Future HoF'ers...which cards?

Axtell

I was curious if anyone else had given any thought to future baseball hall of famers and the multitude of 'rookie' cards they typically all have now. For example, Barry Bonds could conceivably have 3 (1986 donruss rookies, topps traded, fleer update). Would the set registry for HoF rookies recognize all 3, or would a consensus pick select just one?

Kirby Puckett has his 1984 topps update listed as his rookie, because (I am assuming) topps didn't include him in their rookie set.

The main purpose for me I suppose is information more than anything, and wondering what type of effect the huge number of sets will have on this registry set in particular.

jason045

Back in the 1980s the first cards of a player that came out in traded or update sets were not considered their true rookie cards, but XRCs or extended rookies. This is because they were not available in in pack form and could only be found in hobby stores. True rookies are the ones that were available in packs and could be bought at retail outlets such as Wal-Mart or K-Mart. Also glossy or tiffany sets are not considered RCs or XRCs. They are parallells. What is everyone elses opinion on this?

helionaut

First, I'm assuming Axtell means Puckett's 1984 Fleer card. A 1984 Topps Update Puckett would be news.

The notion of XRCs was always silly, I thought. Either a card is a rookie card or it's not. This XRC crap came from Beckett for reasons never explained to my satisfaction. I mean, I never heard a regular collector say,"I'll trade you Roger Clemens's XRC for your Puckett and Canseco XRCs." Beckett always said it was because sets like 1984 Fleer Update and 1986 Donruss Rookies were "too hard to find" to be included in the rookie card definition, and since they were update sets and not "regular" sets they weren't "true" rookies. That's fine and may have been satisfactory in 1986, but for about a decade now we've had rookie cards that have been produced in the thousands, hundreds, or less, and low print run RCs are praised as groundbreaking. When UD came out with Premier Prospects, not licensed by MLBPA but by MLB so they could use team logos, Beckett decided that they should be included in the magazine not as a draft pick set but as a competitor to Bowman, and so they were listed as XRCs and the foolishness continued. When Topps Stadium Draft Picks came out in 1994, they were relegated to the back of the magazine and the set tanked (though probably player selection had something to do with it). After UDPP, they were brought to the front, though.

The insert/parallel silliness is another debacle of logic that Beckett will sooner or later get themselves out of. Beckett has these precedents to keep track of:

a) 1985 Topps Mark Mcgwire base card = RC
b) 1985 Topps Mark Mcgwire Tiffany parallel card = non-RC (because it came in a special boxed set)

c) 1986 Topps Traded Barry Bonds = XRC
d) 1986 Topps Traded Tiffany Barry Bonds = non-XRC
e) 1987 Topps Barry Bonds = RC
f) 1987 Topps Tiffany Barry Bonds = non-RC

g) 1999 Fleer Tradition Update Rick Ankiel = RC (which came in a special boxed set)
h) 1999 Fleer Tradition Millenium Factory set Rick Ankiel = non-RC (a parallel set which came in a special boxed set)
i) 2000 Fleer Tradition Factory set Glossy Josh Phelps = RC (an addition to a parallel set with no corresponding base card which came in a special box)

j) 1998 Bowman Magglio Ordonez base card = RC
k) 1998 Bowman Magglio Ordonez gold parallel = non-RC
l) 1998 Bowman Chrome Magglio Ordonez base card = RC
m) 1998 Bowman Chrome Magglio Ordonez refractor parallel = non-RC

n) 1990 Score Frank Thomas = RC
o) 1990 Score Update Frank Thomas = non-RC

p) 2001 Bowman Albert Pujols = RC
q) 2001 Topps Finest Albert Pujols autograph = non-RC
r) 2001 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols auto #/500 = RC

s) 200x Draft pick/minor league set (Just, Sage, Press Pass) of whoever = non-RC (licensed by neither MLB or MLBPA)
t) 200x UDPP whoever = XRC (licensed by MLB but not MLBPA)
u) 200x Bowman Draft Picks whoever = RC (licensed by MLB and MLBPA)

v) The cards of Ryan Howard are interesting because he had cards in 2001 and 2002 in various UD products with UDPP, Team USA and SP Authentic, but his first Beckett-RCs aren't until 2003. Carlos Quentin is a similar deal, his first cards appearing in 2002, but no BRCs until 2004.

It seems to me it all basically comes down to packaging and presentation. If you make a 1st-year player's card and sell it in a pack or factory set, it's an RC. If you make a parallel and put it in the same pack, it's not an RC. If you make a parallel and put it into a different brand with different packs, it's an RC. But if you make a parallel and put it in a factory set and NOT packs, it's NOT an RC, the caveat being if the particular card does not have a base card parallel but is in fact unique to that factory set. If you make a card and number it within the set, it's an RC. It might be numbered out of a few dozen so that it's possible for one person to obtain a substantial percentage of the print run, but it's still an RC, while the 1986 Update sets once thought so scarce are today as plain and common as dirt are still XRCs. If you give it different set numbering, it's an insert, and so not an RC. If you sell it in a different package and give it either continuing or different numbering, but market it as an extension of the same set where that player already has a card, it's not an RC.

Personally, I think that if you pull it out of a pack or factory set, it's an RC. A 1992 Topps Manny Ramirez is an RC, but the Gold parallel isn't? A 1994 SP Alex Rodriguez is an RC but his blue holoview isn't? The only time I think you don't have an RC is for a redemption card or a 1/1 card, especially a press plate. Redemption cards expire eventually, so if I was to pull, I don't know, a 1997 Certified redemption for the Jose Cruz, that wouldn't be an RC because it can't be pulled from a pack today. One of ones I don't think are RCs because in a sense they aren't cards but unique little collectible items that happen to have the shape of cards. I think there has to be some sense of mass production there, even if there are only 5 or 10. I liked it when companies tried to break Beckett's definitions with sets like their 1999 Skybox with the short-printed versions of base cards with different photos, or SPX with several different cards of a player in the same set, or Topps Tek with 20 different versions of a card and since there was no "base" version, there were no "parallels."

Anyway, the RC designation, Beckett's or otherwise, has less impact these days because they are less relevant and collectors are, God help them, more sophisticated. Sure, when UDPP got listed, it helped that brand enormously. But people are paying big money for the Prior autograph because it's a 2001 Prior autograph, not because of any designation in Beckett. They are still only paying $1 for the Ryan Howard while his 2003 Bowman Chrome Update goes for $4. People pay more for refractors than their plain Chrome or cardboard clones. People pay $80 for Grady Sizemore's 2000 Bowman auto and $6 for his "only true RC." So if you want a strict designation, Beckett's is as good as any, unless you want to make up your own. Mine seems to be closer to what's actually used in the market, and in the market, the more important symbol is "$" not "RC."

jrdolan

With vintage HOFers who have more than one card that could be considered "rookie," PSA has gone with the one that is "more desirable" -- that is, tougher, harder to find, more attractive in the eyes of most collectors. You have to go back to the late '40s, when Bowman and Leaf both had some of the same players, to see this. When Topps came on the scene in 1952 and co-existed with Bowman until 1956, I don't believe there were any HOF rookies in both sets for the same year. Then from '56 until the early '80s Topps was the only game in town, except for regional issues.

Puckett was the first 1980s player enshrined in the HOF, and PSA chose 1984 Fleer Update as his "rookie" because that was his first major league card. It was an easy choice because no one else produced an update for Kirby that year. The same will apply to Roger Clemens. Rickey Henderson will be easy (if he ever officially retires) ... 1980 Topps is his only rookie.

Boggs and Gwynn and (maybe) Sandberg will be tougher, because each has several 1983 rookies. How will PSA decide which is "most desirable?" None are particularly tough. When you get into the middle and late '80s, it will be worse. Bonds has several '86 updates, yet some regard '87 Fleer as "most desirable." Then you get into Randy Johnson, Griffey, Maddux, etc. when each has a boatload of different rookies, and every collector owns at least 10 of them. What's "most desirable" then?

Fast-forward to 2024 or so, when Albert Pujols is enshrined (if he maintains his level of excellence). Now you're talking about some 20 different 2001 rookie cards, zillions of total cards, almost all PSA 10 or BGS 9.5, all slabbed and protected for eternity. Will PSA decide that only his most limited auto card should be the only recognized rookie in the registry?

Maybe PSA should decree that after 1985 or so, the word "rookie card" is just too complex, confusing, and meaningless. Maybe they should halt the Post-War HOF Rookies registry after 1980T Henderson, 1982T Traded Ripken, the Class of 1983 (whatever their registry rookies are determined to be), '84 Fleer Update Puckett and Clemens, and 1985T McGwire. Start a new registry for 1986 and later, call it "The Anything-Goes Mass-Production Rookie Registry."

Axtell

Helio - Thanks for the catch...it was late when I posted that. Yes, I did mean Puckett's Fleer update. That one was easy, as it's his only 1984 card.

jrdolan - And I think that is ultimately what will need to happen...ending the post-war HoF rookies set with cards made before a certain date. There are just far, far too many sets, variations to try to make a set that includes the most desired card. Boggs is a great example. He will more than likely join the HoF next year....which card of the 3 makes the cut? I'd assume it's probably going to be the Topps one (that's my choice, and by far my favorite of the 3), but an arguement could be made for any of the 3 I suppose.

I'd hate to see them include all 3 in the HoF registry set....I guess at some point they'll have a lot of decisions to be made regarding what is considered a true rookie card again.

Stone193

<< <i>Mine seems to be closer to what's actually used in the market, and in the market, the more important symbol is "$" not "RC." >>


Helio
Really nice post - your closing statement is right on the money - literally - this debate, as many know, has been going on now since the proliferation of cards/sets - it it too confusing for me to worry about other than - follow the money - get graded what people have established is worth grading.



<< <i>Will PSA decide that only his most limited auto card should be the only recognized rookie in the registry? >>


JR
What PSA decides to include in the registry is interesting, but I was just wondering - do you think that has much impact on the rest of the world who collects and probably has never seen the registry? Won't they be swayed more by the popular mags out there at the time like Beckett or Tuff Stuff - if still in circulation.
You guys have put a lot of thought into this - great job!

Here's an interesting change in terminology that has evolved over the years. I was reading an article about Burdick and Lionel Carter - two supreme collectors/catalogers/experts/pioneers - who were talking about the tobacco cards and used the word inserts. Well, of course I'm thinking subsets/parallels etc. - then I realized they were trying to figure out when the first true "inserted" into something card sets were done - going back to the 1880's - see most cards were given "at purchase" as a premium by the store keeper or a mail-in premium - so the word INSERT had a different meaning in those days - boring - but interesting? Also, many sets were done in groups of 50 - why? because the cartons back then contained 50 packs and they wanted people to buy the entire thing to get the whole set - ah, capitalism at its best!
Mike

jrdolan

I think the Pujols rookie that PSA decides to put in the registry will enjoy higher demand ... among members of that registry.

But in the world at large, you're right, it won't raise a ripple. It's an interesting question, though, with a dozen or more "rookie" cards to choose from with these modern players, how will PSA decide? And will it matter anyway, with a gajillion mint copies floating around? I hope they cut off the Postwar HOF registry at 1985. Heck, Bonds and Pujols can have their own rookie registries!

Stone193

<< <i>I think the Pujols rookie that PSA decides to put in the registry will enjoy higher demand >>


JR
interesting that you chose Pujols - I think he is the real deal and have already got an auto bat of his before it becomes too expensive - I would really like a GU bat but...I can only dream - already kind of pricey.
Personally, my favorite on any RC is the auto version.
Mike

mintluster

Focus on A-Rod rookies. He will break whatever HR record BALCO Bonds ends up with. He is so damn young and already has almost 400 HR's.

Jmnesq

What SP Authetnic card did Ryan Howard have? He has a 2001 UD PP and a 2002 UD USA (boxed set) card. That's it, prior to 2003's BCDP.