Wander Franco Rookie Card Debate (2021 Bowman's Best vs. 2022 RC logo cards)

[Topps77]

Funny thing is....regardless of what you believe about Wander's RC it will be recognized as the 2022 Topps Series 1 in the hobby! I want to hear the Victor vs Eric at TBP debate?...pay per view live

[Topps77]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Acuna isnt, thats for sure

Acuna true RC is the 2018 Topps series 2 #698 bat down regardless of what people say? Why do people think that Bryce Harper's true RC is his 2012 topps update rookie debut? Rookie debut's are not true rookie cards...

[htn315]

Originally Posted by crohrer

150 pro AB’s you lose RC status.

Wander had 281 which makes him ineligible to be a RC in 2022.

It seems Topps and the collecting world only recognizes the year of the 1st Flagship Topps to be the True RC. Just look at Mantle. Why is the 52 Topps (2nd year card) more sought than the 51 Bowman (True RC)?

Bo Jackson only had 82 AB’s in 1986 but Topps considers that his True RC because it’s the 1st Flagship card of his. It even shows it on the back of 1991 SC.

Kirby Puckett had 557 AB’s in 1984 and he has the XRC in Fleer Update but because Topps didn’t produce a card in 84, everybody considers the 85 Topps to be his RC as well.


In short: Kirby was a RC in 84 not 85
Bo was a RC in 87 not 86
Yordan was a RC in 19 not 20
Wander was a RC in 21 not 22

1st Topps Flagship is the only factor in determining thee RC card to have with the exception of 1989.

If we base it off true RC status then that’s the year they reach 150 AB’s which would make the Wander Bowman a true RC.

This is a different spin on things but how do you apply this rule to guys like Jeter, Arod and Vlad. I don't think you'll find much people that don't consider their 93, 94 and 95 cards rookie cards and none of them achieved your required 150 at bats in their respective rookie card years.

[Topps77]

Originally Posted by htn315

This is a different spin on things but how do you apply this rule to guys like Jeter, Arod and Vlad. I don't think you'll find much people that don't consider their 93, 94 and 95 cards rookie cards and none of them achieved your required 150 at bats in their respective rookie card years.

You can say the same about Roger Clemens just like Kirby

[Topps77]

Originally Posted by htn315

This is a different spin on things but how do you apply this rule to guys like Jeter, Arod and Vlad. I don't think you'll find much people that don't consider their 93, 94 and 95 cards rookie cards and none of them achieved your required 150 at bats in their respective rookie card years.

84 Fleer Update

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by CanadianKid

You think Fanatics called up Topps last weekend and said yo Topps we buy you $500M, let us know by tonight?

They 110% if you are correct and they started printing 1-2 months ago knew that Fanatics was at the LEAST interested and if not already accepting they would sell.

Do you realize the work behind getting a deal like that done, the weeks, months and round clock lawyer work and hammering out details.

They 110% knew about the deal when they printed but nice try.

Printing and packout maybe within 1-2 months ago. However, cut off time for sending everything to the printer would have been much earlier if you believe this...

https://cardchat.substack.com/p/a-de...1-topps-update

[crohrer]

Originally Posted by htn315

This is a different spin on things but how do you apply this rule to guys like Jeter, Arod and Vlad. I don't think you'll find much people that don't consider their 93, 94 and 95 cards rookie cards and none of them achieved your required 150 at bats in their respective rookie card years.

It’s actually 130 AB’s. Great choice with Jeter. Technically by rule he was a RC in 96. Which would make everything prior a pre RC or prospect card as people are calling them. But since 93 was the 1st year Topps card of his that’s why it’s considered a RC. It really only comes down to Topps. The 1st flagship card of said player is deemed their RC card. The hobby acknowledges Topps deemed RC and its all said and done.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by zworykin

And even if you're willing to believe that they DID want to play games like that during the negotiation, it isn't like this is an "on our way out the door" situation in the first place. Fanatics doesn't have their own design and manufacturing. They aren't just buying the name and replacing the current Topps operations with their own. Aside from inevitable leadership changes and some "synergy" headcount reduction (as always in an acquisition), you've gotta figure most of the folks currently at Topps will still be at Fanatics-Topps after the deal closes. So how on earth would they stand to gain anything by playing games?

Scrapping the IPO cost Eisner his expected $600 mil payday. No financial gain from giving Fanatics the middle finger but a ton of satisfaction.

[crohrer]

Originally Posted by Topps77

You can say the same about Roger Clemens just like Kirby

Exactly! Clemens true RC year is 84 not 85. But since Topps didn’t make a card in 84, 85 is considered his RC as well. Should be 1st Topps card not RC card.

[k13]

Originally Posted by crohrer

It’s actually 130 AB’s. Great choice with Jeter. Technically by rule he was a RC in 96. Which would make everything prior a pre RC or prospect card as people are calling them. But since 93 was the 1st year Topps card of his that’s why it’s considered a RC. It really only comes down to Topps. The 1st flagship card of said player is deemed their RC card. The hobby acknowledges Topps deemed RC and its all said and done.

No one even cared about the Topps Jeter rc back then.
No one cared about Topps those years. They were considered the biggest trash and lowest of the low.
Only if pro set made baseball it would considered lower.

Now you have all these flagship sheep everywhere.

Upper Deck was what people wanted not some toilet paper.

[oplum29]

by every definition that was given by Beckett/MLBPA/MLB, and the card companies, i believe the 2021 ought to be the rookie.

but Topps couldn't release a 2022 product that would bring back memories of the junk wax era, so they saved the Franco for then. Franco in 2021 Update would have been epic, and the cost of Update 2021 right now wouldn't be $70 a box like they, they'd be around $150 or more.

but no, instead we have this debate which i don't think will ever really settle, because bottom line, if the 2021 BB card was released nationally under the rules, it's his rookie.

the only thing i can think is that BB released the card in the same fashion that Bowman does, so they fall under the pre-rookie category.

idk, i don't know too much about the 2021 release i guess.

when was it released? had Franco made his debut when the issue was released?

[koneil]

Originally Posted by oplum29

by every definition that was given by Beckett/MLBPA/MLB, and the card companies, i believe the 2021 ought to be the rookie.

but Topps couldn't release a 2022 product that would bring back memories of the junk wax era, so they saved the Franco for then. Franco in 2021 Update would have been epic, and the cost of Update 2021 right now wouldn't be $70 a box like they, they'd be around $150 or more.

but no, instead we have this debate which i don't think will ever really settle, because bottom line, if the 2021 BB card was released nationally under the rules, it's his rookie.

the only thing i can think is that BB released the card in the same fashion that Bowman does, so they fall under the pre-rookie category.

idk, i don't know too much about the 2021 release i guess.

when was it released? had Franco made his debut when the issue was released?

I’m really dying to hear what the MLB/MLBPA’s active definition of a RC is and where I can find it

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by htn315

Please elaborate?

Why would they be? Apparently a RC can be anything, or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[actionbryan]

Is there a chrome update checklist available ?


If not , could wanders inclusion lead us all to rejoice ?

Lou Bob had 20 chrome update rd that wasn’t in 20 update . So not impossible

[theshowandme]

My summary of hobby Twitter and BO over the last week

[pewe]

Originally Posted by oplum29

by every definition that was given by Beckett/MLBPA/MLB, and the card companies, i believe the 2021 ought to be the rookie.

…

but no, instead we have this debate which i don't think will ever really settle, because bottom line, if the 2021 BB card was released nationally under the rules, it's his rookie.

so… the only thing that defines “rookie card” to you is an index number on the back of the card?

Card design and clear purpose mean nothing?

In this hobby, how did we get so fixated on this card index number? It has next to no signaling about whether a card was designed and released to celebrate their MiLB progress / success (as Wanders’ card does), or it celebrates their MLB rookie or veteran experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[htn315]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Why would they be? Apparently a RC can be anything, or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm still confused. I'm paraphrasing here, but

Me: Rookie card is player's first base card, doesn't need to be from players rookie season

You: That means 2018 Soto and Acuna Update/Update Chrome are not rookie cards

Me: What?

You. This response.

So are you saying my base set criteria somehow disqualifies update or did somehow Acuna and Soto appear in 2017 base sets?

[oldgoldy97]

First base card in a mainstream set that is not an insert.

Seems pretty straightforward.


And I did preorder 2022 Series 1.

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

My summary of hobby Twitter and BO over the last week

I won't lie....I am amazed on how long this has carried on.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by pewe

so… the only thing that defines “rookie card” to you is an index number on the back of the card?

Card design and clear purpose mean nothing?

In this hobby, how did we get so fixated on this card index number? It has next to no signaling about whether a card was designed and released to celebrate their MiLB progress / success (as Wanders’ card does), or it celebrates their MLB rookie or veteran experiences.

What a card "celebrates" has never had any bearing on whether a card was a RC. He's in a set of major league baseball cards, that's all that matters.

But if we want to talk about what the card celebrates, the picture on the front is from a 2021 MLB game, his debut season.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by NYRE2PECT

I won't lie....I am amazed on how long this has carried on.

I'm not surprised at all. This is who we are. This is baseball card collecting in all its glory.

[Danderlion]

Sheesh... no matter how much both sides argue it won't change anything. Wander has a RC in 2021 BB and will have plenty of RCs in 2022. I know it hasn't work this way historically, but that's how this is going down, like it or not.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

What a card "celebrates" has never had any bearing on whether a card was a RC. He's in a set of major league baseball cards, that's all that matters.

But if we want to talk about what the card celebrates, the picture on the front is from a 2021 MLB game, his debut season.

But he’s not in a set of MLB cards there. He’s in the group of clearly delineated prospect cards as shown by fully different design and lack of MLBPA licensing. So by your logic then we are good defining this clearly as a MiLB card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danderlion]

Originally Posted by pewe

But he’s not in a set of MLB cards there. He’s in the group of clearly delineated prospect cards as shown by fully different design and lack of MLBPA licensing. So by your logic then we are good defining this clearly as a MiLB card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but the number on the card Pewe!

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I'm not surprised at all. This is who we are. This is baseball card collecting in all its glory.

No doubt - the passion for the hobby is strong!