Anyone Here Collect 80's PSA rookies?

[mcholke]

Couple of cards I purchased back in Feb/March on COMC that finally sprung free and arrived here today

[ngs428]

Love all the 1980's rookies.. Since we are looking at rookies here, what are you criteria for a card being a rookie card?

These are the criteria I am using:
1. Fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA)
2. Nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players.
3. Rookie and Traded Sets (XRC) are being considered as nationally distributed.
4. If a player has a base card and an XRC in the same year, the base card is the true rookie (see 1987 Donruss Maddux)
5. If a player only has a XRC for a given year, then those are the rookie cards and any base/XRC in further years are not considered rookies (See 1986 TT/FU/DR Bonds, 1984 FU Clemens)
6. Base only, not Base Parallel (Topps Tiffany or Fleer/Score Glossy)
7. Player does not need to be in in a MLB uniform (See 1992 Bowman Ramirez)

I can't quite land on an answer for #6. Leaning toward what i have above since the parallels were released later in the year vs the base.

For #7 there is something about a player in an MLB uniform vs the team USA or street clothes.. (see 1988 topps Abbott, 1992 Bowman Ramirez)

What do you use as your criteria? Do you include parallels?

[discodanman45]

There is a big difference for 1980-1985 and post 1986 for me. If I am getting a Cal Ripken I don't care which one. So far I have acquired a 1982 Topps Traded, which I wanted the most as a kid. However recently I go a nice looking 82 Donruss and Topps rookie with the three players. Haven't gotten a fleer yet, but probably will. Kirby Puckett I got a 84 Fleer Update, but also have a nicely centered 85 Topps and a few 85 Donruss. I still consider them as rookies. However, with Bonds/Canseco/Bo Jackson/etc... I don't care to get any of the 87 cards graded or in my collection. Maybe eventually a 87 Topps Tiffany. It would have to be an 86 for those players to be considered a rookie for me. Then we have the late 80's. Only cards I want are a Ken Griffey Jr Upper Deck, 89 Upper Deck PSA 10 Randy Johnson, and I have a few Malboro 1989 Fleer Johnson error cards. 1987 through the early 90's really don't interest me at all.

[Ebucs1604]

I got my first a few months ago, picked up a Jose Canseco Donruss 86 Psa 9 never thought Id own a 80’s card. But it is becoming a highlight in the collection for sure

[GatorPie]

Originally Posted by ngs428

Love all the 1980's rookies.. Since we are looking at rookies here, what are you criteria for a card being a rookie card?

These are the criteria I am using:
1. Fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA)
2. Nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players.
3. Rookie and Traded Sets (XRC) are being considered as nationally distributed.
4. If a player has a base card and an XRC in the same year, the base card is the true rookie (see 1987 Donruss Maddux)
5. If a player only has a XRC for a given year, then those are the rookie cards and any base/XRC in further years are not considered rookies (See 1986 TT/FU/DR Bonds, 1984 FU Clemens)
6. Base only, not Base Parallel (Topps Tiffany or Fleer/Score Glossy)
7. Player does not need to be in in a MLB uniform (See 1992 Bowman Ramirez)

I can't quite land on an answer for #6. Leaning toward what i have above since the parallels were released later in the year vs the base.

For #7 there is something about a player in an MLB uniform vs the team USA or street clothes.. (see 1988 topps Abbott, 1992 Bowman Ramirez)

What do you use as your criteria? Do you include parallels?

Wow. As long as the card is in their first year, it's a rookie for me, parallel or otherwise. In other words, ALL 1989 Griffey cards I consider rookies. McGwire has one rookie, 1985 and that's it. To me, Puckett and Clemens have 1984 cards, so those are their rookies - the 1985 are not. Same with Strawberry - he has one rookie, 1983 Topps Traded.

I find the narrowing down of a dictionary-defined definition of "rookie card" and the XRC to RC debate to be silly.

[hatchd]

Originally Posted by GatorPie

Wow. As long as the card is in their first year, it's a rookie for me, parallel or otherwise. In other words, ALL 1989 Griffey cards I consider rookies. McGwire has one rookie, 1985 and that's it. To me, Puckett and Clemens have 1984 cards, so those are their rookies - the 1985 are not. Same with Strawberry - he has one rookie, 1983 Topps Traded.

I find the narrowing down of a dictionary-defined definition of "rookie card" and the XRC to RC debate to be silly.

I'm with you. People take this the definition of two things in this hobby too seriously - rookie cards and inserts. Rookie cards are generally the first year a player appears on a card and all cards from that year are his RCs. There are always exceptions, but this will get you there 95% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

for the 80s RCs, there's no reason not to own each card the player appears on in graded form

[gmoney328]

I consider each player on a case by case basis. Puckett, Clemens and Strawberry are interesting case studies. As is Ripken.

I personally think of Strawberry's 1984 cards as rookies, in addition to the 1983 Traded. Same for Puckett and Clemens with their 1985 cards. Ripken in reverse. If you're using the logic that Puckett, Clemens and Strawberry are only rookies in traded/update form, then how is the #21 Future Stars card NOT considered Ripken's ONLY Topps rookie?

The rules were different back then, with no "RC" anywhere to be found.

[ngs428]

Originally Posted by GatorPie

Wow. As long as the card is in their first year, it's a rookie for me, parallel or otherwise. In other words, ALL 1989 Griffey cards I consider rookies. McGwire has one rookie, 1985 and that's it. To me, Puckett and Clemens have 1984 cards, so those are their rookies - the 1985 are not. Same with Strawberry - he has one rookie, 1983 Topps Traded.

I find the narrowing down of a dictionary-defined definition of "rookie card" and the XRC to RC debate to be silly.

Good to hear your thoughts. 1984 for Puckett and Clemens, I agree with that, many people don't.

Originally Posted by hatchd

I'm with you. People take this the definition of two things in this hobby too seriously - rookie cards and inserts. Rookie cards are generally the first year a player appears on a card and all cards from that year are his RCs. There are always exceptions, but this will get you there 95% of the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Basically I had to define it for myself so I could focus in on what I wanted. If I just jumped into it I would be buying cards all over the place without much direction. There are a ton of RC definitions, the 80's are easy compared to the recent cards for sure!

There are still a lot of exceptions to just using the first year as the rookie. Once I got into it I had to give myself some direction. Little type A I guess.

[ngs428]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

for the 80s RCs, there's no reason not to own each card the player appears on in graded form

My other interest just keep pulling me away, that is my only reason.

The 80's have some iconic cards, that is a fact!

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by ngs428

My other interest just keep pulling me away, that is my only reason.

The 80's have some iconic cards, that is a fact!

yea, FOCUS is very difficult for sure!

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

for the 80s RCs, there's no reason not to own each card the player appears on in graded form

I agree with this if you are looking for PSA 8 cards like myself. Owning PSA 9's can get very expensive for the early 80's cards with horrible centering, print defects, etc... Even a 1984 Donruss Don Mattingly PSA 9 is going for crazy money right now, about $200.

The best deal of any rookie card IMO is the 1983 Ryne Sandberg PSA 9. You can get it for about $50-$60 depending on ebay auctions. I am going to purchase one soon. I do have two raw cards, but they will grade at PSA 8 I think and aren't worth getting graded...

[ngs428]

Originally Posted by gmoney328

I consider each player on a case by case basis. Puckett, Clemens and Strawberry are interesting case studies. As is Ripken.

I personally think of Strawberry's 1984 cards as rookies, in addition to the 1983 Traded. Same for Puckett and Clemens with their 1985 cards. Ripken in reverse. If you're using the logic that Puckett, Clemens and Strawberry are only rookies in traded/update form, then how is the #21 Future Stars card NOT considered Ripken's ONLY Topps rookie?

The rules were different back then, with no "RC" anywhere to be found.

The Ripken one has always got me thinking. If #21 was a single player card, I would assume that would be the "one" to have. Just not much interest in multi player cards. Per my criteria the #21 is the one I will be targeting.

Timing is everything for a rookie card...

[wcardguy]

There was a recent convo in another thread about Michael Jordan rookies, and how his 86-87 Fleer counts as a rookie even though it's a third-year card.

I agree with the above that in 99% of the cases it's obvious, and that there are exceptions. How big the print run was, whether the card was national or regional, etc., all matter. Hence you have the Jordan card in which there are 84-85 Star cards of his (his actual rookie year), but their print run was so short and the releases were so regional that his 86-87 Fleer is still considered a rookie card.

For example, I agree that Strawberry's rookie is his 83 TT. Distributed nationally and widely available (by the standards of an 80s update set). On the other hand, the 84 Fleer Update set has always held a weird position in my mind. Obviously it's the first MLB card for some very key players. It was also an exceptionally short print, way lower than Strawberry's 83 TT. I've always sort of felt that Clemens/Puckett et al rookies are both the 84 Fleer and the 85 cards - but that the 84s are obviously BETTER rookies.

All of this for me is a huge part of why 80s cards are so awesome - so many variations, so many little stories, so much quirkiness. Cards that were available nationally, yet are still organically rare (as opposed to today's manufactured scarcity). I even like that centering on 80s cards is such a bugaboo. It all adds to the flavor.

[endthecurse]

Been lurking in this thread for a long time -- love it. Keep up the good work!

Thought I'd share this: https://www.psarookie.com/. The site is ugly -- and doesn't include anything from 1990 to today, or anything before 1960. It does include a crapton of PSA 9 80s rookie cards, though.

Eventually, I'll get around to making it look good. Thought it was worth a look as-is, though.

[ngs428]

Originally Posted by endthecurse

Been lurking in this thread for a long time -- love it. Keep up the good work!

Thought I'd share this: https://www.psarookie.com/. The site is ugly -- and doesn't include anything from 1990 to today, or anything before 1960. It does include a crapton of PSA 9 80s rookie cards, though.

Eventually, I'll get around to making it look good. Thought it was worth a look as-is, though.

Impressive collection! Thanks for sharing! I like the website, simple yet effective.

[discodanman45]

Seeing some of your older cards and the PSA grades you have give me hope. I have a Winfield, Ozzie, and Rickey rookie that look exactly like yours. It is spooky actually! That website is great and easy to navigate.

[88horsepower]

Well, it's been awhile. A long, long while. So, perhaps it's time for some new adds from the past several months...

[88horsepower]

[sportzking]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

Well, it's been awhile. A long, long while. So, perhaps it's time for some new adds from the past several months...

Nice, lots of good forgotten players. Lots contact hitting and speedy base runners back then.

[sportzking]

Some things I picked up within the last month or so.






So many collectors focusing on Bo, but his father was a great player too.

[jduds]

I like that Bichette and it is one on my list I've been overlooking. I have been picking up graded 80s RCs in 9 or 10 form to replace most of the raw ones from my collection I built in Jr. High and High school. My criteria for what a RC is is pretty simple. I just go by what the old Beckett's labeled them as. As most/all players don;t have an excessive number of options, I tend/intend to pick up XRcs and RCs for Fleer Donruss and Topps. I'll also pick up 2nd or even 3rd year cards if it is from a set I think looks nice(not that many given the time frame).

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by jduds

I like that Bichette and it is one on my list I've been overlooking. I have been picking up graded 80s RCs in 9 or 10 form to replace most of the raw ones from my collection I built in Jr. High and High school. My criteria for what a RC is is pretty simple. I just go by what the old Beckett's labeled them as. As most/all players don;t have an excessive number of options, I tend/intend to pick up XRcs and RCs for Fleer Donruss and Topps. I'll also pick up 2nd or even 3rd year cards if it is from a set I think looks nice(not that many given the time frame).

1989 Upper Deck is one of my favorite baseball sets of all time. I never had a Griffey, but will buy one soon. I am sending this Johnson to get graded. I have a better one that I sent to PSA a week ago. The problem with grading the Johnson is if it doesn't grade a PSA 10 you were better off selling it raw.

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by sportzking

Nice, lots of good forgotten players. Lots contact hitting and speedy base runners back then.

Thanks! Some of my favorite guys weren’t necessarily the big stars. I always liked Bip Roberts and Benito Santiago.

[RYBOWSKI97]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

Thanks! Some of my favorite guys weren’t necessarily the big stars. I always liked Bip Roberts and Benito Santiago.

i like them all except swindell he is corey snyder the 2nd to me lol. dave clark was the better player. i got mad respect for ramon martinez he had a stellar career for the dodgers. i think if not for the shoulder injury hes a 200 game winner. other than maybe the niekro brothers how good of a combo is pedro and ramon....something we might not see again.