Sorry, Upper Deck. That Griffey Ain't His Rookie Card!
The Hobby forever changed the day Upper Deck packs hit the shelves in 1989. These cards were different. In contrast with the cards moms used to throw away, these cards were "premium," or if you like, "investor grade." At at a dollar a pack or more, they were priced accordingly. (And trust me, that was a lot back then!)
The Upper Deck release also dovetailed perfectly with the hottest trend in collecting: rookie card fever. As Night Owl Cards reminds us, the Hobby's fascination with rookie cards wasn't always a thing, but in 1989, oh, it was definitely a thing. For some collectors, it was the only thing. So yes, Upper Deck introduced collectors to tamper-proof packaging, a slicker card stock, hologrammed backs, and next-level photography (front and back!), but the real buzz was around the first card in the set, a card that remains synonymous with the set and may as well be the face of 1980s card collecting: the Ken Griffey, Jr., rookie card.
Even today, the card remains sizzling hot, if not iconic. Really, there's only one problem. Despite that logo on the card's bottom right, it's not a rookie card. I'll say it again, though I know it's Hobby heresy to even whisper. The 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey, Jr, is NOT a rookie card.
Don't get me wrong. Back in 1989, of course this was Junior's rookie card, as were his various other cards of the same year. Call the Upper Deck anything but a rookie—make that THE rookie—back then and you'd be a laughing stock. Today, however, the Hobby has enacted rigid standards—dogma, really—surrounding rookie card status, one of which the Griffey card fails rather unambiguously.
Hard-coded into today's rookie card definitions is that the card must be issued after the player has attained Major League status. For example, that Paul Skenes card you pulled from 2023 Bowman Draft is not a rookie card. Ditto that 1977 TCMA Clinton Dodgers Ron Kittle you've been hanging onto way too long. Returning our attention to Griffey, his Upper Deck card was issued in February 1989, more than a month ahead of his April 3, 1989 major league debut.
"But it's the same year! Isn't that good enough?" Nope. These rookie card rules are stringent and cover this very thing, which is why even a good number of 2024 Paul Skenes cards do not qualify as rookie cards.
So if the Upper Deck Griffey isn't his rookie card, what is? With 177 different Griffey cards issued in 1989, are we faced with the seemingly impossible task of figuring out the first one to come out on or after April 3? Fortunately, the matter is far simpler than that. Another requirement for rookie cards is that they come from a "major release," which limits things to a small handful of sets. "So Topps?" Nope, they left Junior off the checklist and came out before April. Ditto Score. "How about Fleer and Donruss? They had Griffey cards, didn't they?" They did, but they also came out before April, which leads me to a conclusion as inescapable as it is unfortunate.
By my count, there was only one other major set in 1989, one almost universally panned by collectors then and now. In July 1989, Topps resurrected the Bowman brand in the form of an oversized, 484-card set that included—because of course it did—a card of Ken Griffey, Jr. Hate all you want, but facts are facts. This baby from Bowman, a card the Hobby at best welcomed with a yawn if not a scowl, is literally Junior's only true rookie card.
But wait. Is it really fair to apply today's rules for rookie cards to the cardboard of yesteryear? Honestly, my own leaning is that collectors should decide for themselves, for cards old and new, which cards to regard as rookie cards. Putting my personal opinion aside, however, yes, today's rules have already been applied. Among the classics of my youth to have lost rookie card status, for various reasons, are the 1983 Topps Traded Darryl Strawberry, the 1984 Topps Traded Dwight Gooden, and the 1985 Topps Team USA Mark McGwire.
Regardless, don't look for the Bowman Griffey to overtake Upper Deck anytime soon, at least as far as values are concerned. Logic be damned, an icon is always an icon.