Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Can a card ever be more significant than a player's rookie?

Can a card ever be more significant than a player's rookie?


  • Total voters
    16

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

nevermore

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
3,371
515
New York
Can a card ever top a player's rookie in terms of significance?

Are the first cards produced of someone always the most significant ones that will ever be made of that guy? There are a few exceptions in the vintage era (i.e. Mantle), but it seems that seems to be the trend in the modern-era, especially with Chromes. No matter how many nice cards are made of Pujols, the 2001 Bowman Chrome Auto will be THE card to have.
 

hive17

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
21,426
24
I would think the USA cards are examples of first cards not being as desireable.
 

matfanofold

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
7,645
1
Instead of listing example, after example, after example, which would be overkill because only 1 would be needed to answer your question fully, I'll just say (and vote) yes.
 

uniquebaseballcards

New member
Nov 12, 2008
6,783
0
RCs were often most significant when Topps was pretty much the only set released. Almost none of the all-time best vintage cards are rookies or first cards when there were competing issues, and with tons of releases and sets of all types now I don't think that's going to change any time soon. IMO the hobby would be very boring if only FYs or RCs were most signficant, so I'm glad thats not true.

I wonder how many player collectors would say their favorite or best card is a first year or rookie card, I'd think that would be a low number.
 

Eamon

New member
Jun 16, 2010
1,080
0
how about the most iconic card of all time... the 1952 mantle.... mantle's rookie is in 51 bowman....
 

nevermore

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
3,371
515
New York
The Mantle is the obvious example and I had mentioned it in my original post, but there haven't been others like it in the modern era. I would attribute that more to the impact of the 1952 set. Hive, I would think the USA cards are popular. When McGwire was big, everyone was after his Team USA card. I can't personally think of any other examples.

The media and collectors always use rookies as a barometer for a player's performance, popularity, and value. When someone's traded, pitches a no-hitter, achieves a milestone, people are always after rookie cards and they typically go up in value. Those looking to cash in on Jeter's 3000 hits had started stock piling rookies months in advanced. When Arod gets 700 HRs as a Yankee, the same thing will happen. Despite him being a Mariner back then, people will still be going after his rookie cards (which I personally don't get). But that's why I believe a majority of collectors view rookies as being the most significant cards. Isn't that the premise on which the whole prospecting aspect of the hobby stands? From what it seems, no one seems to stockpile second and third year cards.

Could one of the mods move this thread. Sorry for posting in the wrong area, I had multiple tabs open and got mixed up.
 

WoundedDuck

Active member
Aug 23, 2008
2,904
2
I there are a few examples of the first rc card produced being not autoed and the next years chrome auto being more desired even though it's a second year card.
 

Members online

Top