Why don't more people collect Baseball Hall of Fame Rookie Cards?

[bcbgcbrcb]

It seems like this venture was a lot more popular a few years ago (Hal Lewis, Sergio Delgado, Dan Paradis, Andy Baran, etc.), why do you think interest has waned over the past few years? Aside from the same few people that always respond to posts on this subject (Derek, David, Ken, Jimi), it seems that either no one else really cares or no one else has anything relevant to add.

I was really hoping that all of the research and work that I did together with Lyman Hardemenn a couple of years ago on the OldCardboard webpage would shed some light on the subject and provide answers to a lot of questions as to what constitutes a player's rookie card, particularly on the pre-war side. My thought process was that the more knowledgable people become about a subject, the more they will gravitate towards it.

Do you feel that this area of the hobby still has a lot of room for future growth?

[David W]

I think a lot of people collect post WW2 rookie cards, but the pre WW2 cards are too expensive and/or rare so to get the majority of them is very difficult and/or expensive.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Valid point, David.

My question in response to that is:

Do many more people collect post-war because they are much more affordable, like you said, or is it really that those cards are defined with an "RC" designation in the card catalogues and it is easy to identify which card(s) to go after? My fear is that the answer to that question is much more often the latter. It was for this reason, that I spent so much time trying to come up with a definitive list for pre-war collectors.

The rarity aspect definitely comes into play, to me the greater the challenge, the more rewarding the accomplishment is in the end. To me, if it is too easy, it's kind of like the type-card collector who only collects mainstream issues, where would the challenge in that be?

[packs]

I feel like its less important. I'd like to have any Ty Cobb card. I don't really care if its his rookie card. Same goes for Ruth and Gehrig. For most post-war HOFers their rookie card is their only card of value, which is why it would be more widely collected.

[ullmandds]

Personally... Rookie card collecting Has never really interested me... Especially in regards to vintage For some of the reasons already stated. The cost is definitely prohibitive In many cases...as is the supply. Additionally... I don't like the idea of being bound To one card of a given player... I would much prefer the card That appeals to me the most on an aesthetic level. Also the whole prookie/rookie debate turns me off too!

To me it is like Leon's quest for a complete acc type set...an incredible Accomplishment... But beyond the means Of most.

[egbeachley]

When Rookie Card's became the "in-thing" in the 80's, it seemed like an obvious ploy to raise prices for the dealers. But then it turned out to lower interest in non-rookies.

For the most part, pre-war collectors don't fall for this artificial standard and just collect cards that they like and/or are rare in their own rights.

[glchen]

I think most people don't collect prewar HOF RC's because it's too expensive and rare. Last year, someone tried to come up with a complete HOF rookie card set for the PSA Set Registry. However, many of the card are obviously not rookie cards (e.g., 1933 Goudey for Ruth). However, most of the post-war cards are the correct rookies. I think the creator was going by the Beckett guide for rookies using the "nationwide set" definition, and also trying to make the set more obtainable. The set composition is here: Link, and there are already 17 sets on the registry, so it's gained traction relatively quickly. That's why I think that there is some interest for this kind of set. There should be interest in a better list than this registry, but probably would just need to be published somewhere like the PSA, SGC, or Beckett registries to become more popular. For example, even the Top 250 Sportscards set on PSA (Link has some active collectors trying to complete the set even though there are some very expensive cards on that list such as the T206 Wagner, T210 Jackson, and Baltimore News Ruth. (Spence is at 98% completion for this set.)

[bcbgcbrcb]

I don't really agree with the reason behind the rookie card pricing rise during the '80's. I feel that it was much more a case of the collectors hoarding these in large quantities similar to investing your money in as much stock of each company as you could afford, thus cutting down available supply in the market which drove up prices. I'm sure that the greedy dealers had their part in it as well, but I think it was the "collector as investor" philosophy that drove it, at least initially.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I remember hearing about that PSA registry set coming out, Gary. I have to say that I treated it like a joke, obviously, some not too knowledgable effort went into putting that together. I'm not sure why they could not come up with something better, they could have always asked people with more expertise in that area.

[botn]

I collect hall of fame rookie cards. One of the things I wrestle with for pre war is how to define "rookie card." Is it the first issue in which the player appeared? Can it be a minor league issue? Must it have been nationally distributed? Must the issue feature just the player or can it be a team shot? I am an advocate for professional grading so must the item be something recognized (able to receive a grade and be holdered) by PSA or SGC?

The other element, which poses a problem, is that sometimes the "rookie card" is far from the most pleasing of issues for the player.

By the way, Phil, your list is valuable and I refer to it often when considering my acquisitions. So thank you for providing that to the hobby.

[Exhibitman]

+1 on many of the above points, and would add that with the nature of prewar card issues it seems silly to discuss 'rookie' cards when so many players have minor league issues, postcards, regional issues, foreign cards, regional premiums and arcade cards that predate the supposed 'rookie' cards. Take the Zeenuts, which I as a west coast collector find especially interesting. I lost all interest in 'rookie' cards when some people touting rookie card collecting discounted the Zeenuts of DiMaggio, Cochrane, Heilmann, the Waners, Vance, etc. The whole idea of a rookie is supposed to the the guy's first card, right? Well, if there are several professional baseball player cards that predate the rookie card, doesn't the whole thing then seem a bit pointless? If you stop and think about it, half the country had no MLB before the war, so the whole MLB thing itself was really a regional thing until after WWII. And what about the black guys who were barred from playing but who had cards issued in Latin America and had local postcards? Where do you fit them in? Separately but equally? Hardly seems right. And if their cards are rookies, why not the aforementioned cards of the guys who got the MLB chance?

The other issue I have is that the people who are most into the debate over the 'rookie' card often seem to be more interested in touting their own holdings as the 'rookie' card than anything else. There's marketing and scholarship, and they aren't necessarily the same things. I wish I could tout an R315 O'Doul as his rookie but how can I when I'm holding a trio of earlier Zeenuts?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Greg:

You really understand the challenges facing this type of collection. For what it's worth, I'll share my viewpoint on each of your questions even though they were probably meant to be rhetorical:

I would agree that the rookie card would be the first issue that the player appeared as a Major Leaguer.

I would categorize minor league issues separately, using the term, pre-rookie or prookie for short.

No requirment for a set to be nationally distributed to be a rookie card.

No team cards count as rookie cards, I typically set the limit at 4 players as Topps has done that traditionally with their rookie cards over the years. This should not be too controversial as there is rarely a card that falls between a full team card and a 4-player card.

I too strongly prefer a TPG (PSA, SGC or BGS) as they add additional legitimacy to the item, although grading detractors will tell you otherwise.

You're right, a particular rookie card may not be the most attractive card of a particular player (see 1920's strip cards for example) but it is what it is.


Lastly, thank you for the kind words.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Adam:

Just curious, prior to your focus on boxing memorabilia (at least I believe that is your primary focus now but I'm not sure), did you not collect primarily baseball exhibit cards and particularly those that were Hall of Fame Rookie Cards? I seem to recall some very high prices paid on e-bay and other auction venues for things like '21 Jesse Haines, '26 Tony Lazzeri, etc. driving up the prices in that market tremendously. I think that you might have even bought a few from me at that time.

[Exhibitman]

Not exactly. I collect Exhibit cards, have for decades. It is one of the only things I collect as sets. I really don't care if they are rookie cards; if they are in the sets I need them and eventually want to own them. Except the 4 on 1's which I just don't like. I picked up a bunch of rookie cards in Exhibit sets when they were cheap not because they were rookies but because I needed them for the sets. I was more amused, then irritated, when the market caught onto them and prices rose. So, I retract my early position: Exhibits are NOT cards, they are NOT rookies, and everyone who bought a 1925 Gehrig as a rookie needs to send it to me stat.

[glchen]

The problem with the "pre-rookie" / minor league cards like the Zeenuts or even Baltimore News Ruth is that it's not limited to prewar. There are a lot of modern minor league cards floating around. I think there'd be an uproar if someone said Derek Jeter's true rookie card isn't his SP card, but is some vague minor league card of his.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Would you pay something like $750 for a '26 Lazzeri if you needed it for a set when a '27 Lazzeri would probably run under $100? I realize that these are two different sets but my point is the concept.

[bcbgcbrcb]

That's correct, Gary, a minor league card of Jeter that pre-dates his SP rookie would be a pre-rookie card not a rookie card. A collector just has to decide if they would prefer pre-rookies included in their collection or Major League rookie cards only.

[jimivintage]

I figure I should chime in. I am in the middle of cooking dinner for the kids right now, so it'll have to be short, and I will write more later.

Right now, my focus is on postwar HOF RCs and obtaining a card that appeals to me for each prewar HOFer. My budget will not allow for RC prewar, but I'd like to think that with patience over time, I can come close as I inch my way closer to that lofty goal.

Minor league cards really don't have a place in my collection for post war stuff. Even a 1952 Parkhurst Alston would not count. I tend to collect mainstream RCs, but I do make exceptions like the 1975 SSPC Eckersley features him in an Indians uniform one year prior to the 1976 Topps card, so I consider that his RC. Some would disagree. Who cares though, right? Collect what you want!

I agree, team cards do not count. Nothing wrong with Topps RCs that have 3 or 4 RCs on it though like the '78T Molitor/Trammell RC also featuring two others on it. It was intended to be a RC after all. However, a 1978 Topps Brewers Team card with a small picture of Molitor on it would not count.

Then there are the unique copies of 19th century guys and Negro Leaguers. I simply just go for the earliest copy I can get. If it has to be the '74 Laughlin set, then so be it.

I do have an idea on how we can all come together as a unit on collecting HOF RCs, and helping each other....BUT, I have to go finish making dinner. More later, guys!

Happy collecting!

Jimi

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

[z28jd]

It seems like the older the card/player, the less I care about getting his rookie card. The break point is probably the start of the Topps era. Never really thought about why, but I can't think off-hand of any pre-52 rookie that I wanted because it was a rookie. On the other hand, I can think of tons of HOF players that I wanted their rookie. Some I still haven't got around to buying like Steve Carlton

[glchen]

My opinion on one of the reasons for that is the lack of consensus for some of the prewar rookie cards. For example, Ty Cobb has something like 5+ rookie cards. If there is consensus and some set rules that collectors can agree with, then I think they would be more popular for prewar. For example, modern cards often have multiple rookie cards for a player also. However, I think the rule is something like the most valuable card for that player with a print run greater than XYZ. (That way certain short prints won't be included.) For example, I think right now, there is general agreement among that M101-5/4 is Ruth's rookie card, so auction houses have commonly advertised this when selling these cards. Same thing with the 1925 Exhibits Gehrig (sorry, Adam).

[Kenny Cole]

I guess my take on it is a little different. I like to collect "first" cards of pre-war HOFers when I can, but I don't really worry about whether or not the card is a a "rookie" as I define the term.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but IMO, a true "rookie" card is a card that was issued the first year the player started playing in the majors -- when he was actually a rookie -- not X number of years before or X number of years after he started playing.

For example, IMO, Candy Cummings doesn't have a "rookie" card. The first single card of him was issued after he had been dead for about 15 years. By then he had been retired from baseball for 60 years. It doesnt' make sense to me that a card which is first issued after a player has been dead for years can accurately be called his "rookie." If you choose to call the 1876 CDV of him on the Hartford team his "first" card, that's fine with me but it can't be a "rookie" because he started pitching professionally well before 1876.

The debate about what constitutes a pre-war "rookie" card hurts my head and makes me tired. However, assuming that there is some general agreement about what a "card" is, I can usually figure out the "first" card of a given player. With respect to pre-war players, I'm content with that.

[bcbgcbrcb]

As an aside, I have asked Bob Lemke if I could forward him a list of pre-war rookies that a small group of us worked on a couple of years ago. The intent is to label those with the "Rookie" designation in the SCBC. The answer was "no" because the topic is too controversial. Well, it's going to remain controversial until someone defines it.

[paul]

Phil's original question was why interest in HOF rookie collecting has diminished in the last few years. I always thought the reason for this was the HOF election of 2006. When all those Negro Leaguers were elected, many people lost hope of getting the rookie card of each HOFer. The rookies of Pete Hill and Jose Mendez are in the Punch set. Good luck finding them. Biz Mackey is no walk in the park either. I think this discouraged a lot of people.

The lack of consensus over what is a rookie card is also a factor. But that factor was present even in the hey day of HOF rookie collecting.

[Kenny Cole]

Paul, Pete Hill's "rookie" (or first card as I would define it) is actually in the Cabanas set. The Cabanas were issued a year earlier than the Punch set if I understand things correctly.

[cardaholic]

1. Cost is prohibitive even in low grade for some players - or the supply isn't there (the Just So Jesse Burkett, with 1 known example - and it has been rebuilt -is by far the worst in this regard).
2. There's no clear answer as to what counts as a rookie for many players, mainly due to arguments over whether postcards, minor league cards, Cuban cards, Exhibits, premiums, etc. (and don't get me started on Beckett's refusal to count tobacco cards and caramel cards) should count.
3. Most collectors don't feel the same emotional attachment to players from older eras.
4. Many people progress linearly while collecting - get the post-WWII HOF rookies, and then consider going back further.
5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

[oldjudge]

I have never understood the hoopla about rookie cards. I agree with an earlier poster that it was just a vehicle for some dealers to charge more for them. For me, I would think that a collection of one card, regardless of the year but issued during the player's active playing days, of each HOFer would be a nice collection. I don't like the '51 Bowman Mantle but I do like the '52 and '56 Topps cards, so that would be what I got. I would get the Collins McCarthy Ruth rather than the M101 card. I would get the Goudey Gehrig and the Zeenut DiMaggio.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I'm anxiously waiting to hear more, Jimi, but go enjoy your dinner first!

BTW the SSPC set has been pretty well determined to be a 1976 issue based on hobby publication ads found even though the card catalogues have not updated that as of yet (maybe they did this past year). Thus, it is safe to go with a '76 Topps Eckersley as his rookie card.

OK, Phil, basically what I envision (and I certainly would be ok being the one starting this unless someone else wants to) is developing a website that encompasses all of these issues in one location. Yes, I know there is a lot out there, but for some reason, we keep coming back to these same threads and asking virtually the same questions....so that must mean that the "super minds" of this near impossible type-card collection still have yet to come up with all the answers on all the information available.

SOOOOOO......why not develop a similar list of HOF RCs like the work you published on Oldcardboard.com (but more in-depth), add a forum for discussion much like Net54 geared towards discussing HOF related cards with a focus on RCs (but certainly other things, too, like Negro Leaguers, managers, etc.), and develop a section to where HOF collectors can post their want lists or send a direct link to their want list.

I was just telling Derek a couple days ago that we need to help each other out in our quests, but heck, that's only two people. If we can centralize a location for all of us "crazies" into one spot, we could have a group researching, trading, and conversing together. Some people will be more experts in Negro League cards, some in executives, some in 19th century and so forth.

I love the Oldcardboard.com section on the HOF stuff, but I think a lot more could be done to it. More on that later as this idea formulates.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

5. Lack of knowledge in an area keeps people from starting it.

Knowledge is key. I mean Beckett still puts "RC" on a ton of 1948 Bowman cards and 1933 Goudey cards. Ridiculous! It's misleading to everyone!

[HRBAKER]

It's hard for me to grasp the concept of collecting something
that no two people agree on what it is. When someone says
they collect T206s, we all know what that is. To me literally
there is no such thing as a Rookie Card, there is what we each
prefer to call an RC if we are so inclined. It's a hobby construct
on which there will never be wholesale agreement. That's
fine for some but I think that is a major contributor to the
narrowness of the appeal of the RC pursuit.

[tedzan]

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.



. . . .


. .


TED Z

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

It's hard for me to grasp the concept of collecting something
that no two people agree on what it is. When someone says
they collect T206s, we all know what that is. To me literally
there is no such thing as a Rookie Card, there is what we each
prefer to call an RC if we are so inclined. It's a hobby construct
on which there will never be wholesale agreement. That's
fine for some but I think that is a major contributor to the
narrowness of the appeal of the RC pursuit.

I understand this point of view, and one thing that Phil attempted to do at Oldcardboard is give the collector the first 5 known cards for each player. That has allowed me to decide what I think is the right card to represent that HOFer in my collection. I'd just like to see it organized differently to where things can be separated into minor leagues, first major league card, and so on. It would be tricky for some players given that they were featured on multiple issues and controversial issues, too. Heck, even the 1988 Alomar card varies for some collectors. I personally prefer to have the 1988 Donruss card to represent him because I know it was issued before any of the Traded issues midway through the 1988 season.

I'm certainly open to starting some sort of database that attempts to keep all HOF RC collectors "happy" with options. Since there isn't an exact HOF card for many of the HOFers, then this is just the best that can be done, right?

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Phil

I haven't seen your list; but, I've been collecting HOF rookie cards of players I saw play when I was a kid. Fortunately, I started this collection back in the 1970's
when it was more affordable. I only collect the cards depicting them in their Major League uniforms. Here are some examples of my rookie collection.

TED Z

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

[FirstYearCards]

Jimi, I think I have been working on a site that you might envision. For 20 years I have been a Red Sox HOF collector but have expanded to MLB HOF. I have been expanding on OCB among various other sites to put together a more detailed list of hall of fame rookies and prior cards/memorabilia. It's very time consuming and enjoyable.

Like Gary said, there's few who collect these specifically anymore, but maybe it will rebound like it did in the 80's with a little more knowledge in a centrally located site. Bill

http://www.firstyearcards.com/

[HRBAKER]

Jimi,
I am aware of Phil's tireless efforts. I applaud his focus and
have contributed a scan or two. I was merely commenting
on his lamentation about the seeming lack of appeal of RC
collecting.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, Jeff, we all agree that a '55 Topps Roberto Clemente is a rookie card, no? I don't think that anyone will dispute that.

I think the term is well defined enough in the hobby for collectors to know what it means, there will still be disagreements though.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by FirstYearCards

Jimi, I think I have been working on a site that you might envision. For 20 years I have been a Red Sox HOF collector but have expanded to MLB HOF. I have been expanding on OCB among various other sites to put together a more detailed list of hall of fame rookies and prior cards/memorabilia. It's very time consuming and enjoyable.

Like Gary said, there's few who collect these specifically anymore, but maybe it will rebound like it did in the 80's with a little more knowledge in a centrally located site. Bill

http://www.firstyearcards.com/

Nice work, Bill! Yes, this is along the lines of what I meant, but still thinking of making a site that would the "mecca" for RC collectors to converse, share, buy/sell/trade their stuff, etc. in addition to the work you've put into the informational side of it. I'd like to see this future site also include categories for postcards, exhibits, cabinets, and more, so that a collector could simply click that button and see a list of each of those subcategories with their respective HOFers. So, say you click the "Exhibit" button. The next page would list and show a gallery of those HOFers who have an Exhibit in their first year (or two), and include a brief caption that might have the rarity of it and anything else we'd want to put.

Sorry, Phil, I feel like I'm highjacking your thread. Didn't mean to get off topic, but I guess in a sense I'm promoting what you're saying and trying find a way to enhance your original ideas. Give it a boost!

[nolemmings]

I'm generally unenthusiastic about rookie cards, especially in the post-war era of players I saw play. Add to that the almost certain extra expense, whether warranted or not, and I have no problem staying away.

I want to see cards depicting the player when he is in his heyday, when some kid would have been most excited about having a copy in his collection. Take Harmon Killebrew--'55Topps or earlier depending on how esosteric you go in defining "card". Killer would not become a regular much less prove himself on the big stage for several years after that card--after many cards were issued of him. I want to see him in a Twins uni during those years he was a force, and those are the cards of him I like most by far. So too with Koufax--do you really think there are a lot of Brooklynites that admired him when his '55-57 Topps came out? I bet not, and any great interest by them in those cards would seem almost odd to me. Finally take Joe Morgan, who had success in Houston and Philly, but who will always be a Red to me-- his '73 and '75 cards are easily my favorites of him. I realize that some make a splash right away and the reasoning doesn't always hold, but in general I want the cards of players in their prime.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Wow, Ted! Aren't these a little TOO new for your normal stuff?

Jimi

One cannot live by pre-war stuff alone

Actually, my collection comprises of cards (sets) from 1887 to 1987.

Best regards,

TED Z

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Well, Jeff, we all agree that a '55 Topps Roberto Clemente is a rookie card, no? I don't think that anyone will dispute that.

I think the term is well defined enough in the hobby for collectors to know what it means, there will still be disagreements though.

Phil,
What % of HOFers is there near quasi-universal agreement on
what their RC card, not cards, is. That's hardly a representative
example IMO. It's like arguing about the greatest player ever,
makes for great banter but hardly a consensus. That's just my
POV, but the lack of consensus keeps it from being a more popular
niche IMO.

[paul]

Ted, if you ever want to dispose of those grey background 49 Bowmans ...

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jimi:

I like your idea as an ongoing resource for those of us that enjoy this type of collecting and I would be all for it although I don't want to be the one in charge of setting it up and maintaining it. I would be a daily participant though. Right now, my primary focus is on a Negro Leagues project that I am working on.

As with the small group of Net 54 members that we put together last time, I think that the ultimate purpose of our efforts should be to get concensus rookie card designations listed in the Standard Catalogue and Beckett annual guides and hopefully, a little further down the road, grading company designations as such as well. As long as they refuse to accept that, there will continue to be disagreement amongst collectors and very few will pursue this endeavor.

[bcbgcbrcb]

BTW nice stuff, Ted!

[HRBAKER]

Phil,
One other thing, this is a tough place to ask the question. Most of us are
primarily prewar collectors and it's a murkier concept there.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jeff:

I think we can get a concensus on around 75% of the 300 HOF rookie cards, more than one per individual is okay (1983 Topps, Fleer & Donruss - Wade Boggs all work, right?). There will be some toughies but if we can get rookie card designations in the card catalogues for 75%, that would be a great start.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Jeff:

I think we can get a concensus on around 75% of the 300 HOF rookie cards, more than one per individual is okay (1983 Topps, Fleer & Donruss - Wade Boggs all work, right?). There will be some toughies but if we can get rookie card designations in the card catalogues for 75%, that would be a great start.

Phil,
That would be a major accomplishment.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Phil,
What % of HOFers is there near quasi-universal agreement on
what their RC card, not cards, is. That hardly a representative
example IMO. It's like arguing about the greatest player ever,
makes for great banter but hardly a consensus. That's just my
POV, but the lack of consensus keeps it from being a more popular
niche IMO.

My opinion is that someone just needs to make an opinion and then just go with it. For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry. Once that was done, people just collected that one to fill their slot. This is just like at work when someone has to make the call. I think if someone got a real rookie registry past PSA, and got them to publish it in their Registry, and then the other major registries like SGC and Beckett followed with the same list, it would be done. That would be the definitive list, and people would just go with it. IMHO, most collectors are just followers, and once some group with some kind of authority like PSA or SCD or Beckett decide on a list, they'll just follow it and collect to the list. If someone has disagreements to the list, they can just get the list version, and then also get the one that they want, and publish that image to their slot also. For example, if the Ty Cobb rookie was decided to be the 1907 Wolverine News portrait, and you wanted the W600 Cobb instead as the rookie, you could first get the portrait card, upload that to your slot, and then also upload the image of your W600 Cobb to your slot also. If the TPG's decided that you could have multiple cards fulfill that slot for the player, that'd be fine too. So then in that example, you could have both the Wolverine News card or the W600, whichever you preferred.

[nolemmings]

For example, Barry Larkin has multiple rookie cards, but PSA decided that the 1997 Fleer would be the one to go into their HOF Rookie registry

Then they missed it by 10 years.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I like that idea, Gary. I tried to get SGC to use my list a few years ago, nothing ever came out of that as they were backed up with other registry stuff that would be much easier to sort out. If any board members have a connection with any of the 3 TPG's that would get this idea accomplished, I would be happy to supply the list and work with them to get it done.

This in itself would be a great accomplishment but I think it would still be far superior if the card catalogues would recognize the rookie card designations. Many more people utilize them as opposed to graded card registries, I believe.

[HRBAKER]

So we need the TPGs to decide what the RCs are and then everyone just falls in line?