is still found regularly on ebay and other venues, and is still very affordable. That may be changing though as graded picture pack cards of other HOFers are starting to get some real attention. I count this Larry Doby card as my earliest card or collectible of his.

[BobC]

Y

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Here are some pretty basic parameters for determining Rookie Card eligibility for vintage baseball cards:

- No minor league or amateur baseball card issues (those qualify as pre-rookie cards)

- No team cards (maximum of 4 individuals on a card)

- No stamps, stickers, paper premiums, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

- Must be catalogued "CARD" (nothing bigger than cabinet card size)

- No team issued items, i.e. photo packs, etc. (those qualify as rookies but are not cards)

These are the parameters that I used for publishing my 4-Sport Hall of Fame Rookie Cards Guide. I believe that following these rules takes much of the bias out of things while enabling one to make clearly defined choices for rookie card status.

So you're saying '41 Play Ball and Double Play cards should count as rookies, correct? And does that mean W desginated strip cards count as well? After all, they are called strip "cards", so they would seem to fit within your parameters as well.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by JLange

This is Larry Doby's first "card" - a 1947 picture pack photo from the Cleveland Indians set that year. This was the first year in a string of picture packs for Cleveland going well into the 1960s. The Larry Doby card pre-dates his regular issue Leaf and Bowman first cards by 2 years. This set is still found regularly on ebay and other venues, and is still very affordable. That may be changing though as graded picture pack cards of other HOFers are starting to get some real attention. I count this Larry Doby card as my earliest card or collectible of his.

Here are Paige and Larry Doby from my 1948 Indians Team pack. I have several different Team picture packs from the late 1940's. Your picture appears different than mine.
Also, Larry Doby’s first game with Cleveland was July 10, 1947.





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

Adam

Do we have an exact 1949 timeline when the Satchel Paige exhibit card was issued ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[seanofjapan]

Reading this makes me wonder why the hobby doesn't have a term that designates a player's best or most desirable card, regardless of whether it is a rookie card (by whatever definition) or not. Like their "Key Card" or something, (only to designate the player's most sought after card rather than the most sought after card in a given set).

Like obviously Mantle's 52 Topps card is his key card even though it isn't his rookie. But there are lots of other examples of players whose best cards (here we can use market value as a proxy for "best", though that is also a debatable usage) aren't their rookies. Everyone knows which ones they are, yet we don't have a commonly shared word to describe that. Which seems strange to me.

I raise this because most of this debate on what constitutes a true "rookie card" seems to focus on relatively arbitrary points (whether a guy had played an MLB game yet at the time the card came out, how widespread the set was distributed, etc) which don't really seem to affect the value of the card to collectors much. Does anybody care that Carl Yastrzemski hadn't played in MLB yet when his 1960 Topps card came out? No, or at least not enough to affect the desirability of that card.

Looking back on how Beckett used to develop various terms to describe things that weren't quite rookie cards back in the 80s, it always struck me that their main reason for doing so was to somehow recognize key cards which were problematic to describe as rookie cards, which illustrates the problem. Like when they used to put "FTC" after "First Topps cards" it was obvious they were just doing that to accomodate the 52 Mantle (and then having invented the term applied it to every other FTC that came along even though nobody really cared). Same with "XRC" for cards in the update sets, only their purpose there was to maintain the "RC" designation for the regular cards in the following year's sets.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

G-man, does that mean you think minor league cards can be rookie cards?

Personally, my definition is not any you gave -- first card in a major league set. At least up until the point where MLB officially designates RCs.

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Reading this makes me wonder why the hobby doesn't have a term that designates a player's best or most desirable card, regardless of whether it is a rookie card (by whatever definition) or not. Like their "Key Card" or something, (only to designate the player's most sought after card rather than the most sought after card in a given set).

Like obviously Mantle's 52 Topps card is his key card even though it isn't his rookie. But there are lots of other examples of players whose best cards (here we can use market value as a proxy for "best", though that is also a debatable usage) aren't their rookies. Everyone knows which ones they are, yet we don't have a commonly shared word to describe that. Which seems strange to me.

Concerning the first portion of your post, the only reason why the 52 Mantle is considered his "key card" is because of where it was printed and what happened with the high series cards from topps' set that year. Had Mantle not been a member of the high series or had Berger not commissioned a literal boat load of them to be dumped in the ocean, I'd argue that Mantle's 52 card would probably fall somewhere in the range that his 52 Bowman is in, right now.

Objectively speaking, I don't even think it's his best looking card. Sure the 52 topps style is beautiful, But his 53 topps looks better, I'd argue the same about his 56 as well as his 51 Bowman.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Seven

Concerning the first portion of your post, the only reason why the 52 Mantle is considered his "key card" is because of where it was printed and what happened with the high series cards from topps' set that year. Had Mantle not been a member of the high series or had Berger not commissioned a literal boat load of them to be dumped in the ocean, I'd argue that Mantle's 52 card would probably fall somewhere in the range that his 52 Bowman is in, right now.

Objectively speaking, I don't even think it's his best looking card. Sure the 52 topps style is beautiful, But his 53 topps looks better, I'd argue the same about his 56 as well as his 51 Bowman.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think a minor league card can be a rookie if we mean literally "rookie card" but not if we mean "a card of a rookie" (a player would theoretically have a RC as a minor leaguer and a RC as a major leaguer, with people caring about the major league one).

They can be excluded, but I think it must be done across the board then. The "major league set" category seems to be generally used to exempt easy-to-get cards like a 1985 Topps McGwire, 1993 Topps, SP, etc. Jeter, and so forth that are generally held to be RC's at present. If a 1985 Topps McGwire picturing him as a Olympic player is a rookie card, then minor leaguers must also be. Is it the uniform in the picture, or the players status? Almost every card in modern Bowman (and many Topps mainline RC logo cards) are heavily photoshopped to use a major league uniform (some of them a bit crudely still). If it is the uniform in the picture, then these are rookies by this standard. If it is the players status as a minor leaguer and not the uniform in the picture, then a 1960 Topps Yaz shouldn't be a rookie card either, just like modern Bowman, if we don't count minor leaguers. Not counting minor leaguers except for Topps sets is arbitrary, I think. I don't think different sets should have different rules, doing that just produces an inconsistent list. I don't one hall of famers or stars minor league issues, but I do own a lot of their first Topps cards, the generally held exceptions are more in my financial interest, but they aren't consistent or applied the same, and thus I don't think it's a good standard.

I'm really for any definition at all that is not arbitrary and is enforced the same on every card.

IMO
85 McGwire Olympic is a rookie -- it's in a Topps Major League set.
86 West Palm Beach Randy Johnson is not a rookie -- it's in a minor league team set.
92 Rivera in street clothes is a rookie -- it's in a Bowman Major League set.

Here's one that has me stumped though. Why isn't 2016 Topps Now Aaron Judge -- issued after his ML debut and in a Yankees uniform -- his RC? I believe lots of Topps Nows have RC designations, why not this one?

[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.

[bcbgcbrcb]

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