Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Ron Cey - Rookie Twice - Why?

jskirwinjskirwin Posts: 700 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Anyone know why Ron Cey has two RCs? The 1972 one shown here and the 1973 one with Mike Schmidt shown here.

Just wondering...

Comments

  • larryallen73larryallen73 Posts: 6,061 ✭✭✭
    My first instinct would be to say because they knew what a likeable guy the Penguin would become! However, that's probably not the real answer. I do not know why they did that but it happened others. Didn't Phil Niekro have 3 rookie cards? Well, at least 2 anyway!
    P.S. Anybody know what ever happened to Ron Cey's son? He was doing well in the minor leagues I thought!?
  • StingrayStingray Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭
    Topps has done this before, example Dale Murphy was on a 4 person rookie card in 76 or 77 then again in 77 or 78, do not remember exact years but they were back to back like the Cey cards.
  • helionauthelionaut Posts: 1,555 ✭✭
    Lou Piniella was on multi-player rookie cards in 1964, 1968, and 1969, and maybe one other. He and other players were just guys who were on the verge of becoming big leaguers for several seasons, but when they got traded, the prospect tag was renewed. Just like today where lots of guys have a Bowman card, then the next they have a "green prospect" Bowman card, then the next season they make the bigs and get cards in a couple more sets as "rookie prospects" then the next season they get more "rookie star" cards when they win ROY or something, then the next season they get "star rookie" cards. Only one RC, but lots of "rookie cards".
    WANTED:
    2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
    2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
    Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs

    Nothing on ebay
  • phreakydancinphreakydancin Posts: 1,691 ✭✭
    I know in hockey you are technically a "rookie" (i.e. eligible for the Calder Trophy) if you have not played 25 games in a season. Is there an equivalent rule in baseball? Ron Cey only played in 11 games in 1972.
  • AkbarCloneAkbarClone Posts: 2,476 ✭✭✭
    A player I collect (Dave Lemonds) also has two rookie cards (1971 and 1972).
    Maybe they were called up from the minors the first year and Topps produced the first rookie card, but then they hardly played and/or were sent back down that same year. Then when they called back up for the following year, they just made another card? Not sure. just a guess.
    I collect Vintage Cards, Commemorative Sets, and way too many vintage and modern player collections in Baseball (180 players), Football (175 players), and Basketball (87 players). Also have a Dallas Cowboy team collection.
  • kingraider75kingraider75 Posts: 1,500 ✭✭
    Good question. I think the 72 card should be the RC then. That was the first major issue card. Perhaps the 73 card is labeled a RC, because for the other two people on the card, it's their first issue card. As for why Topps included Cey on panel Rookie card for two years is a whole another matter. They probably wanted him in the set, but didn't think he was worthy of his own card.
    Running an Ebay store sure takes a lot more time than a person would think!
  • wallst32wallst32 Posts: 513 ✭✭
    Cey didn't have enough major league at-bats in 1972, so he was still a rookie, hence the designation by Topps in 1973. I think "rookie" meant just that to Topps, and not necessarily "rookie card".

    There is a certain number (don't recall it at the moment) of at-bats you need to exceed before you are no longer considered a rookie. You'll find that many of the ROY award winners actually played some the season(s) previous to winning the award, but since they didnt exceed the at-bat threshold in the prior year, they were still qualfied to win the award.
  • packCollectorpackCollector Posts: 2,786 ✭✭✭
    there are tons of guys with multiple player rookie cards from different years , charlie hough had 72 and 73 also , baylor had a 71 and 72 , pinella had 3. there are many other players that never made it that are on more than 1. the 1st year would be his rookie card , all subsiquent years would just be his next card. it's a fun little niche to collect if you have the time to research them all
  • MarkLeeMarkLee Posts: 100
    This whole thread brings up a pet peeve of mine. I don't like "rookie cards" where a player has to share a card with other prospects. I wish Topps had never gotten into this practice. For instance, the 1963 Pete Rose rookie card. This item sells for big bucks and it is a dog ugly card as far as visual appeal goes. The 1964 Rose card is much nicer, with the Topps All-Star Rookie trophy logo on it. Plus it has the actual rookie year stats on the back. I am collecting a Pete Rose basic graded set which I consider to be just the 1964-1987 regular player card issues. This is a nice little 24 year run of cards that shows how Pete aged through the years as well as being a way to nicely demonstrate the Topps design over that quarter century. The other thing about multi-player rookie/prospect cards - they don't give you a true picture of the card design for that year. I have never figured out why people would pay what they do for the 1978 Alan Trammel or Paul Molitor rookies. Blechh! image
    Mark
    "Pete Rose would walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball." - Sparky Anderson
  • jskirwinjskirwin Posts: 700 ✭✭✭
    Interesting comments.
    I recall seeing a reprint of the Mike Schmidt rookie card that was released in a recent set. Mike's pic in the 3rd panel of the '73 was blown up to fill the entire card. No Cey or Hilton present.

    I too wonder why Topps didn't issue separate RC cards.
  • MarkLeeMarkLee Posts: 100
    Topps did the same blow up thing for Cal Ripken's rookie card when they did their 50th anniversary "Through the Years" reprint set. It just goes to show you that even Topps recognizes that these cards are ugly!
    Mark
    "Pete Rose would walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball." - Sparky Anderson
  • Brian48Brian48 Posts: 2,624 ✭✭✭
    Murphy was in both 77 and 78. Had both cards at one time.
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,586 ✭✭✭✭
    Gaylord Perry had his own card in 1962 and was then on a four-panel rookie card in 1963. Weird.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • BuccaneerBuccaneer Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
    I have to laugh at some of the comments in thhis thread. Know that some time ago, there were no such thing as the "rookie card" phenomenon, only cards of rookies and rookie stars. Back then, we didn't know what to do with many of these cards because they didn't belong in a team pile, just a miscellaneous pile. It was when everyone started getting greedy and putting dollar value on cards that "rookie cards" started being hyped. Surely some of you remember opening up a pack in the 1960s or 1970s looking for the players we loved? Most of the rookies or young players were (and still should be) ignored until they actually become superstars or HOF material.
  • bowdowntomebowdowntome Posts: 398
    I agree, back in the day when I first got into baseball cards, you either kept your sets by number or by teams, with the team card on top of the team set and including the team only rookie stars cards. All misc. rookies, leader cards, checklists, an other "non-team" cards got piled together and usually shoved to the back of the shoebox. All inserts got piled together and tossed into whatever other box was handy.
    Football collector 1948-1995, Rams oddball cards & memorabilia, Diamond match.
    Cataloging all those pesky, unlisted 1963 Topps football color variations Updated 2/13/05
    image
  • fsjeterfsjeter Posts: 1,390
    From the Baseball Almanac on the ROY award - "Eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 and a rookie was formally defined as a player with less than one-hundred thirty at-bats, a pitcher with less than fifty innings pitched, or anyone with less than forty-five days on any Major League roster." I wonder if Topps used the same criteria for cards. Before 1971, I don't know what they used. Beckett Football asked this same question about Maurice Clarett because Topps issued cards a couple years ago when he declared for the draft. The court battles ensued and he wasn't allowed to be drafted. He's trying again this year and there was a question as to which card should be his "Rookie Card." image

    Scott
    Registry Sets:
    T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
    1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
    1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
    1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
    1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
    1981 Topps FB PSA 10
    1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
    1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
    3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up

    My Sets
  • jskirwinjskirwin Posts: 700 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Back then, we didn't know what to do with many of these cards because they didn't belong in a team pile, just a miscellaneous pile. It was when everyone started getting greedy and putting dollar value on cards that "rookie cards" started being hyped. Surely some of you remember opening up a pack in the 1960s or 1970s looking for the players we loved? Most of the rookies or young players were (and still should be) ignored until they actually become superstars or HOF material. >>



    Thanks for the time-warp! Yes, I remember that now!
    I did the team thing myself - being a die hard St. Louis Cardinals fan. Unfortunately most of my Cardinals cards are beaten up because of this.
Sign In or Register to comment.