User Tag List

View Poll Results: Can a card ever be more significant than a player's rookie?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 77.27%
  • No

    5 22.73%
Results 1 to 8 of 8

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member nevermore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,064
     rp7001
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member hive17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    19,362
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    I would think the USA cards are examples of first cards not being as desireable.
    "I'm an acquired taste; if you don't like me, you should acquire some taste!"-- Stephen Colbert

    Trade album Personal Collection

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,643
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member uniquebaseballcards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,783
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.

    "Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value."

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,080
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    how about the most iconic card of all time... the 1952 mantle.... mantle's rookie is in 51 bowman....

  6. #6
    Senior Member wolfmanalfredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,573
     beanzy46
     andyscags
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    51 Bowman Mantle RC, 52 Topps is more significant. End of discussion

    EDIT, above poster beat me to it
    -Andy


    Always looking to add to my vintage pc's and set needs, let me know what you've got!

  7. #7
    Senior Member nevermore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,064
     rp7001
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,883
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.

    Collecting Interests
    Justin Upton - need everything not listed here
    Star Autos baseball late 80s - present
    Ohio State baseball/football/basketball autos - 1 per player
    Vintage baseball - mostly pre-war

    Photobucket

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •