Confusing rookie card question.

[HYPTZEMDSTRPLES]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Right on!

Who is Johnny? And why is he over?

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by HYPTZEMDSTRPLES

Who is Johnny? And why is he over?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLo-ylNPXyE

[HYPTZEMDSTRPLES]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLo-ylNPXyE

Great movie. I need to watch all of them again.

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by HYPTZEMDSTRPLES

Griffey's UD rookie is edited. Yet it's always been his most desirable rookie.

really? How? This is the first I've heard of it.

[Poochie]

The picture is a San Bernadino Spirits pic. They airbrushed the hat Mariners colors.

[bradical]

Originally Posted by oplum29

really? How? This is the first I've heard of it.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...o-1-upper-deck

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by bradical

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...o-1-upper-deck

oh wow! that's amazing. I never heard about this, thanks for the post!

[oplum29]

interesting story about a Kris Bryant "True rookie card" from BR today...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-baseball-card

this was my favorite part...

"The Bowman Chrome prospect cards, like the ones Bryant has, are typically considered by collectors to be a player's "true rookie card." Cards with autographs are even more valuable, for obvious reasons. So if there is one person with nearly all of these Kris Bryant cards, the collection could be valued over $500,000."

[bradical]

Originally Posted by oplum29

this was my favorite part...

"The Bowman Chrome prospect cards, like the ones Bryant has, are typically considered by collectors to be a player's "true rookie card." Cards with autographs are even more valuable, for obvious reasons. So if there is one person with nearly all of these Kris Bryant cards, the collection could be valued over $500,000."

[Saraste]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Topps could have, many moons ago, put a stop to this, what people are calling 'Rookie Card Logo Debacle"

But Topps' greed got in the way. They didnt even want to consider killing the golden goose by stopping with the
prospect autos. Too much easy money for them i suppose

Think about this, what year's RCs are these players?

Tom Brady
LeBron James
Sidney Crosby

all three, easy to answer. they all played their first major league game the year their RCs were issued.

Topps could have done this a decade ago, and we'd be all set now for MLB Rookie Cards.

but nope.

I am catching up on this thread so I don't know if it has been posted. There is a MAJOR difference, card-wise, between football and basketball (I will get to hockey in a moment) respectively and baseball. That is that those sports don't have the developmental system that baseball does, i.e. the minor leagues. There is no opportunity for there to be "minor league" cards of players in basketball and baseball.

Hockey is a bit different in that they do have the developmental system that baseball does. The difference is that traditionally there haven't been many cards produced of minor league hockey players. For those players who have IHL and NHL cards produced, which is considered their true rookie card. It is the same scenario. I am not a hockey card guy so I cannot answer the question. I defer to those who are.

Concerning baseball itself...let's compare 2 players: Aaron Judge and Jose Canseco. The argument for Judge is which is his rookie card, his 2013 Bowman paper or his 2017 Topps? Please note that I am selecting only 1 card from each year that are in the rookie card debate. For those who are in the camp that say the 2017 Topps Judge is his rookie card, presumably you are in agreement that Canseco's 1986 Donruss card is his rookie (once again using 1 card from that year). For those who think Judge's 2013 Bowman paper card is his rookie card, do you also think that Canseco's 1983 Madison Muskies card is Canseco's rookie card? They are both their respective first year cards.

I can see the argument now...The 1983 Canseco was not a mainstream card and only produced in team set form. However it is his first card, though I can see a good case made there. If you don't like the Canseco argument, then I present the 1990 Classic Chipper Jones, which was issued 1 year before his regularly accepted rookie cards. By then Classic was a mainstream set. For those who think the 2013 Bowman paper Judge is his rookie card, you must surely accept the 1990 Classic Jones as his rookie card, even if it was issued a year before his accepted rookies.

For those who then argue that the 1990 Classic Jones was not pack issued and was available only in set form, I present one more player for you to consider. For those who were into the hobby in the 1990's, you know the name Tim Wakefield. I ask which is his rookie card: His 1988 Watertown Pirates card (which was, like Canseco's 1983 card, team issued), his 1992 Donruss The Rookies card (which unlike the 1992 Fleer and Score cards could be pulled from packs), or his 1991 Line Drive card? For those who are unfamiliar, the 1991 Line Drive Set was similar to the modern day Bowman sets in that it was massed produced, had nothing but minor league cards in it, and was available in pack form.

Note that I did not give my personal opinion on this topic in any of what I posted above. In fact, this post should have probably been broken up into 2 separate posts, 1 involving the other sports and one focused on the baseball part. My personal opinion is that the 2013 Bowman paper Judge is an XRC (using the old school term) and the 2017 Topps is his rookie card. Like it has been posted in here, does it really matter? Not really. It should be up to the individual collector to collect what they like. The only thing I ask is that NOBODY better come in saying that the 1998 Topps Alex Rodriguez is a rookie card since it is his first Topps card!

[ThoseBackPages]

Very well said.

But this could have all been cleared up years ago if topps would have stopped the prospect insert cards

[oplum29]

a couple of things....

Originally Posted by Saraste

I am catching up on this thread so I don't know if it has been posted. There is a MAJOR difference, card-wise, between football and basketball (I will get to hockey in a moment) respectively and baseball. That is that those sports don't have the developmental system that baseball does, i.e. the minor leagues. There is no opportunity for there to be "minor league" cards of players in basketball and baseball.

Hockey is a bit different in that they do have the developmental system that baseball does. The difference is that traditionally there haven't been many cards produced of minor league hockey players. For those players who have IHL and NHL cards produced, which is considered their true rookie card. It is the same scenario. I am not a hockey card guy so I cannot answer the question. I defer to those who are.

Hockey has minor league cards that are not licensed by the NHL. In The Game (ITG) was their biggest producer and actually had Sidney Crosby cards about two years before Crosby got drafted.

Concerning baseball itself...let's compare 2 players: Aaron Judge and Jose Canseco. The argument for Judge is which is his rookie card, his 2013 Bowman paper or his 2017 Topps? Please note that I am selecting only 1 card from each year that are in the rookie card debate. For those who are in the camp that say the 2017 Topps Judge is his rookie card, presumably you are in agreement that Canseco's 1986 Donruss card is his rookie (once again using 1 card from that year). For those who think Judge's 2013 Bowman paper card is his rookie card, do you also think that Canseco's 1983 Madison Muskies card is Canseco's rookie card? They are both their respective first year cards.

I can see the argument now...The 1983 Canseco was not a mainstream card and only produced in team set form. However it is his first card, though I can see a good case made there. If you don't like the Canseco argument, then I present the 1990 Classic Chipper Jones, which was issued 1 year before his regularly accepted rookie cards. By then Classic was a mainstream set. For those who think the 2013 Bowman paper Judge is his rookie card, you must surely accept the 1990 Classic Jones as his rookie card, even if it was issued a year before his accepted rookies.

the Jones Classic card was a minor league card too. Beckett covered this many times in the 90s and never labeled them as rookie cards.

For those who then argue that the 1990 Classic Jones was not pack issued and was available only in set form, I present one more player for you to consider. For those who were into the hobby in the 1990's, you know the name Tim Wakefield. I ask which is his rookie card: His 1988 Watertown Pirates card (which was, like Canseco's 1983 card, team issued), his 1992 Donruss The Rookies card (which unlike the 1992 Fleer and Score cards could be pulled from packs), or his 1991 Line Drive card? For those who are unfamiliar, the 1991 Line Drive Set was similar to the modern day Bowman sets in that it was massed produced, had nothing but minor league cards in it, and was available in pack form.

Team issued cards aren't considered rookies because they aren't in nationally distributed sets and a lot of times, aren't licensed by the big leagues, only the minor leagues.

[HYPTZEMDSTRPLES]

I enjoyed reading the link about the 1989 UD Griffey rookie. I was on Cloud 9 when I pulled mine when I was 15 or 16. I still have it today.

[Saraste]

Originally Posted by oplum29

a couple of things....

Hockey has minor league cards that are not licensed by the NHL. In The Game (ITG) was their biggest producer and actually had Sidney Crosby cards about two years before Crosby got drafted.

the Jones Classic card was a minor league card too. Beckett covered this many times in the 90s and never labeled them as rookie cards.

Team issued cards aren't considered rookies because they aren't in nationally distributed sets and a lot of times, aren't licensed by the big leagues, only the minor leagues.

Like I said, I defer to people who know hockey cards as I do not.

The Classic card I am referring to is NOT the Classic Draft card, but the Classic yellow card, which was loaded with Major Leaguers in their Major League uniforms. In fact, he was the only Minor Leaguer in the set.

The Line Drive Set was a nationally distributed set available in packs and covered a myriad of Minor League teams.

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by Saraste

Like I said, I defer to people who know hockey cards as I do not.

The Classic card I am referring to is NOT the Classic Draft card, but the Classic yellow card, which was loaded with Major Leaguers in their Major League uniforms. In fact, he was the only Minor Leaguer in the set.

The Line Drive Set was a nationally distributed set available in packs and covered a myriad of Minor League teams.

ITG did the same. They had NHLers in those sets with the Crosby cards, however, they were in their minor league uniforms, not pro.

[RW3FAN]

1952 Topps Mantle? Or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by RW3FAN

1952 Topps Mantle? Or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

the 51 is actually his rookie, but I guess maybe because Topps is synonymous with baseball, that 52 card is the one to get?

IDK, that's an interesting case.

[RW3FAN]

Originally Posted by oplum29

the 51 is actually his rookie, but I guess maybe because Topps is synonymous with baseball, that 52 card is the one to get?

IDK, that's an interesting case.

Yup, Topps became king, so Bowman was 2nd rate. Plus the 52' Mantle was a major SP. Most high numbers ended up in a river cause they didn't sell.

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by RW3FAN

Yup, Topps became king, so Bowman was 2nd rate. Plus the 52' Mantle was a major SP. Most high numbers ended up in a river cause they didn't sell.

I actually saw the 52 Mantle in person, at a Collectible store in Vegas...beautiful card!

[vwnut13]

Originally Posted by RW3FAN

1952 Topps Mantle? Or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

1952 Topps Mantle isn't a Rookie Card in any way, shape, or form.


Is the 1952 Topps Willie Mays a Rookie Card?

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by vwnut13

1952 Topps Mantle isn't a Rookie Card in any way, shape, or form.


Is the 1952 Topps Willie Mays a Rookie Card?

he's got a 51' Bowman card like Mantle.

[oplum29]

found this article on that Mantle 52' card, really interesting.

http://sportsthenandnow.com/2017/05/...baseball-card/

[Chrisyork33]

Originally Posted by RW3FAN

1952 Topps Mantle? Or 1951 Bowman Mantle?

[QUOTE=Chrisyork33;12556259]The RC debate will always exist. It has always been a part of the hobby. For example, would you want a '51 Bowman or a '52 Topps Mantle?

Good to see someone else understands my argument.

[HYPTZEMDSTRPLES]

Originally Posted by oplum29

interesting story about a Kris Bryant "True rookie card" from BR today...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-baseball-card

this was my favorite part...

"The Bowman Chrome prospect cards, like the ones Bryant has, are typically considered by collectors to be a player's "true rookie card." Cards with autographs are even more valuable, for obvious reasons. So if there is one person with nearly all of these Kris Bryant cards, the collection could be valued over $500,000."

Good read. Are there other black wave autographs in the set? Were they inserted into packs.

[Syndygaard]

Originally Posted by Big35Hurt

Is it the first year card showing him in his MLB uniform? That's a RC in my opinion. Anything before that is a "prospect" card, which are fine, but hard to call them a RC if a player hasn't even been a "rookie" in the majors.

Very good point. Coming from a collector who for DECADES has believed 1st Bowman are the true RC.