General Forum

As far as my primary collection goes, multiple players on a card are fine as long as they are on multiple teams OR on the same team but have at least one different position. What I mean about the second one is for a card with say 3 players, if they are all pitchers or batters, I don't want it. If there is 1 pitcher and 2 batters or 1 batter and 2 pitchers, then I will take it. The reasons for this is for ease of knowing which player the card is to represent in my main collection. For team collection, it doesn't matter.

To clarify.  I'm talking about a player's true rookie card when it's a multiple player card vs their first card all their own.

Then, for RC purposes, my preference is the shared version rather than their first solo card. I'd be mentally bothered at never having the RC. I'd love both, but prefer the true RC. If I was stranded on a deserted island and could only keep one ... 

To me it's like saying "this is my automobile...well, me and three other guys own it".  Not really mine.

A multiplayer card should never be considered somebody's rookie card. It's not their card! I don't know how that got so entrenched in the hobby. I'd blame Beckett but I think it even predates them. Crazy. 

I totally agree.  If that 1963 Topps card above said "RBI Leaders" and that was the only card he was on in 1963, it would not be his RC.  I too blame Dr. Beckett (the Dr. is an abbreviation for Dictator).

Billy Kingsley wrote:

A multiplayer card should never be considered somebody's rookie card. It's not their card! I don't know how that got so entrenched in the hobby. I'd blame Beckett but I think it even predates them. Crazy. 

I agree that it is one of the best nicknames.  Not to nitpick though, it is La Grande Orange.     Orange is femiine in French.  Back in French class in the 60s,  all the baseball fans loved this name.

I'll take RC's any way I can get them, especially vintage. But I'd prefer solo-player cards. Topps had a different idea and did it for many decades. Think about it a bit. How many people would want the Koosman RC if Nolan Ryan wasn't on it? There are many more examples in the 1990's of multiple players being on a card and there was only one player that made that card worth having or chasing.

As for the example cards here, I'd rather have the 1963 card b/c it has an STL player on it. But YES, I'd rather have him on his own card instead of being grouped with others at a similar position.