Rookie Card Determination

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Among other things I collect rookies, but some times with some players or issues, it's not always evident which card is considered a rookie for a given player. I tried solving this on my own...googled many times and cannot find a site or a source to easily determine which card may be considered a "rookie" or what rookies may be contained in a certain issue.

Anyone know of a site or a source? On a couple of occasions, I have seen where the SMR is wrong. Many times I see where someone may call a certain card a rookie and I believe that information to be incorrect.

Edited to correct typos unless otherwise noted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

When I am in doubt, I ask Hal Lewis.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

Post War
http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/oddrook.html

Pre War
http://members.aol.com/metsbwd/hofers.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

And when I am in doubt...

I just go with whatever card I own as being the rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I am not a rookie card collector, but I find that hobby segment fascinating, particularly with regard to the prices which these cards demand. However, I do note that some cards which are termed rookies actually show the player well after he has established himself. O'Rourke is a primary example of this, in that his initial card was issued well after his first decade of play. I believe a more recent example is that of Musial, whose first card depicts him in (perhaps) his fifth year. Of course the FROOKIE cards are a pleasant accompaniment to this card subset, as are the preference by some for PROOKIES.

Personally, I feel that collecting a players last active card (or the one following that - which sometimes shows his lifetime stats) makes more sense. But good luck with this, and I recommend that you give credence to Hal's choices, he has put a lot of research effort into his accumulation of rookies. Oh yes, if you find a Maple Crispette Bottomley don't tell anyone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

As Gil points out, there are a LOT of problems with "rookie" cards -- both in the old days AND in the modern days.

There have been MINOR league cards as far back as the N172 Old Judges... right throught the Zeenuts... and all the way up until today.

SOME people collect these as rookie cards... but on this board, we lovingly call them "PROOKIES" (which stands for Pre-Rookie). The player was not pictured on a major league team, so most true rookie collectors do not collect these. These are sought after by the "Earliest Image" collectors.

Also, as you point out, there have been situations like O'Rourke and Musial and others for over a century. These are affectionately known as "FROOKIES" (which stands for First Card but NOT in first season of Major League play).

FROOKIES are "better" than PROOKIES, as most ROOKIE card collectors will also need a FROOKIE to finish their collection. It is still the earliest Major League card of the player... so it is the closest thing to a true rookie card available for some players.


There are other problems as well... especially now that EXHIBIT CARDS and POSTCARDS seem to be prevalent.

For example, one set of Exhibit Postcards is now labeled as being issued from 1926-1929 in the Standard Catalog.

If a player was a rookie in 1926... how can you really know whether the Exhibit was issued in 1926 or in 1929?

This really complicates things when there is a different card of the same player that DEFINITELY came out in 1927 or 1928. Which is earlier??

I say you get BOTH and then can't go wrong.


There is also the debate over whether or not cards that were issued in the SAME YEAR are ALL rookie cards... or ONLY the very FIRST set if it can be proven as to which was first??

If Leaf put out a set in January of 1949... and Bowman put out their set in July of 1949... but both sets feature the same players on their 1949 teams... can they BOTH be rookie cards?

I say YES.

Otherwise, there is NO WAY to EVER tell whether Topps beat Fleer to the market in any given year, etc. WAY TOO COMPLICATED and not relevant.


Then there are a LOT of other issues that are more your PERSONAL preference.

Do postcards or exhibit cards even "count" as baseball cards? Do strip cards count? Do team cards count?


Don't drive yourself crazy... and in the end...

CWYWC !!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: darren

The "rookie card" hype is a product of the eighties. I respectfully prefer to refer to a player's initial pre-1948 issue on collectible cardboard as his "First Card."

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Ah, the world waits breathlessly for my article on the subject for a future issue of Old Cardboard.

Edited to Add:

I also don't get how a rookie collector can place such importance on the "rookie" of a player with significant minor league issues. I understand it, I just don't get it. From my perspective, I would much rather have the player's first card than his seventh card, even if the seventh card is his 1st as a major leaguer. Look at Earl Averill: 2 Zeenuts and an Exhibit PCL before his MLB "rookie" card? Or Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Cochrane, Dazzy Vance, Lloyd and Paul Waner, Lefty O'Doul, etc. All those guys with significant minor league cards predating their "rookie" cards, some by years.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

I also believe a First Card is more significant than a first major league card. I will always call the 1914 Batimore News Ruth his rookie before Id call the M101-4 Ruth one. But thats just me. I find the more obscure minor league cards of future greats in more demand.
ie
1910 T210 Stengel
1911 E100, D310, T212-3, Zeenut Weaver
1912 Zeenut Bancroft
1914 Baltimore News Ruth
1922 Zeenut Lazzeri
1923 Zeenut P.Waner
1924 Zeenut Cochrane
1933 Zeenut DiMaggio
1952 Parkhurst Lasorda
1953 Fargo-Moorhouse Maris
etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Frank, don't forget the 1950 Big League (V362) of Tom Lasorda.

[Archive]

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

I ask Leon who then asks Hal Lewis!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

For the life of me, I just can't see the fascination with a MINOR League card.

Once you cross the line and go "earlier" than the first Major League card... why stop at the Minors??

Wouldn't it be even better to get a picture of them in High School?

After all, isn't it safe to assume that almost every Minor Leaguer played high shool baseball?

What about Cub League or Little League?

Heck, what about their very first baby photo?


?


For me, until a guy has a MAJOR League card printed, he hasn't made it yet...

so if someone is NOT worried about the image being from the Major Leagues...

wouldn't a MINOR League card be the LATEST pre-Major's image and not the first?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I agree 100% and also cannot understand why rookie card collectors would collect minor league cards as a part of their rookie card collections. The reason the minor league cards in some cases are more expensive have more to do with those cards being rarer rather than the fact that they are released earlier.

I can see how some would prefer the 1933 Zeenut DiMaggio and 1934 Zeenut DiMaggio over the 1936 World Wide Gum, but I think that is the product of the minor league card being the rarer card. As card collectors, we have a tendency to went cards that our fellow collectors do not have.

The 1914 Baltimore New Ruth is certainly a more expensive card than the M101-4 card, but I think that has more to do with the fact that only nine minor league cards are known to exist rather than it being the earlier card.

If simply having the earliest card is the name of the game, one would think that the E90-1 Joe Jackson would be more expensive than the minor league T210 card. That is certainly not the case. Even though the T210 is a minor league card, it came out one full year after the E90-1. That does not stop the minor league card from being far more expensive. Again, collectors are chasing rarity over everything else including release dates.

[Archive]

Posted By: Preece1

If you can't understand the desire for minor league cards, why were you so eager to buy a T210 Jackson???

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I wasn't.

I knew the reserve.

Had zero interest in the card.

I just happen to believe that baseball cards having bids of $150,000 on EBay is a GOOD THING for the hobby... so I helped boost the bidding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Which one is the rookie?



Edited to correct typos unless otherwise noted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Both are from 1922.