How do you know which card is the "official" rookie card?

llafoe

Where is the definitive place to verify what the "official" rookie card is of a specific player? More specifically, I'm trying to put together a Heisman Trophy Winners rookie card set and want to confirm my list before purchasing. As an example, the 1961 Winner-Ernie Davis-has a 1961 Nu Card card and a 1962 Topps card. It appears that PSA considers the later card-1962 Topps-his rookie card. Any help will be greatly appreciated!

llafoe

Well, it appears the SMR is not the place to look. For Doug Flutie, it shows his rookie card as the 1985 Topps USFL - AND - 1987 Topps.

brucemo

I would use Beckett as the standard here, since almost everyone does.

bruce

crazysc

If you hear it on TV, it's official...LOL

Seriously, Beckett is the most accepted authority on rookies, but far from universally - many people disagree with specific cases, like the Tiger Woods Masters/UD question.

mikeschmidt

Beckett is a good place to look -- though you can certainly ask here. There are so many decades of hobby expertise on this board, that someone should be able to help you!

As a general rule of thumb, the rookie card is generally the first major-issue, nationally-distributed card of a player. Mike Wentz actually has a pretty intriguing article on this subject on his website. I would suggest checking it out.

MS

Guffy

As for Ernie Davis, I would consider his Topps card as his rookie card.
As for Flutie, I would consider the 85 USFL card as his rookie.
Another interesting question regards OJ Simpson. If memory serves, there is 1970 Kelloggs and Topps glossy. I'd be interested in what people think on OJ.

LuxuryWines

No interest in Football...

But in general principle Kellogg's OF COURSE !!!

llafoe

Thanks for the suggestions!

I picked up a Football Beckett--does it bother anyone else that for the first 40 years, there are only 3 pages and for the last 15 years there are 60 pages?

I feel lucky that I can go back and collect the 5-6 years of my youth... what will the kids of today do when they go back and collect their youth?

KING KELLOGG

LuxuryWines...


Atta 'boy Jeff.......





Larry.

brucemo

If you look further you'll probably discover that over half the listings are the past three years. This is a problem with the way the card business is today, more than it is a problem with Beckett. Beckett is boosting this situation, but they didn't plan it.

I don't know what someone who is like 8 years old now is going to think are the cards of his youth.

Probably Pokemon cards (yeah, I know this was a year or two ago) and various other "gaming" cards. This kind of card seems to be more popular with kids than sports cards are, which is fine.

bruce

helionaut

I'd say the 1961 card is the RC. Just because Topps' production schedule didn't allow for a 1961 Ernie Davis card is not a good reason in my eyes to ignore the 1961 card. Though the 1962 set is a great one, much more appealing in many ways than the Nu Card, to me the Topps is a year late, so too bad. In the post-war hobby, specfically under the Beckett designation, hundreds of regional, premium, and otherwise "oddball" cards are overlooked for some fairly vague and bizarre reasons, and I'm of the mind that the definition should be rewritten.

Luckily for football collectors, there aren't many cards issued before the year they actually play. Unless you count college issues or something like that, you have a fairly easy task. Personally, I think the Beckett definition is extremely limiting and does a disservice to collectors. A "first card" designation is much more appealing to me, but it can get complicated, especially in baseball and hockey. Ultimately becomes a question each collector must answer in pursuing his or her personal collection. Gee that wasn't too obvious, was it?

RedHeart54

<< <i>In the post-war hobby, specfically under the Beckett designation, hundreds of regional, premium, and otherwise "oddball" cards are overlooked for some fairly vague and bizarre reasons, and I'm of the mind that the definition should be rewritten. >>



While agree that most of these issues are overlooked, I think that's more of a matter of their scarcity rather than lack of interest. (For example, I hadn't even heard of the 1954 Mothers Cookies Hank Aaron until this year- and I've been collecting for 15 years.) I don't really think these should be classified as official "rookie cards" in the context in which rookie cards are collected- usually as the most desirable of a player's cards. Beckett's longstanding definition was somewhat challenged with the rise of Topps Traded, Fleer Update, and USFL sets. Their "XRC" designation served well. The traded cards were nationally distributed, but not in the "traditional" (i.e. in packs) sense. I can also remember when minor league cards got popular and some collectors were arguing the same thing with regard to "rookie card" designation. Again, while some players' minor league cards are very desirable, most of them are very regionally produced. On the other hand, is the argument that a player's rookie is his first nationally distributed card valid with the rise of nationally distributed minor league cards? You tell me.