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

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

How did anyone know what a rookie card was before the logo?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying presence of the logo is what makes it a rookie card. There have been plenty of examples, many cited in this thread, of mistakes in applying or omitting the logo.

I am saying the folks who will be pissing in little Billy's cornflakes when Billy displays on instagram his RCs that have the logo, telling Billy his cards are "not actually RCs" will have the uphill battle at that time explaining why. Explaining the rule. Explaining this set. Explaining why the rule should be applied without exception in such an odd case.

And we both know those cornflake pissing comments will happen, because people can't help themselves.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by pewe

I thought the definition is:

“a ‘rookie card’ must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players… It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card”

…I don’t believe the BBest Wander card meets that definition fully. Particularly it is not MLBPA licensed.

So how is it not Pandora’s box if we do accept it as a ‘rookie card’?

That definition came from BaseballCardPedia.com and is not the definition Beckett works with. Particularly the MLB/MLBPA part. I asked Cracknell.

[rangerfan19]

Originally Posted by Bcr

Imagine being a kid trying to rationalize this. The checklist and card both say it's a rookie, but an old hobby vet comes out explaining the number on the back of the card 3 years ago says it's not. "OK Boomer"...

Isn't this similar to explaining to anyone in 2007 (or today) that the 2007 Topps #625 Josh Hamilton card is not a rookie.....even though it includes the RC logo. People were understanding before and will be again.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

My opinion about how to apply the Rookie Card Definition doesn't care about your feelings

FIFY

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Shankweather, you have been civil in this thread at all times and have argued the points, not the people, and for that, you have earned my respect, if not my agreement.

I contend that Topps really did make the hobby worse, because they've taken away, in many minds, rookie cards in the majority of products for all 30 of these players. If the rule is applied that is.

It's not even about value. It's something less tangible than that---that 2022 Flagship's, or 2023 Chrome's, or 2024 Heritage's top "RCs" are in question and may not be desirable. "That's not a RC, are you one of those slaves for the logo?" Who wants to collect what is questionable and not desirable? There will be a lot of folks peeing in people's cornflakes over this, on both sides. In that sense, this makes the hobby worse.

That said, I do agree with redauto5 above that the genie is out of the bottle now. Those conversations are inevitable now. But folks need to understand there are 2 reasonable sides to this issue. My motivation for posting was watching this thread devolve into so many of the "RC truther" crowd (but not you) act so arrogant and dismissive of other viewpoints.

Agree to disagree, Shank has been one of the few reasonable people in this thread

[SaltyCracker]

Originally Posted by pewe

I thought the definition is:

“a ‘rookie card’ must come from a fully-licensed (both MLB and MLBPA), nationally-distributed set that is primarily focused on current Major League players… It must be a base card and cannot be an insert, parallel, or redemption card”

…I don’t believe the BBest Wander card meets that definition fully. Particularly it is not MLBPA licensed.

So how is it not Pandora’s box if we do accept it as a ‘rookie card’?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Officially licensed product of Major League Baseball, Licensed by MLBPA, 2021”

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying presence of the logo is what makes it a rookie card. There have been plenty of examples, many cited in this thread, of mistakes in applying or omitting the logo.

I am saying the folks who will be pissing in little Billy's cornflakes when Billy displays on instagram his RCs that have the logo, telling Billy his cards are "not actually RCs" will have the uphill battle at that time explaining why. Explaining the rule. Explaining this set. Explaining why the rule should be applied without exception in such an odd case.

And we both know those cornflake pissing comments will happen, because people can't help themselves.

If we didn't abuse our children by withholding Beckett subscriptions from them, none of this would be an issue.

Also, if someone tells little Billy his "RC" isn't really a RC, that's not cool. ThoseBackPages would never do that. (Right?) I refrain from telling people their sticker autos are trash all the time, this is the same kind of thing. We don't have to well-actually every 2022 Wander Franco we see.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by SaltyCracker

Not licensed by MLBPA




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

if Topps would have discontinued the Bowman brand after 2005, we wouldnt have this issue

[oldgoldy97]

Only one side seems to be getting butt hurt. Heck, they even talked about getting bent over. How exactly is anyone getting bent over? Nobody is making anyone buy any cards.

[rangerfan19]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

If we didn't abuse our children by withholding Beckett subscriptions from them, none of this would be an issue.

Also, if someone tells little Billy his "RC" isn't really a RC, that's not cool. ThoseBackPages would never do that. (Right?) I refrain from telling people their sticker autos are trash all the time, this is the same kind of thing. We don't have to well-actually every 2022 Wander Franco we see.

I totally agree with this. Shaming anyone over their thoughts on baseball cards is ridiculous. Debating is super fun though! I haven't talked about cards this much in quite a while....online or in person!

[kordell1]

Here's a fun question. If some newbie over at Topps had thought he would be cool and add a Mike Trout base card to the Bowman Draft set and numbered it BD27 stuck right in the middle of a prospect only set, would that make it a Mike Trout prospect card, make the entire rest of the set RC's or neither?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by Bcr

Agree to disagree, Shank has been one of the few reasonable people in this thread

Then I was not clear. Because I was saying the same thing, and commending him for it.

[SaltyCracker]

Originally Posted by pewe

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#50 from the base set. Rc!

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Only one side seems to be getting butt hurt. Heck, they even talked about getting bent over. How exactly is anyone getting bent over? Nobody is making anyone buy any cards.

lol that comment struck a nerve with you, huh? Sorry to hurt your feelings!

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Then I was not clear. Because I was saying the same thing, and commending him for it.

If you all want to fight about how cool I am, that's fine by me!

[1800gambler]

Topps is dicking me around on shipping my bowmans best box. I want to see if I pull one from my one box to see what side of the debate I have to choose to be on haha jk.

But for real, I’m newly back in the hobby so I don’t have much hang ups on them breaking the rookie card rules/criteria/tradition, but if I were personally wanting to buy wander rookie singles. I’d probably go with the rookie shields in topps series 1 because regular people (not in the hobby) aren’t gonna have the slightest idea about this in 10 years when they’re looking to buy a wander rookie card. They’re not gonna get this whole thing with criteria and rookie rules explained to them. They’ll see RC badge they’ll buy. And will pay a premium over the supposed true rookie with no RC badge imo

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by 1800gambler

Topps is dicking me around on shipping my bowmans best box. I want to see if I pull one from my one box to see what side of the debate I have to choose to be on haha jk

Schrodinger's rookie card

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Then I was not clear. Because I was saying the same thing, and commending him for it.

I was just trying to say I feel the same way lol. Agree to disagree with Shank that is, he has been good to debate with.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rangerfan19

I totally agree with this. Shaming anyone over their thoughts on baseball cards is ridiculous. Debating is super fun though! I haven't talked about cards this much in quite a while....online or in person!

Right?!? The inane conversation is the best part of the hobby

I’m unlikely to ever own any Wander rookie cards, but doesn’t make the debate any less fun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

How did anyone know what a rookie card was before the logo?

Apparently you could even be on an Olympic team as a rookie card, and not on a MLB team or MiLB team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by ClevelandIC

Favorite thing I've read about this entire discussion! I hope we call the cards from this set the Thoughtful Thirty from now on!

I had some inspiration this morning while future casting - all 30 of these names will be burned into a lot of collectors minds as time elapses. The next step, in my mind, was that they will need a name as a group.

The Thoughtful Thirty was head and shoulders the best I could come up with, glad you like it!

If someone else wants to throw a name into the ring, by all means do so. It could be fun debating the merits of each!

When goldy posted BB50 for the first time I saw a future with that moniker being an important part of the hobby. Those 30 need such a name.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[htn315]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying presence of the logo is what makes it a rookie card. There have been plenty of examples, many cited in this thread, of mistakes in applying or omitting the logo.

I am saying the folks who will be pissing in little Billy's cornflakes when Billy displays on instagram his RCs that have the logo, telling Billy his cards are "not actually RCs" will have the uphill battle at that time explaining why. Explaining the rule. Explaining this set. Explaining why the rule should be applied without exception in such an odd case.

And we both know those cornflake pissing comments will happen, because people can't help themselves.

It feels like you're projecting here, your hypothetical hasn't happened yet because none of these guys have RC logos but you have been coming in here pissing on our cereal telling us that these aren't rookie cards. It's his first base card it's a rookie card, it's pretty simple to me but you've been trying to convince us otherwise by saying these were made in error, we should make an exception etc etc so aren't you doing what you think we're going to do to little Billy? I can't speak for the rest of the guys but if I see his IG post and decide to comment on it, it will be "Nice card" because it's a hobby collect what you like.

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by htn315

It feels like you're projecting here, your hypothetical hasn't happened yet because none of these guys have RC logos but you have been coming in here pissing on our cereal telling us that these aren't rookie cards. It's his first base card it's a rookie card, it's pretty simple to me but you've been trying to convince us otherwise by saying these were made in error, we should make an exception etc etc so aren't you doing what you think we're going to do to little Billy? I can't speak for the rest of the guys but if I see his IG post and decide to comment on it, it will be "Nice card" because it's a hobby collect what you like.

I don't think one scenario is comparable to the other at all. I'm just participating in the debate about whether these are RCs, in a thread about that topic.

Totally different from someone displaying the card just to display the card "Look at the Wander Topps RC I just pulled," out of the context of this conversation, and someone chiming in with "that's not his RC you know." This is going to happen on instagram, on Facebook, in player threads here. Don't tell me it won't, because you know it will.

If arguing that it's not a RC in a thread about whether or not it's a RC is pissing in someone's cornflakes, then saying it *is* a RC is just as culpable. There can be no discussion at all!

[htn315]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Apparently you could even be on an Olympic team as a rookie card, and not on a MLB team or MiLB team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you're trying to be facetious but it's true as long as they're included in a base set with major leaguers it's a rookie card. McGwire, Nomar and Helton are the 3 that come to mind, but you can grab the 1987 McGwire's, 1996 Nomar's or 1997 Helton's if you prefer buying cards that were released after their MLB debut, collect what you like.