Can someone once and for all clarify what a rookie card is?
 

I know there have been other threads about this but there are frequently a lot of contradictions about what a rookie card is.

From what is being said a rookie card has the player wearing the uniform of the Major League team. Any other card is a prospect card.

In the Bryce Harper thread the consensus seems to be the 2011 Bowman is this his best rookie card.

That card was released in 2011. Harper did not appear in the Major Leagues until 2012. Even though in the card he is wearing a Nationals jersey technically he is not wearing a Major League uniform.

I have seen this same circumstance with other players' rookie cards.

A card that, when you look on the back, has 1 year of major league stats.

A rookie card is anything with the RC logo, as dumb as Topps has been with using it

First licensed card in a standard set of licensed trading cards.

For Harper, 2011.

Though MLB begs to differ, so the debate continues.

First card in a Flagship series is THE RC. Other sets (i.e. Heritage, Archives) from the same year would also count as RCs. Bowman is primarily for prospect cards, though they do have some RC stamped cards.

Ahhh...the age old question that keeps popping back up every year. Does anyone really know the answer?

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/545132-rookie-card-debate-manny-machado.html[/url]

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/431760-first-machado-rookie-cards.html[/url]

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/178465-question-about-true-rookie-cards.html[/url]

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/77273-rookie-card-confusion-pertaining-strasburg-harper.html[/url]

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/18181-what-his-true-rookie-card-2003ud-2007-a.html[/url]

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/17089-question-about-rc-cards.html[/url]

Times of uncertainty make me refer to this picture for reassurance, courtesy of the all-knowing MLBPA.

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Jaypers/media/MLBPA.jpg.html][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/Jaypers/MLBPA.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

RC are rookies cards

1st Bowman Cards are the more valuable/desirable cards

/Thread

[QUOTE=enbambam6986;10522335]RC are rookies cards

1st Bowman Cards are the more valuable/desirable cards

/Thread[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I think people like rookies as much as prospect.

But I see your point

[QUOTE=WillBBC;10522190]First licensed card in a standard set of licensed trading cards.

For Harper, 2011.

Though MLB begs to differ, so the debate continues.[/QUOTE]

The Debate continues because of thoughts like this. You are incorrect, you seem to know you are incorrect with 2011 being Harpers Rookie.

They messed it up back in 2006. It used to be their first MLB card was a Rookie card but in 2006 they changed it to you cannot have a Rookie Card until you make the Majors. SO Bryce Harpers Rookies are in 2012 (the later part)
Their first cards are "Technically" Prospect Cards and Inserts. It only cause confusion and arguments imo.

[QUOTE=msterling21;10522170]A card that, when you look on the back, has 1 year of major league stats.[/QUOTE]

The 80's called, they want their rookie cards back.

Whatever Topps wants a rookie card to be.

As people above have stated, there is an actual definition. Though, it's flexible. For instance, for Carl Yastremski, he didn't play his first major league game until 1961, so technically, based on the definition, his rookie card would be 1962 even though he has a 1960 topps card (which is his rookie card) and a 1961 Topps card.

For me, it's the first bowman/topps card that shows the player on a major league team. So, 1984 fleer update Clemens, 2011 Bowman Prospects Bryce Harper, etc etc. I guess that's part of the problem is that there are different guidelines depending who you ask.

[QUOTE=JWBlue;10522147]I know there have been other threads about this but there are frequently a lot of contradictions about what a rookie card is.

From what is being said a rookie card has the player wearing the uniform of the Major League team. Any other card is a prospect card.

In the Bryce Harper thread the consensus seems to be the 2011 Bowman is this his best rookie card.

That card was released in 2011. Harper did not appear in the Major Leagues until 2012. Even though in the card he is wearing a Nationals jersey technically he is not wearing a Major League uniform.

I have seen this same circumstance with other players' rookie cards.[/QUOTE]

I think the answer to the question in your title is no, especially based on all of the answers already given.

The term 'rookie card' now has an official meaning and logo, but I still use it the way I always did. I consider the first appearance in a major licensed release to be the RC.

I realize Harper didn't have a Bowman auto in 2010, but I'd still consider his best base RC to be the 2010 Chrome from Bowman (not Bowman Chrome). I know he's not in an MLB uniform, but I think more about the set it's in and not the uniform.

I think most (not all) people consider McGwire's rookie card to be 1985 Topps, which has him in a Team USA uniform. In the end, there are so many cards released before a player's debut, there probably won't ever be a true consensus.

The only common sense approach to defining a RC today is to use the same definition we already use from cards 50 or 100 years ago when nobody cared or knew about licenses, logos and manufacturers would never dream of attempting to pass pre-MLB subjects as MLB ones.

Funny licenses, logos and photoshop don't determine whether a player is a rookie, years of MLB service does. Just like with cards from the other sports.

Licenses, logos and photoshop are needed by Topps, but not collectors, because licenses, logos and photoshop artificially allow Topps to make even MORE cards with MLB logos by playing around with the traditional definitions of what an MLB player is. (And who knows best who MLB players are? The obvious answer is the MLBPA Major League Baseball Player's Association!!)

Topps will ALWAYS try to produce as many cards as it can for profit. It will ALWAYS play both sides of ANY licensing and logo discussion against the middle to produce more cards for more profit than it could if it only took one side.

The people (prospectors) who would like to believe pre-MLB subjects could be featured on RCs are just like Topps here; they're generally just looking to artificially create markets where none previously existed. None of this has anything to do with players or the league, just about creating new markets no matter how artificial they might be.

[B][I]The obvious problem with this discussion is that the hobby in general doesn't appreciate the minor leagues or anything to do with it, really.[/I][/B] The hobby prefers to believe or pretends the minor leagues don't exist, this is the real shame that constantly gets glossed over.

I always look for the RC logo.

[QUOTE=enbambam6986;10522335]RC are rookies cards

1st Bowman Cards are the more valuable/desirable cards

/Thread[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jared6180;10522765]I always look for the RC logo.[/QUOTE]

That's my take on it. Just like my sig says, prospect cards are NOT rookies, IMO. So no, Trout 09 BC, Harper 11 BC, Machado 10 BC, Bryant 13 BC are all prospect cards, not rookies.

1st Bowman prospect cards will be worth more, but it's not like the cards with 'RC' (Topps Flagship, Topps Chrome, Heritage, Update, etc.) are worthless.

The problem now is by the time a prospect becomes a rookie (by MLB standards), they've already had thousands of autos in multiple products.

[QUOTE=bcubs;10522358]The 80's called, they want their rookie cards back.[/QUOTE]


Even the '80s we had this dilemma.. The XRC...

It's all over the place now. In attempting to make it more clear, they made it much, much more muddy. Personally, I am alright with anyone calling any pack-pulled, licensed base card that is made before or during a player's official rookie season a rookie card. That and if it says RC or Rookie Card on the front of the card. Hard to argue.

[QUOTE=no10pin;10522592]I think most (not all) people consider McGwire's rookie card to be 1985 Topps, which has him in a Team USA uniform. In the end, there are so many cards released before a player's debut, there probably won't ever be a true consensus.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, when I was a kid in the late 80's early 90's even Beckett didn't consider the USA card a rookie, as he wasn't pictured in a MLB uniform at the time. They used to have the FTC designation for it (First Topps Card), while the 1987 Topps got the RC designation in the price guide.

Of course that was before prospect cards blew up, so it's not like much of what they used to do back in the day matters anymore.

I don't care what anyone says, they can't...This subject is a joke...

It could be as simple as this...The 1st year a player plays in an official professional MLB game is his rookie year.

At the very least, have a universal RC logo on any rookie card...

Let's be real. Take Bryce Harper for example. Can anyone make a valid argument that any Harper card from 2008 to 2012 can't be called a rookie card? I do believe there is a difference between RC and "rookie card". The difference being "rookie card" is a loose definition and RC is finite.

[QUOTE=Soxrule111;10522341]The Debate continues because of thoughts like this. You are incorrect, you seem to know you are incorrect with 2011 being Harpers Rookie.

They messed it up back in 2006. It used to be their first MLB card was a Rookie card but in 2006 they changed it to you cannot have a Rookie Card until you make the Majors. SO Bryce Harpers Rookies are in 2012 (the later part)
Their first cards are "Technically" Prospect Cards and Inserts. It only cause confusion and arguments imo.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It bugs me that they added the logo. We, as collectors, have been deciding what a rookie card is for decades, why mess with that!?

I like to stand by Beckett's pre-2006 definition personally and will continue to do so. I guess this question is part of the beauty of collecting--it's highly subjective. If the RC logo is never introduced would you then consider his 2011 Bowman/Chrome issues his rookie cards?

Which year of cards would you consider David Wright's rookie cards? You could go 2002, or even 2004 if you're so inclined. Hell, you could bring up 2001 Upper Deck Prospect Premieres but that was non-MLBPA licensed which is another confusing addition. Now my brain hurts.

Either way, I personally think the realized prices paint a clear picture as to what is most desirable (and is typically a non-RC-logo card that I consider a rookie card) and historically that is a rookie card.

Just to keep the discussion going, I laugh when people count Bowman cards as being a major league card. Never forget, all you are getting is a minor league card that someone photoshopped, usually badly.

[img]http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/2008/Bowman-Draft-Picks--Prospects-Prospects-Chrome/BDPP125/Josh-Reddick.jpg?id=7f905983-5473-45ad-9f5c-9eb80a338481&size=zoom[/img]

To summarize
Photoshopping out logos = garbage
[img]http://www.iujapandercards.com/uploads/1/2/1/4/12145590/7827717_orig.jpg[/img]

Leaving the photo alone = everyone ignores it
[img]http://www.iujapandercards.com/uploads/1/2/1/4/12145590/9358935_orig.jpg[/img]

Photoshop in a logo = king
[img]http://www.iujapandercards.com/uploads/1/2/1/4/12145590/634850344.jpg[/img]


So many of you would consider the above chrome card Alex Dickerson's rookie card. How many games did he play for the Pirates again?

Or is this his rookie card. Where he is actually in a uniform, not photoshopped, for the team he actually played a major league game with?

[img]http://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/2016/Topps/281/Alex-Dickerson.jpg?id=954ed726-d7c9-43fc-87ae-29b3db8126a0&size=zoom[/img]

[QUOTE=Peties Army;10522337]I disagree. I think people like rookies as much as prospect.

But I see your point[/QUOTE]

For non-autos, a case could be made. But in terms of 1st Bowman Chrome autos vs Bowman/Topps Chrome RC autos... no contest.