The Debate Continues: “What defines a rookie card?”
March 19th, 2007
The Debate Continues: “What defines a rookie card?”
By Ted Golden
Rookie: n: Sports. A first-year player, especially in a professional sport.
For even the most novice collectors, defining a rookie card is often an exercise in futility. A variety of definitions can be found in and around the hobby. Some people equate the concept of ‘rookie card’ to first card. Others attribute the classification to what team’s uniform the player was wearing. Others pay attention to what sort of issue the “card” was (trade card, postcard, magazine premium, etc…).
In order to arrive at a clear and consistent definition, one must learn about all of the various twists and turns involved with this story. For the sake of brevity, I will focus this discussion on baseball cards. If we open the discussion to other sports cards, keeping this article to anything less than a novel’s length would be difficult. That being said, the logic here can extend to most other sports cards available.
In order to clarify the “What is a rookie card?” dilemma, Major League Properties (MLBP) and Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) got involved. In 2006, the MLBP and the MLBPA jointly issued a new set of guidelines that attempted to define a “rookie card”. Several pages later, it essentially boils down to this: a rookie card must contain the newly designed “logo”. In their own right, Tri-Star productions, which has a license to produce a “Prospects Plus” set, decided to introduce a Pro Debut Logo. So now Topps and Upper Deck have their logo; and, Tri-star has its’ logo. Admittedly, Tri-Star is not trying to communicate the same concept as Topps and UD. Still, all this is nice in practice, but the reality is that it has just added to the confusion.
At CardPricer.com, we have established a few clearly defined rules in order to designate a card as a RC. A player card is designated as a rookie card when all of the following criteria are met:
- The player depicted is identified as a member of the team on which he played his first Major League game. A player is identified by the uniform he is wearing if no additional text appears on the card. If however, team affiliation is designated on the card, the text supersedes the image.
- The team of identification must be from the AL/NL, the Federal League, the American Association, the National Association, the Players Association, or the Union Association.
- The card must have been produced directly prior to or during the season in which that player made the appearance in his first professional game.
- The product must have been DISTRIBUTED prior to the beginning of the following season.
We have further elaborated on this definition with regards to the quantity of issues. According to this rule, it is entirely possible that a player may have multiple rookie cards. Additionally, it is entirely possible that no rookie card exists for a particular player. This is not to be confused with a 1st Card designation. Simply put, a player’s card will receive the 1st Card designation only when it is the earliest known card, or card like product, that depicts a player on it for the purpose of promoting the sport (This of course, would exclude the Topps George W. Bush Card!).
While we appreciate the fact that this might simply add to the already confusing topic, we believe this definition will provide the collector with an easy way of determining how to value a baseball card with nothing more than a cursory glance at a list of information.
Some of the hobby’s most important sets and cards are affected by the question at hand. The aforementioned MLB rule is not going to help those of us that collect the various sets from 1987, when Mark McGwire first appeared as a member of a Major League team, cards of Warren Spahn and Mickey Mantle, or the 1909-11 E90-1 American Caramel set (home to Joe Jackson’s “Rookie Card” and a set that could very well have been issued as early as 1908).
As a youngster, I was putting together full sets by major manufacturers. In 1987, Donruss and Leaf both noted McGwire as a “Rated Rookie”. Nothing really surprised me about that. I never really cared for McGwire, but by the time I got a hold of that card, mid-way through the ’87 season, I knew three things: He struck out a ton, he couldn’t field to save his life, and he could hit some of the most awesome home runs imaginable. In 1988, when I finally got my Mark McGwire Topps card, I noticed Mark had a little trophy in the lower right hand corner of the card. He was denoted as an All-Star Rookie. As odd as that seemed, it seemed reasonable that a couple of cards could refer to him as a rookie, even if they were issued in separate years.
This tentative hold on rationality was succinctly and efficiently obliterated. In late ‘89 or early ’90, I was at a local card show (I don’t remember the exact date). There, a sign on a table caught my eye. “1985 McGwire Rookie Card – AWESOME CONDITION – HARD TO FIND - $100”. Boy was that a head scratcher! At ten years- old, I could hardly figure out how a person could legitimately call McGwire’s 1985 Olympic Card his Rookie Card. If you’re going to use that rationale, I figure you might as well call his 1982 Anchorage Glacier card his “rookie”.
As I expanded into other areas of collecting, my father and I decided to put together an “All-Time” rookie team. The premise was simple; we wanted to assemble a team with our favorite all-time players that we felt belonged on an “All-Time team” (my apologies to Mark Lemke). Of course, we recognized that cost would be somewhat prohibitive, so we elected to exclude certain players. Our first goal was to get our two-man pitching staff – Koufax and Spahn. Koufax was easy. We approached a dealer table, found a 1955 Topps #123 we liked, purchased it, and walked away. Spahn was a different story. His first year with the Braves was 1942. This left four or five years in between his Major League debut and his appearance on anything resembling a baseball card. However, when you check out the 300 Game Winners Rookie Card sets on the PSA set registry, you’ll notice that Spahn’s entry is the 1949 Leaf card. That hardly seems justified seeing as it was seven years after his first major league pitch. It is further complicated by the fact that he appeared in a number of issues between 1946 and 1949.
Even the hobby’s most noteworthy post-war vintage set succumbs to the rookie card dilemma. The T206 Wagner is widely considered to be the preeminent single in the hobby. The 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle is probably second on that list. This card is often referred to as his rookie card, sometimes with a Topps qualifier tacked on to the beginning of that statement. The trouble with this is that Mantle first appeared as a Major League player in the 1951 Bowman card set.
Pre-war collectors, the group I now fall into, have a terrible time with the definition of a rookie card. Sometime between the years 1897-1899, Henry Reccius manufactured a “paper product” to promote his “Hans Wagner 10-Cent Cigars” brand. I use ambiguous language deliberately. Because the year of production is debated, and, since many people do not even believe the item in question to be a “card”, we will never satisfy everyone. One of the more notable owners of the card, a collecting associate of mine, decided to auction off the historic piece in the spring of 2006. $52,039.60 later, I’m sure we can all agree that the Reccius Wagner is one expensive piece of cardboard. Rest assured Wagner is not the only pre-war behemoth whose rookie card is debated. Ty Cobb, Joe Jackson, and a slew of others find themselves at the center of countless debates on chat boards and trade shows.
By CardPricer.com rules, here is how we would designate some of the more “famous” rookie cards:
- Mickey Mantle / Rookie Card: 1951 Bowman / First Card: 1951 Bowman
- Warren Spahn / Rookie Card: None / First Card: W603 Sports Exchange & D323 Tip-Top Bread
- Honus Wagner / Rookie Card: None / First Card: Reccius
- Mark McGuire / Rookie Card: Any of the 1987 Issues / First Card: 1982 Anchorage Glacier
A logical question is: “Why is this debate so hotly contested?” Collectors and people in general always strive to be the best and the first in whatever capacity possible. That thinking, in and of itself, may be reason enough to generate the “Rookie Card Debate”. However, when people use that thinking and apply it to something of desire, it usually means one thing: Money. It’s the same reason why people spend big bucks on that hot new apple product (see: iPhone), the Xbox 360 before it hits the street, or front row seats at a concert. That aside, while a rookie card will generally bring the most money of all, there are cards where that is not the case. The aforementioned T206 Wagner is a prime example. Whether or not a player’s rookie card being his most expensive card is a good thing or a bad thing, well … I guess that depends on what you collect.
So where does this all leave us? Well truthfully, it leaves us at the exact place we started; and, that is not half bad. Collecting, for the vast majority of us, is tied up in one of several motivations. People collect for the joy of the hunt, the appreciation of history, the potential monetary benefits, and/or some combination of these and other reasons.
If collecting was straight forward and simple, it would not garner the interest it does. Whether you collect baseball cards, fine vintage cigarette lighters (as my father does), or antique clock radios (as I dabble in), you will find your self immersed in the details.
The hobby must have a logical and clear rule for identifying a rookie card. I am not so bold as to think our definition is set in stone; however, it is clear and concise, and that is something none of the other definitions can say. Regardless of how you define a rookie card, the best thing any collector can do is to learn more. Continue the pursuit of knowledge and make informed decisions you feel comfortable with.
