Cards that should have a RC logo but don't

[smapdi]

The "inserts aren't rookie cards" comes from Beckett. They declared that only base cards, not inserts or parallels, could be considered a rookie card. Once super-shortprinted base cards came along in the late 90s, they even debated a print-run requirement. There was a hockey set with base rookies #/99, and Mike Comrie, a hugely anticipated junior, was in it and they weren't sure about tagging it as a rookie. They ultimately did, though. They tried to maintain these rules even as card companies came out with different kinds of products that required evermore contortional logic to maintain.

TBH, I don't know a single collector who followed Beckett's rule on these, especially parallels. But it became ingrained in hobby lore. Dealers and collectors alike having as many cards as possible be called rookie cards. If I open a pack of 1996 Topps Chrome and pull a Kobe and a Kobe refractor, are you seriously telling me the dull, flat card is a rookie but the shiny rainbow card isn't? Because of reasons?

[base set]

Just getting started on ripping some Update. It would appear to me that the #US153 Joel Payamps is certainly a First Topps Card, something I keep a running collection of. Should it have an RC logo? His only other non-MiLB card is a 2013 Panini Elite Extra Edition card for a team he never played for (Rockies), which is 11 years before his FTC and 6 years before his brief MLB debut in 2019, with no cards produced until now. So in the FTC binder it goes but quite an ‘edge case’ on the RC logo concept. Nobody likes Relievers.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by base set

Just getting started on ripping some Update. It would appear to me that the #US153 Joel Payamps is certainly a First Topps Card, something I keep a running collection of. Should it have an RC logo? His only other non-MiLB card is a 2013 Panini Elite Extra Edition card for a team he never played for (Rockies), which is 11 years before his FTC and 6 years before his brief MLB debut in 2019, with no cards produced until now. So in the FTC binder it goes but quite an ‘edge case’ on the RC logo concept. Nobody likes Relievers.

He’s played in parts of six MLB seasons, so even though it may be his first Topps card, it doesn’t meet the qualifications for the RC logo.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by smapdi

The "inserts aren't rookie cards" comes from Beckett. They declared that only base cards, not inserts or parallels, could be considered a rookie card. Once super-shortprinted base cards came along in the late 90s, they even debated a print-run requirement. There was a hockey set with base rookies #/99, and Mike Comrie, a hugely anticipated junior, was in it and they weren't sure about tagging it as a rookie. They ultimately did, though. They tried to maintain these rules even as card companies came out with different kinds of products that required evermore contortional logic to maintain.

TBH, I don't know a single collector who followed Beckett's rule on these, especially parallels. But it became ingrained in hobby lore. Dealers and collectors alike having as many cards as possible be called rookie cards. If I open a pack of 1996 Topps Chrome and pull a Kobe and a Kobe refractor, are you seriously telling me the dull, flat card is a rookie but the shiny rainbow card isn't? Because of reasons?

The refractor is a parallel of a RC, which is even better than a RC. I'm all for leaving the logo on parallels because it's a parallel of a card with the logo!

If every card released during a player's RC season was a RC, it would be impossible to complete a player's RC set (see below). It's not that rookie year inserts and parallels aren't valuable, obviously they are, and even people who don't think they're true RCs collect them and pay good money for them. RC and Value aren't the same.

[Shankweather]

PSA has hundreds of rookie card sets on their registry, none of them include inserts or parallels.

https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...position/14961

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

This is the very definition of a non-sequitur...and is also incorrect.

The definition of RC has nothing to do with desirability. It pertains to a player's status as a MLB player as per MLB rules.

Clearly you're attempting to gauge desirability and not agreed upon definitions, so your list is inaccurate...and frankly, many prefer the real RC with the logo anyway. Sorry if this has an impact on what are now considered pre-RCs, but that shouldn't be the point of all of this.

Verlander's 2006 RC will always be a RC by written and commonly accepted MLB definition...and should have the logo, like it or not.

The worst and most confusing thing to have happened with baseball cards since 1995 is the addition of MLB logos on pre-RCs.

Not the rule, never has been the rule. I'll never understand why some people are so eager to bow to the MLBPA on this. We don't have to change our rules for them. It's our hobby.

The first year a player has base cards in MLB sets, those are rookie cards.

1960 Topps Carl Yastrzemski
1985 Topps Mark McGwire
1993 SP Derek Jeter
2005 Topps Justin Verlander

It has never been about when they debuted. Does he have a base card in a Major League Baseball set? That's a rookie card. That is the only rule that works both pre- and post-2006. It covers all of 1948-2024. Topps has acknowledged this rule by the way they construct their checklists. All pre-RC cards are restricted to prospect sets and insert sets (until they screwed up with 2021 Bowman's Best that is). There's a reason Pete Crow-Armstrong never had a base card until 2024. Because that's the rule and Topps follows it, most of the time. The logo recognizes rookie cards, it doesn't define them.

[OscarOne]

Maybe I am in the minority, but I like the rule that rookie cards are only base cards. It's a simple rule, and it keeps a good entry point for new collectors at manageable levels.

This also should not impact "values". You can still have rookie cards that are parallels and inserts, they just don't get the tag.

[smanzari]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

The first year a player has base cards in MLB sets, those are rookie cards.

1993 SP Derek Jeter

I don't mean to get technical on you, but the Stadium Club Murphy Jeter was technically printed in 1992, despite being released in 1Q 1993 (has a 1992 Copyright) - wouldn't that be his only rookie then?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by smanzari

I don't mean to get technical on you, but the Stadium Club Murphy Jeter was technically printed in 1992, despite being released in 1Q 1993 (has a 1992 Copyright) - wouldn't that be his only rookie then?

That's a great example of hobby then vs hobby now. In 1993 we all decided that it was a 1993 card because it came out in 1993, regardless of whether it said 1992 on it somewhere. Now we let Topps release cards in May 2024 and still call them 2023 cards. Because...logo.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

That's a great example of hobby then vs hobby now. In 1993 we all decided that it was a 1993 card because it came out in 1993, regardless of whether it said 1992 on it somewhere. Now we let Topps release cards in May 2024 and still call them 2023 cards. Because...logo.

Regardless of when the cards actually came out, it makes sense for them to be referenced by their intended year. If Topps is late on 2024 Bowman’s Best and releases it in early January ‘25, but then gets back on schedule and releases 2025 Bowman’s Best in December of ‘25… I don’t want there to be two “2025 Bowman’s Best releases”. That’s just silly. Especially when we know one was in the 2024 group of releases, regardless of the exact release date. So I’m glad the hobby adapted and made this change. Assuming the years stay in sequential order. Obviously Topps can’t release a 1993 Bowman’s Best now, but that’s just common sense stuff.

[Shankweather]

I’m ok with Jan and Feb releases, especially if they come out before Series 1. But May? Nah. There has to be a limit. And before Covid, it wasn’t nearly this bad. Dynasty always came out in November or December.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I’m ok with Jan and Feb releases, especially if they come out before Series 1. But May? Nah. There has to be a limit. And before Covid, it wasn’t nearly this bad. Dynasty always came out in November or December.

It has gotten real bad recently. Even everyone’s favorite 2021 Bowman’s Best squeaked out a late December release, if I remember correctly. I just hope we don’t start seeing Panini-levels of lateness once they start doing Football and Basketball.

[base set]

Seems to me 24 Update is chock full of First Topps Cards, without the RC logo. One thing I have always done, aside from consulting corockie’s handy list here, is to see how COMC is designating cards on this topic.

Tonight I looked into the cards for Cristopher Sanchez, who started 18 games quite successfully for the Phillies last year but was left out of 2024 Series 1 & 2. This year was even better for him. His First Topps Card is in the new Uodate without an RC logo. MLB debut June 2021.

What will be a big help for my FTC collection is the COMC listings, which somewhat surprised me -

https://www.comc.com/Cards,so,i100,=Cristopher+sanchez

- in that they list his 2022 Panini Prizm cards as “PRC” (pre-Rookie Card, green rectangle). That’s despite Panini printing their RC logo on those cards.

For his new 24 Update card, COMC adds the “RC” tag in the little red rectangle.

This works for what I need (FTC collection) and I’m not into arguing about these. One concern I guess would be how consistently COMC applies these tags between the manufacturers, given that it’s probably mostly site users flagging the cards for their review.

I’m also starting to wonder how many FTC cards without an RC logo trace to the delay between MLB debut and First Topps Card, and how many FTCs I have then missed over the years as a result. I do expect the COMC tags will help catch many of those, if they consistently reject Panini designations at least.

[base set]

Another trivia point I can pass along about RC logo cards is that it appears Topps has changed RC logo technique on multi-player cards. Previously even when all players (usually 2) on a card would 100% qualify for the logo, say with April MLB debuts and then a “Rookie Combo” card in that year’s Update, that card would never have an RC logo.

But this year, such cards do have a logo. Dunno if that may have started in 22 or 23 as I haven’t finished out the FTC work on those 2 Update sets.

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by base set

Seems to me 24 Update is chock full of First Topps Cards, without the RC logo. One thing I have always done, aside from consulting corockie’s handy list here, is to see how COMC is designating cards on this topic.

Tonight I looked into the cards for Cristopher Sanchez, who started 18 games quite successfully for the Phillies last year but was left out of 2024 Series 1 & 2. This year was even better for him. His First Topps Card is in the new Uodate without an RC logo. MLB debut June 2021.

What will be a big help for my FTC collection is the COMC listings, which somewhat surprised me -

https://www.comc.com/Cards,so,i100,=Cristopher+sanchez

- in that they list his 2022 Panini Prizm cards as “PRC” (pre-Rookie Card, green rectangle). That’s despite Panini printing their RC logo on those cards.

For his new 24 Update card, COMC adds the “RC” tag in the little red rectangle.

This works for what I need (FTC collection) and I’m not into arguing about these. One concern I guess would be how consistently COMC applies these tags between the manufacturers, given that it’s probably mostly site users flagging the cards for their review.

I’m also starting to wonder how many FTC cards without an RC logo trace to the delay between MLB debut and First Topps Card, and how many FTCs I have then missed over the years as a result. I do expect the COMC tags will help catch many of those, if they consistently reject Panini designations at least.

I’m a Phillies fan and have been wondering for a couple years now why Topps never put out a RC for Cristopher Sanchez… while it’s true that ‘24 Topps Update is his first Topps card, I would call his ‘22 Panini Prizm his only real RC because it’s really the only one that meets the definition.

Kind of similar to the Alex Rodriguez situation- he had Upper Deck and Fleer rookie cards in 1994, but Topps didn’t put him on a card until ‘98, which wasn’t a rookie card at that point.

[base set]

I forgot another recent insight I theorized upon for these conundrums, which is a concept as old as the first Baseball Cards a long long time ago, including a very very famous one. Which is that the lack of a timely Topps RC logo, or any card at all, for a player might sometimes trace to Topps simply not having a contract with the player. A good example there is Matt Weiters, who didn’t sign with Topps until the 8th year of his MLB career.

As for Sanchez it matters little to me whether he has a Topps RC, or not, or what his “official” RC is. It’s always good to get a good player into the First Topps Card binder regardless, amidst so many very brief players. So his new card was a nice educational pull from a fresh pack of Update today.

[baseballguy350]

2021 Topps Update #US24 Bruce Zimmermann
2021 Topps Chrome Update Sapphire #US24 Bruce Zimmermann

Debuted in late September of 2020, wasn’t in 2021 series 1 or 2.

[sheimwolf]

Originally Posted by base set

Seems to me 24 Update is chock full of First Topps Cards, without the RC logo. One thing I have always done, aside from consulting corockie’s handy list here, is to see how COMC is designating cards on this topic.

Aside from the two player cards, who else is missing the RC logo in 24 Topps Update?

[Triple B]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

I’m ok with Jan and Feb releases, especially if they come out before Series 1. But May? Nah. There has to be a limit. And before Covid, it wasn’t nearly this bad. Dynasty always came out in November or December.

Except that with the glut of releases, no one ever remembers the release dates, nor do they consider them a factor in determining whether it's an RC or not.

[base set]

Originally Posted by sheimwolf

Aside from the two player cards, who else is missing the RC logo in 24 Topps Update?

I am only halfway even through building 24 Update but discoveries so far are:

2024 Update no RC logo

Hoby Milner Brewers
Jason Adam Rays
Jason Foley Tigers
Joel Payamps Brewers
Cristopher Sanchez Phillies
Lucas Erceg A’s (has 2017 Bowman Holiday as Brewer, fwiw, never played there)

John Schreiber Royals Update, Red Sox S2
No RC logo on either card

New to Topps Baseball set, but not Topps products as whole, are
Dairon Blanco Royals (also in “2023” Topps Chrome Platinum, no logo)
Tyler Rogers Giants (2020 Total w/logo, 2020 Heritage dual Rookie, no logo)

The Tyler Rogers 24 Update is a sweet horizontal btw

[sheimwolf]

Wow! Thanks for this! Looks like I’ll hold off on getting rid of my 2024 “commons” until the consensus is agreed upon. . Didn’t think there would be so many.

[base set]

I wouldn’t get too excited about them. I just like having one card for everyone that debuts in MLB. I figure I will find more yet but it will be a while till I quit buying a few packs with the groceries and just order 20¢ singles from Sportlots to finish it out. The 2024 Topps Baseball design is a keeper.

Cristopher Sanchez parallels from 24 Update could be some nice cards to have, going forward, his future seems bright. Corey Kluber never had an RC logo Topps card, for example. The rest of those cards will have a future value of right around $0.00

[sheimwolf]

I know, I like to have 1 of each as well and I don’t want to repeat what I did with Kike Hernandez years ago.