What is a true MLB RC?

[sportcardtheory]

I know what the consensus will be here, but let's try this anyway.

[Peties Army]

Here. Enjoy.

http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/b...bol-cards.html

[enbambam6986]

Has the RC logo

[Yankees_Pride]

Straight from MLB

Determining rookie status:
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

[jmscoggin]

Originally Posted by Yankees_Pride

Straight from MLB

Determining rookie status:
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

This is not used for cards though, it is used for awards such as ROY. A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

[sportcardtheory]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

And this is why there is confusion. Everyone makes their own rules. lol

[jmscoggin]

Originally Posted by sportcardtheory

And this is why there is confusion. Everyone makes their own rules. lol

Not 'my' rules, I believe this is the way the card companies have done it for some time.

[bbuckert24]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

This is not used for cards though, it is used for awards such as ROY. A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

100000000000000000% agree

[sportcardtheory]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

Not 'my' rules, I believe this is the way the card companies have done it for some time.

That's just not true at all. Not even close. Card companies just release cards. The hobby itself defines what the cards are designated. What is printed on a card is meaningless. That's why people don't consider 1996 Derek Jeter cards RCs even though most of them have ROOKIE plastered all over them. Card companies were releasing, in base sets, prospect cards at such a torrid pace that MLB felt the need to step in and implement RC Logo rules, which are completely pointless when they still allow prospects to be on MLB-licensed cards. You are giving the card companies WAY too much credit here. They don't have anything to do with what or what isn't a RC.

[SaveMeTheGum]

I know that there are some hard core RC nazi's out there, but for me, it's the first officially licensed card showing a player in their major league uniform regardless of rookie status.

So, 1960 Topps Yastrzemski (didn't play a game until 1961), 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (1984 was his rookie year), 1993 SP Jeter (didn't play a game until 1995), 2009 BC Trout,etc etc. I don't care when they are officially rookies per MLB. If they have a card in uni of major league team, then that's their rookie card.

[pensfan87893]

Maybe just me, but every time I look for a rc I look for the 1st Bowman chrome card.

[sportcardtheory]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

I know that there are some hard core RC nazi's out there, but for me, it's the first officially licensed card showing a player in their major league uniform regardless of rookie status.

So, 1960 Topps Yastrzemski (didn't play a game until 1961), 1984 Fleer Update Clemens (1984 was his rookie year), 1993 SP Jeter (didn't play a game until 1995), 2009 BC Trout,etc etc. I don't care when they are officially rookies per MLB. If they have a card in uni of major league team, then that's their rookie card.

Those cards are still RCs because they were in MLB-licensed base sets. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are rookies.

[chezball]

in before poof

[jewcer2k5]

Meant to vote for RC Logo card and read the options wrong.

[Technochocolate]

The first card (or multiple cards if applicable across multiple sets in a single year) that appears in a base set alongside other major league players. That simple. Ignore the RC designation, just use that definition.

The Bowman Prospect cards of today (labeled BP or BDPP or whatever) aren't RCs because those aren't considered base cards by topps. Topps Pro Debut or Heritage Minors don't count because no major leaguers or major league teams appear. For junk era cards, those are rookie cards where the top prospects and draft picks snuck into the base set.

I don't understand why the "first cards in a base set including other major league players" rule is so tough to interpret.

[Hallco]

The real question...what is Felix Potvin's "True" RC?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

The first card (or multiple cards if applicable across multiple sets in a single year) that appears in a base set alongside other major league players. That simple. Ignore the RC designation, just use that definition.

The Bowman Prospect cards of today (labeled BP or BDPP or whatever) aren't RCs because those aren't considered base cards by topps. Topps Pro Debut or Heritage Minors don't count because no major leaguers or major league teams appear. For junk era cards, those are rookie cards where the top prospects and draft picks snuck into the base set.

I don't understand why the "first cards in a base set including other major league players" rule is so tough to interpret.

It's not tough to interpret, but it's just an opinion. And other opinions differ.

[TarjetasBéisbol]

Ugh...another one of these RC threads?? How many more before the season ends?

[whitesoxfan3579]

Originally Posted by bbuckert24

100000000000000000% agree

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

This is not used for cards though, it is used for awards such as ROY. A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

I agree with this definition. The problem is different people value cards differently during different times. I don't recall any cards in the 50s 60s or 70s (and I believe early 80s) with a RC logo. Today a lot of weight is placed on the first bowman chrome auto or a Topps Chrome rookie auto card. Sometimes card companies hold out the release of a players "rookie" card until a year later to help sell their other products.

It doesn't get any easier with the other terms that are thrown around in the hobby. For instance, a player's second year card has a lot more meaning in the world of vintage as opposed to the modern era (even those eras are defined differently depending on who you ask). In the case of Pete Rose or Nolan Ryan their second year card represented their first card pictured without other players and that increased their collectibile value in the eyes of certain people.

Compounding matters is the seemingly infinite supply of product released for prospects, rookies, and retired players. Does a player really ever have a last card anymore? Nowadays, it's a last card during a playing career. And even then things may get dicey. Sandy Koufaxs last card? Some people will point to his Topps base card while others will point to his last Topps "insert card" that came out later.

There are no easy answers. When a question gets asked at work that can have three or four different answers I typically begin my answer with "It depends." I think that answer in itself applies to a lot of situations in the hobby and in life in general.

[rainbowkiller]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

This is not used for cards though, it is used for awards such as ROY. A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

This is exactly right.

People's opinion of all the logos (RC, 1st Bowman, MLB logos on Bowman) is often up for sale. Pre-RCs with MLB logos produce the greatest market volatility... and one can't profit on a market that offers no volatility.

How much would anyone pay for reality - Bowman with only a MiLB license? Everyone knows they'd be practically worthless, although I'd love them as I do Topps Debut.

And Topps plays both sides against the middle because they want people buying all of their logos.

My solution: get rid of the imaginary logos and use common sense, just like it used to be before the hobby started to decline in the '90s. But then again, I don't need to profit off this hobby so someone else may not like this idea.

[tkraft24]

Originally Posted by rainbowkiller

This is exactly right.

People's opinion of all the logos (RC, 1st Bowman, MLB logos on Bowman) is often up for sale. Pre-RCs with MLB logos produce the greatest market volatility... and one can't profit on a market that offers no volatility.

How much would anyone pay for reality - Bowman with only a MiLB license? Everyone knows they'd be practically worthless, although I'd love them as I do Topps Debut.

And Topps plays both sides against the middle because they want people buying all of their logos.

My solution: get rid of the imaginary logos and use common sense, just like it used to be before the hobby started to decline in the '90s. But then again, I don't need to profit off this hobby so someone else may not like this idea.

Agree with your agree.

The notion of a rookie card became an obsession during the mass-produced era without anyone giving much thought to an actual definition. It was loosely associated with a players first MLB base card.

It's only been in the past couple decades that the definition of a rookie card has been under fire. The rise of Bowman...and Bowman Draft....and Bowman Prospects....etc etc has flooded the card market with cards of players in MLB uniforms who might not ever play a game in the pictured uniform.

That got people thinking "hey.....these aren't rookie cards" or "what the heck is his rookie card?" thus the (RC) logo was fabricated in an attempt to lend credibility (an assurance of value) to the rookie card phenomena. Bowman minor league brands maintained their own niche as prospect cards.

Sorry traditionalists but I refuse to believe players who never reach the big leagues have MLB rookie cards.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

This is not used for cards though, it is used for awards such as ROY. A true RC should be any non insert card issued for the season in which a player first had an MLB at bat or threw a pitch. Anything before is a prospect card and anything after is a veteran card.

FTR, none of the above choices are correct.

This.

[Steve2112]

Originally Posted by tkraft24

Sorry traditionalists but I refuse to believe players who never reach the big leagues have MLB rookie cards.

THANK you. You get it. It doesn't matter if they're in a set with other MLB players, or if a card from a set three years ago is their most desirable/valuable. If you don't appear in the majors, you don't have a true rookie card.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

The first card (or multiple cards if applicable across multiple sets in a single year) that appears in a base set alongside other major league players. That simple. Ignore the RC designation, just use that definition.

The Bowman Prospect cards of today (labeled BP or BDPP or whatever) aren't RCs because those aren't considered base cards by topps. Topps Pro Debut or Heritage Minors don't count because no major leaguers or major league teams appear. For junk era cards, those are rookie cards where the top prospects and draft picks snuck into the base set.

I don't understand why the "first cards in a base set including other major league players" rule is so tough to interpret.

This is the closest to the definition that's been used ... for decades.

[rainbowkiller]

Originally Posted by Steve2112

THANK you. You get it. It doesn't matter if they're in a set with other MLB players, or if a card from a set three years ago is their most desirable/valuable. If you don't appear in the majors, you don't have a true rookie card.

Sure, but here's the rub though: How does this definition square with what the card actually looks like?

At the risk of offending Topps: If you haven't appeared in the majors, you shouldn't be wearing a major league jersey on a card.