Mountrushmore of Basketball Rookie Cards

KingBen

Basketball only. In your opinion, what are the 4 best rookie cards all time? Keep in mind that value shouldn't be your only criteria when choosing your top four picks. Take everything into consideration except for the grade of the card, but instead the raw card itself. No ties... just four cards etched in stone

lightningboy

The 86 Jordan should be the top pick, period. It is probably 2nd only to the 52 Mantle as being the most iconic, mainstream card of any sport. Trying to abide by your 4 only, in no particular order I would go with the 80 Bird/Magic, the 69 alcindor and now, the 2003 Topps Chrome of James.

an easy case could be made to replace any of the 3 above with 48 Mikan, 57 Russell, or the 61 Chamberlain.

KingBen

Okay, so I've thought about it... I think I would go with:

George Mikan 1948 Bowman

Bird/Magic 1980-81 Topps

Michael Jordan 1986-87 Fleer

Lebron James 2003-04 Exquisite/99

sushihotwings

Michael Jordan 1984 Star #101
Lebron James 2003 Exquisite /99
Lew Alcindor 1969 Topps
Wilt Chamberlain 1961 Fleer

Tecmo Boil

Bird/Magic 1980-81 Topps

Michael Jordan 1986-87 Fleer

1969 Topps Alcindor

1961 Fleer Wilt

baseballfan

Bird/Magic 1980-81 Topps
Michael Jordan 1986-87 Fleer
Mikan 48 Bowman
Wilt Chamberlain 1961 Fleer

RookieHOFers

1986 Fleer Jordan

1980-81 Bird / Magic

1961 Fleer Wilt

2003 Chrome James

ReggieCleveland

1984 Star Jordan
1980 Bird/Magic
1957 Russell
1969 Kareem

ETA: I'm leaving the whatever (Exquisite?) LeBron off because I couldn't pick that out of a lineup. If it's going to be on the Mount Rushmore the card itself has to be iconic. LeBron has approximately 700 rookies so I'd argue against icon status. This is the same reason I'm leaving Mikan off -- most collectors don't know the first thing about George Mikan and probably don't know what his '48 card looks like. I know people will make a case for a LeBron due to his greatness and the card's value but I think both of those factors are secondary to the card itself. The '86 Fleer Jordan is probably one of, if not the, most iconic basketball cards ever but I think it's time we all put our big boy pants on and stop calling it a rookie. He had cards produced for two solid years before Fleer came along.

Arthur

craig44

80 bird/magic
86 jordan
57 russell
69 kareem

markmac

48 Mikan
57 Russell
61 Wilt
86 Jordan. I like the 84 Star better but the 86 Fleer is iconic.

Tibor

I'm glad to see Bill Russell on a few lists.
Always a favorite of mine. Have to agree
concerning the hundreds of "Rookie" cards
for Lebron. Maybe in another thread the
forum could pick the definitive one.

HighGradeLegends

@lightningboy said:
The 86 Jordan should be the top pick, period. It is probably 2nd only to the 52 Mantle as being the most iconic, mainstream card of any sport. Trying to abide by your 4 only, in no particular order I would go with the 80 Bird/Magic, the 69 alcindor and now, the 2003 Topps Chrome of James.

an easy case could be made to replace any of the 3 above with 48 Mikan, 57 Russell, or the 61 Chamberlain.

This

rtimmer

1985 Jordan Court kings (the OP said rookie so i figured I'd get closer than most)
1980 Bird and Magic
1961 Chamberlain
1972 Dr J

I find it funny a couple different Lebron rookie cards made some other lists, the fact he has so many different and none iconic are two of the reasons I don't think he even makes my top 10.

BriYo79

This would be way better with pictures.

ReggieCleveland

I think this is the only card I have that's been mentioned and I feel a bit silly since I own it and completely forgot about it when it came time to coming up with my list. I love this card. Dr. J owns the 1970s basketball cards. Thanks to @rtimmer for smacking us all upside the head.

I'm slowly working on a Dr. J '70s run. Finding '74-'76 cards that I'm happy with are proving tougher than finding his first three. I decided to go with centering and no left-elbow barnacle for my rookie, so I've got to deal with some black marks. The '73 Topps is impossible to find centered L/R.

Arthur

BPorter26

The '86 Fleer Jordan is probably one of, if not the, most iconic basketball cards ever but I think it's time we all put our big boy pants on and stop calling it a rookie. He had cards produced for two solid years before Fleer came along.

Arthur

With all due respect Arthur, but the Star company never issued packs and as you know all sets were either a mail into Star or you could purchase those Star cards from a distributor. At least to me, Star was not considered a mainstream sports card company, not everyone knew about Star. I however did like the Star cards as a kid, but the 86 Fleer is MJ's mainstream rookie.

BTW your DR.J cards are beautiful.

My Top 4
1. 1986 Fleer Michael Jordan
2. 1961 Fleer Wilt Chamberlain
3. 1980 Topps Bird / Magic
4. 1996 Topps Chrome Kobe Bryant

KingBen

Another variation for me would be:

Elgin Baylor 1961 Fleer = Jordan before Jordan, who brought the game above the hoop

Julius Erving 1972 Topps = the guy who revived basketball, who Jordan himself emulated

Magic/Bird 1980 Topps = the two saviors of the game, who also happen to be 50 greatest

Michael Jordan 1986 Fleer = no explanation needed...

I think I'm more comfortable with this list than my previous one.

ReggieCleveland

@BPorter26 said:

With all due respect Arthur, but the Star company never issued packs and as you know all sets were either a mail into Star or you could purchase those Star cards from a distributor. At least to me, Star was not considered a mainstream sports card company, not everyone knew about Star. I however did like the Star cards as a kid, but the 86 Fleer is MJ's mainstream rookie.

This is an interesting topic. Because they came in team sets I believe Beckett categorizes the Star cards as XRC, like a Topps Traded or Fleer Update set. They're an officially licensed NBA and NBAPA product and the sets are more than twice the size of the subsequent Fleer releases. So, I guess the first point of contention is, how do we define mainstream and how important is mainstream when defining a player's rookie?

The 1948 Bowman, 1957 Topps, and 1961 Fleer basketball sets certainly weren't mainstream sets at the time of their release. They were one-offs and in some instances didn't have a follow-up release for decades. But Bowman and Topps were producing other sportscards throughout that period, you say. Okay, what about the 1961 Fleer set? They had the oddball '59 Ted Williams set and more oddball logo and team releases in the 70s but didn't produce a conventional sportscard set until 1981, a full 20 years later. Clearly, the 1961 set was not mainstream at the time.

But it was released in packs. Okay, then we're going to start dismissing all rookie cards in all sports that weren't issued in packs? What about the aforementioned Traded/Update sets? Tiffany/Glossy sets?

Here's an ad from Renata Galasso's quarterly magazine/catalog Baseball Hobby Card Report in 1984. They were the largest mail order dealer in the world at the time and they sold Star.

What does the market say? We all know PSA cards sell for more than BGS all other things being equal. A BGS 9 #101 goes for about what a PSA 10 '86 Fleer goes for, if not more. A BGS 9.5 #101 would run laps around a PSA 10 '86 Fleer. The market obviously chooses the Star #101.

For the record, I don't own a single Star basketball Jordan card and the earliest Fleer Jordan I own is an '88 sticker in PSA 8. I have no skin in the game. But if tomorrow, we all wake up and PSA is grading Star basketball, the entire landscape of this conversation changes. The entire landscape of early Jordan cards changes.

Arthur

ETA: This is not about which card is more iconic. Clearly, without a doubt, the '86 Fleer blows away all the Star cards combined. You could make an argument the '86 Fleer Jordan is the most iconic sportscard ever made. I'm sure it's going to get a ton of defenders here because of that. I'm not questioning that aspect at all. I'm simply saying it's not his rookie.

vintagefun

These would be my choices.

But really hard to leave out Oscar, West, Elgin, Pete, Kareem and the Dr.

Truth is, 61F could have its own Rushmore. Then I'd sub out Wilt for Kareem and tell myself at least the Dr. is represented on the Magic/Bird card.

BPorter26

"But it was released in packs. Okay, then we're going to start dismissing all rookie cards in all sports that weren't issued in packs? What about the aforementioned Traded/Update sets? Tiffany/Glossy sets?"

I do see both sides of this argument, but how many people knew about Star in the 80's? Case in point by the ad you posted , as the cards were only available by mail order. As far as Update, Glossy, Tiffany sets, they were always available at shows and at your local card shops, the same can not be said about Star sets. I totally agree with you on if PSA graded Star, hands down that would be the card to own. I'm not arguing that the Star card isn't MJ's "true" rookie, I guess my point is the 86 Fleer is Jordan's true mainstream rookie. I guess I get a little defensive when people say the 86 Fleer isn't his rookie.

As far as the 61 Fleer basketball, how can you say those cards are not mainstream? Basketball might not have been the sport of choice in 1961, but unlike the Star cards, they were available in packs / boxes and I'm assuming they sat in every drugstore in 1961 for kids to buy. There's the 1963 Fleer baseball set, that seems to be pretty popular, Is that not mainstream because it was produced by Fleer in 1963? What's the difference? it's baseball. I know basketball was not a desirable sport in the 60's, but the 61 fleer is mainstream along with 48 bowman and 57 Topps.

rtimmer

>

This is an interesting topic. Because they came in team sets I believe Beckett categorizes the Star cards as XRC, like a Topps Traded or Fleer Update set. They're an officially licensed NBA and NBAPA product and the sets are more than twice the size of the subsequent Fleer releases. So, I guess the first point of contention is, how do we define mainstream and how important is mainstream when defining a player's rookie?

The 1948 Bowman, 1957 Topps, and 1961 Fleer basketball sets certainly weren't mainstream sets at the time of their release. They were one-offs and in some instances didn't have a follow-up release for decades. But Bowman and Topps were producing other sportscards throughout that period, you say. Okay, what about the 1961 Fleer set? They had the oddball '59 Ted Williams set and more oddball logo and team releases in the 70s but didn't produce a conventional sportscard set until 1981, a full 20 years later. Clearly, the 1961 set was not mainstream at the time.

But it was released in packs. Okay, then we're going to start dismissing all rookie cards in all sports that weren't issued in packs? What about the aforementioned Traded/Update sets? Tiffany/Glossy sets?

Here's an ad from Renata Galasso's quarterly magazine/catalog Baseball Hobby Card Report in 1984. They were the largest mail order dealer in the world at the time and they sold Star.

What does the market say? We all know PSA cards sell for more than BGS all other things being equal. A BGS 9 #101 goes for about what a PSA 10 '86 Fleer goes for, if not more. A BGS 9.5 #101 would run laps around a PSA 10 '86 Fleer. The market obviously chooses the Star #101.

For the record, I don't own a single Star basketball Jordan card and the earliest Fleer Jordan I own is an '88 sticker in PSA 8. I have no skin in the game. But if tomorrow, we all wake up and PSA is grading Star basketball, the entire landscape of this conversation changes. The entire landscape of early Jordan cards changes.

Arthur

ETA: This is not about which card is more iconic. Clearly, without a doubt, the '86 Fleer blows away all the Star cards combined. You could make an argument the '86 Fleer Jordan is the most iconic sportscard ever made. I'm sure it's going to get a ton of defenders here because of that. I'm not questioning that aspect at all. I'm simply saying it's not his rookie.

Some very good observations and I do agree with 98% percent of everything you said so don't take this the wrong way please.

I do think differently about this part of what you wrote though "Clearly, without a doubt, the '86 Fleer blows away all the Star cards combined."

1986 Fleer is an iconic card and I was lucky enough to pull one as a kid and have several in my collection for the record it's an awesome card, but while I agree the Star Jordan 101 is boring both the 1985 Jordan Court kings and the 1985 Slam Dunk cards are both better looking and earlier "rookies" than the 86 fleer.

garnettstyle

1984 star Jordan(his true and only rookie)
1972 Dr J
1980 bird/ Magic

SDSportsFan

To me, "mainstream" means simply, that anyone on the street, could walk into a drugstore, JC Penney's, Walmart, KMart, 7-Eleven, etc., and find the cards. You did not have to be in the organized hobby to get them.

With Star Co. cards, you had to be "in the hobby" to know about them, as they were sold by mail order card dealers through SCD, Baseball Hobby News, etc. If you didn't subscribe to one of the hobby papers, chances are, you didn't know about Star Co. cards.

The 1980s Topps Traded and 1984 Fleer Update sets are basically the same as Star Co. They weren't available outside the organized hobby.

Steve

SDSportsFan

As far as picking my top four cards:

1948 Bowman Mikan (Rules were changed solely because of him)
1957 Topps Russell (Dawn of the NBA's first growth period - Russell's Celtics won 11 championships in 13 years)
1980-81 Bird/Magic (Dawn of the NBA's perhaps-biggest growth period)
1986 Fleer Jordan (The sport's greatest player ever, and the first in a now steady run of basketball cards being issued each and every year)

I didn't include the Wilt Chamberlain, as to me, it's between him and Russell - Russell gets it because of the Championships. Wilt for me, comes in at 4.5, with Alcinder/Abdul-Jabbar coming in at 5.

Steve

ReggieCleveland

@BPorter26 said:
"But it was released in packs. Okay, then we're going to start dismissing all rookie cards in all sports that weren't issued in packs? What about the aforementioned Traded/Update sets? Tiffany/Glossy sets?"

I do see both sides of this argument, but how many people knew about Star in the 80's? Case in point by the ad you posted , as the cards were only available by mail order. As far as Update, Glossy, Tiffany sets, they were always available at shows and at your local card shops, the same can not be said about Star sets.

Huh? Update, Glossy, Tiffany sets are the same as Star -- they were purchased directly from the manufacturer and then sold through and at card shops and card shows. Renata Galasso had multiple brick and mortar stores in New York where everything in their catalog was available to purchase in-store. Card shops bought Star sets from Star and sold them in their stores. Dealers bought them from Star and sold them at shows. Do you think it was all individual collectors buying one set at a time directly from Star?

@BPorter26 said:
I totally agree with you on if PSA graded Star, hands down that would be the card to own. I'm not arguing that the Star card isn't MJ's "true" rookie, I guess my point is the 86 Fleer is Jordan's true mainstream rookie. I guess I get a little defensive when people say the 86 Fleer isn't his rookie.

I'm not sure how much mainstream has to do with defining a rookie card. The truth is, we struggle to make the definition for the purposes of setting the constructs of the market. So someone can claim that they believe the '85 Nike card is Jordan's rookie card but it's a moot point. The basic premise behind a "rookie card" lies with the simple theory that the further back you go, the harder it is to find those cards. It's a construct developed ~1980 when the first "boom" in the hobby hit and people began paying real money for 1950s, 1960s, etc. It's a monetary device, more than anything. So I can say that the 2012 Trout is his rookie but the market is going to laugh in my face when I look at 2009 Trout completed sales.

@BPorter26 said:
As far as the 61 Fleer basketball, how can you say those cards are not mainstream? Basketball might not have been the sport of choice in 1961, but unlike the Star cards, they were available in packs / boxes and I'm assuming they sat in every drugstore in 1961 for kids to buy. There's the 1963 Fleer baseball set, that seems to be pretty popular, Is that not mainstream because it was produced by Fleer in 1963? What's the difference? it's baseball. I know basketball was not a desirable sport in the 60's, but the 61 fleer is mainstream along with 48 bowman and 57 Topps.

My point is that it's all relative. The '61 set definitely wasn't mainstream at the time. If Fleer never produced baseball cards in 1981 and onward would the '61 basketball set be mainstream? Would it matter? If Star comes back in two years and purchases the physical rights for basketball and then proceeds to be the lone producer of basketball cards for the next 20 years, are the 80s cards suddenly turned into mainstream sets? You can't say that everything that was available in a pack is mainstream because I can name hundreds of card sets that were released in packs that you've never heard of.

Arthur

ReggieCleveland

@rtimmer I love those cards. They're classic Jordan photos. But I don't think they fit the iconic status in the hobby.

Arthur

BPorter26

Huh? Update, Glossy, Tiffany sets are the same as Star -- they were purchased directly from the manufacturer and then sold through and at card shops and card shows. Renata Galasso had multiple brick and mortar stores in New York where everything in their catalog was available to purchase in-store. Card shops bought Star sets from Star and sold them in their stores. Dealers bought them from Star and sold them at shows. Do you think it was all individual collectors buying one set at a time directly from Star?

You and I can split hairs all day long on this topic. I couldn't just call up or place a mail order with Topps, Fleer or even Donruss. I had to purchase the Updates, Glossy or Tiffany sets from either my LCS or at a show. I however could place a mail order with Star, but the point i'm trying to make is not everyone knew about Star Company, but everyone in the early to mid 80's knew about Topps, Fleer and Donruss. I've owned multiples of Jordan Star cards, I ripped a ton of the 86 fleer, back in 1986. Thinking about it now, we were paying 50 cents a pack. If we could only get back to 1986. To me the 86 Fleer is MJ's rookie and the 84-85 Star is his XRC. You can say the same with Barry Bonds he has his 86 XRC's but a lot of people with migrate to his 87 Fleer even though the 86 Fleer Update XRC is part of the Future HOF registry set.

My point is that it's all relative. The '61 set definitely wasn't mainstream at the time. If Fleer never produced baseball cards in 1981 and onward would the '61 basketball set be mainstream? Would it matter? If Star comes back in two years and purchases the physical rights for basketball and then proceeds to be the lone producer of basketball cards for the next 20 years, are the 80s cards suddenly turned into mainstream sets? You can't say that everything that was available in a pack is mainstream because I can name hundreds of card sets that were released in packs that you've never heard of.

Arthur

I wasn't alive in '61 as both of my parents were 10 & 11, so I'm not sure how these were distributed in candy stores, drugs stores, etc.... I'm not sure why you're saying the 1961 Fleer set wasn't mainstreamed, because they only produced one set in the last 25 years? Then what do you say about the 57 topps basketball? It only took them 12 years to produce another set. If you look at the PSA registry the 61Fleer set is the 3rd most popular set to build behind 69-70 Topps and the mighty 1986-87 Fleer basketball. What is your definition of "Mainstream" because you and I have a completely different definition of that word?

BP