Why are rookie cards the most desirable and valuable?

ferris182

Hi All,

I have been collecting cards for over 30 years and I am still trying to determine why rookie cards are usually the most desirable and most valuable card for a player. (Outside of the short printed cards, inserts, autos, relics, etc)

Alot of the time the player's rookie card does not have more eye appeal than future issues of the card. Also, the player usually looks different in their rookie card than cards that are issued during the player's prime, which is usually how the player is remembered to look like as a baseball player. Additionally, a player's rookie card is not always more rare than a player's future issues of cards.

So why are the rookies the most valuable?

brendanb438

Just like anything else collectible, it is the first version of something which makes it more sought after.

DeutscherGeist

That sums it up.

The second year and later cards are still desirable, but they can be had for much less.

ferris182

Just a side note:

I am also not a big fan of older cards that have their rookie cards shared with another player:

Ripken, Nolan Ryan, Bench, Fisk, Fergie Jenkins, etc

I personally like their 2nd year cards, (the first one by themselves) better than their rookie cards.

1966CUDA

Isn't the 2nd year Munson (1971) more expensive than his 1970 rookie??

handyman

OJ SImpsons 1971 Topps is also worth more than his rookie card.

twiley

<< <i>Isn't the 2nd year Munson (1971) more expensive than his 1970 rookie?? >>



Yes. The reasons are the card says "all star rookie" and of course it is a black beauty and very hard to find in mint condition...

Brick

Hi, hello, how are ya?

I believe the second year Mantle sells for a bit more than his Rookie card.

yankeeno7

The reason Munson and Simpson second year cards are worth more is because they are such condition sensitive cards. Also, you may want to consider the awesome pic of Munson

nightcrawler

<< <i>So why are the rookies the most valuable? >>



Here's your answer...

ThoseBackPages

Garvey's 2nd year is worth more then his RC

Blacklabelsociety

<< <i>Hi, hello, how are ya?

I believe the second year Mantle sells for a bit more than his Rookie card. >>



You would think his rookie would be more desirable? I guess its because of the popularity of the 52 topps set.

nightcrawler

<< <i>

<< <i>I believe the second year Mantle sells for a bit more than his Rookie card. >>



You would think his rookie would be more desirable? I guess its because of the popularity of the 52 topps set. >>




No, it's the rarity.

Blacklabelsociety

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I believe the second year Mantle sells for a bit more than his Rookie card. >>



You would think his rookie would be more desirable? I guess its because of the popularity of the 52 topps set. >>




No, it's the rarity. >>



werent the 52 mantle's double printed?

Yankees001

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I believe the second year Mantle sells for a bit more than his Rookie card. >>



You would think his rookie would be more desirable? I guess its because of the popularity of the 52 topps set. >>




No, it's the rarity. >>



werent the 52 mantle's double printed? >>



1952 Topps Mantle were in the High Numbers and are rare, Not sure if double printed, but I think single print.

1951 Bowman was not a High number or rare number run in the set.

yankeeno7

The 52 Topps Mantle is indeed a double print but its still rare due to it being a high number. Much less common than any of the low numbers. And even though it is a second year card of Mantle, there are many only Topps collectors out there and do not consider the Bowman. In fact, there are very few vintage Bowman collectors out there. Although, today, I think there are a lot more than there used to be.

As far as the 72 Garvey goes, that is also a tough high number. That's the only reason.

Garabaldi

I always look for the RC when I am collecting. It is probably easier to get a better conditioned card of a star after they became a sar. If a player was just a rookie he might have been lumped into the commons and not handled with care. Not all the time, but probably most. Not so much nowadays, but back when the RC's were not price high before the player even began his career.

digicat

<< <i>Garvey's 2nd year is worth more then his RC >>



Historically that was true when 1972 high numbers were considered "rare".

Now, a 1972 Garvey in nm/mt condition will sell for less than $35. A 1971 Garvey RC in the same condition will sell for over $70.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>

<< <i>Garvey's 2nd year is worth more then his RC >>



Historically that was true when 1972 high numbers were considered "rare".

Now, a 1972 Garvey in nm/mt condition will sell for less than $35. A 1971 Garvey RC in the same condition will sell for over $70. >>



ahhh. that was the case when i was a kid back in the 80s, and it puzzled the heck outta me! lol

Now i can see what you mean, given the black '71s and the slabbing process

ThoseBackPages

Also, when it comes to "old players" they only had one (or three lol) "Rookie Card"

Blacklabelsociety

<< <i>The 52 Topps Mantle is indeed a double print but its still rare due to it being a high number. Much less common than any of the low numbers. And even though it is a second year card of Mantle, there are many only Topps collectors out there and do not consider the Bowman. In fact, there are very few vintage Bowman collectors out there. Although, today, I think there are a lot more than there used to be.

>>



Good points. So really its mostly because of the popularity of the topps set. Because if it was because of rarity, the 52 berk ross would be worth more and we know thats not the case.

Albertdidit

<< <i>

<< <i>Garvey's 2nd year is worth more then his RC >>



Historically that was true when 1972 high numbers were considered "rare".

>>



Are 1972 High numbers considered semi-rare these days? or not even?

GDM67

Interesting subject. We also discussed it a couple of years ago.

3SportHOFCOLLECTOR

1966 Topps Gaylord Perry, his 5th Year card is worth more than his 1962 Rookie. The 1966 Card is the last card in the set.

CollectorAtWork

Typically, there are fewer rookie cards of a player because he might not be famous then. Therefore, if there were multiple sets being printed in a given year, especially with specialty sets, the lesser known rookie wouldn't be in the majority of sets. This has changed significantly with modern sets since the manufacturers realize the value and demand for rookie cards. Also, rookie cards are "easier" to collect. When people collect cards of HOFers, they usually either say, I want one card of each HOFer or I want to try to collect their rookie cards. No one goes out and says, I want to try to collect the 2nd year cards of all HOFers.

digicat

<< <i>1966 Topps Gaylord Perry, his 5th Year card is worth more than his 1962 Rookie. The 1966 Card is the last card in the set. >>



That's not really the case anymore. A NM-MT 1962 Perry rookie will cost you over $300. A similar condition 1966 Perry will cost you around $200.




<< <i>Are 1972 High numbers considered semi-rare these days? or not even? >>



I'd say "not even". If you're buying raw singles, then you'll probably have to pay a premium for the 72 highs, but if you're buying graded material, there's not much of a difference.

72skywalker

<< <i>Typically, there are fewer rookie cards of a player because he might not be famous then. Therefore, if there were multiple sets being printed in a given year, especially with specialty sets, the lesser known rookie wouldn't be in the majority of sets. This has changed significantly with modern sets since the manufacturers realize the value and demand for rookie cards. Also, rookie cards are "easier" to collect. When people collect cards of HOFers, they usually either say, I want one card of each HOFer or I want to try to collect their rookie cards. No one goes out and says, I want to try to collect the 2nd year cards of all HOFers. >>



Although some people collect the years that the player accomplished an amazing feat. For instance Roger Maris's 61 home ruins in 1961 or Mickey Mantle's triple crown in 1956.

RipublicaninMass

<< <i>

<< <i>

>>



Good points. So really its mostly because of the popularity of the topps set. Because if it was because of rarity, the 52 berk ross would be worth more and we know thats not the case. >>





Berk Ross, I thought we were talking about Mantle?

MULLINS5

<< <i>

<< <i>So why are the rookies the most valuable? >>



Here's your answer...

>>



One day I am going to buy this card and eat it. God I love it so much.

Garabaldi

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>So why are the rookies the most valuable? >>



Here's your answer...

>>



One day I am going to buy this card and eat it. God I love it so much. >>



The GOD of hockey!