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

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by rlriii13

I hadn't gone down this path of thinking until reading these few posts, but I like it. It made me consider all this from a different perspective. To add to it:

What if Topps kept the card numbering the same (#50), but had printed the Wander with the RC logo? At that point, whether or not they violated their MLB agreement is on them, and I would have a hard time calling next year's releases his rookie cards. Does that mean all this debate is over the RC logo and nothing else? If the 2021 Bowman Best had the RC logo, would any of you not call it his rookie card? (Genuine question, looking for honest answers who like long walks on the beach.)

The debate is over the numbering. Wander’s card has the same design as the other prospects, and doesn’t have the MLBPA logo, like the other prospect cards, but they numbered the whole set 1-100 instead of giving them a separate numbering.

The Old Guard is basing their argument on two things:
-The numbering
-“This is the way we’ve always done it (excluding the last 15 years)!”

[rlriii13]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

The debate is over the numbering. Wander’s card has the same design as the other prospects, and doesn’t have the MLBPA logo, like the other prospect cards, but they numbered the whole set 1-100 instead of giving them a separate numbering.

The Old Guard is basing their argument on two things:
-The numbering
-“This is the way we’ve always done it (excluding the last 15 years)!”

Yes, I know. But for a fun hypothetical, if the numbering were exactly the same and Topps had printed the Wander card with the RC logo, would we all be in agreement then? Or would there still be disagreement about it? Certainly it would be surprising that Topps would have added the logo, but would we be debating if this was or was not his rookie card? Hypothetically speaking.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by rlriii13

Yes, I know. But for a fun hypothetical, if the numbering were exactly the same and Topps had printed the Wander card with the RC logo, would we all be in agreement then? Or would there still be disagreement about it? Certainly it would be surprising that Topps would have added the logo, but would we be debating if this was or was not his rookie card? Hypothetically speaking.

Yeah, it’s an interesting thought exercise. In your hypothetical, does the Wander card have the same design as the prospects, or the design used for the rookies and vets?

[htn315]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

The debate is over the numbering. Wander’s card has the same design as the other prospects, and doesn’t have the MLBPA logo, like the other prospect cards, but they numbered the whole set 1-100 instead of giving them a separate numbering.

The Old Guard is basing their argument on two things:
-The numbering
-“This is the way we’ve always done it (excluding the last 15 years)!”

In the last 15 years Topps split them out to make them their own prospect set in every major release with prospects in it. This is the first time they ignored that detail and made it a single set, that's why there's a debate about this set and none of the other prospect cards released in the last 15 years.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by htn315

In the last 15 years Topps split them out to make them their own prospect set in every major release with prospects in it. This is the first time they ignored that detail and made it a single set, that's why there's a debate about this set and none of the other prospect cards released in the last 15 years.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I just said. You offered a little more detail though, which I appreciate. I’m not trying to misrepresent anyone’s argument.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

The debate is over the numbering. Wander’s card has the same design as the other prospects, and doesn’t have the MLBPA logo, like the other prospect cards, but they numbered the whole set 1-100 instead of giving them a separate numbering.

The Old Guard is basing their argument on two things:
-The numbering
-“This is the way we’ve always done it (excluding the last 15 years)!”

[rlriii13]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

Yeah, it’s an interesting thought exercise. In your hypothetical, does the Wander card have the same design as the prospects, or the design used for the rookies and vets?

The same card that we have today in real life, numbered #50, just with the added RC logo.

[htn315]

Originally Posted by rlriii13

The same card that we have today in real life, numbered #50, just with the added RC logo.

The RC logo crowd consider this a rookie card and it's apart of an all prospect set but they added the RC logo to it for the sapphire version. For me this is a hell no but if this qualifies I can't see how they can argue that the BB Wander prospect card with the RC logo doesn't qualify.


2020 Bowman Chrome Sapphire Edition - [Base] #BCP-150 - Luis Robert
Courtesy of COMC.com

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by htn315

The RC logo crowd consider this a rookie card and it's apart of an all prospect set but they added the RC logo to it for the sapphire version. For me this is a hell no but if this qualifies I can't see how they can argue that the BB Wander prospect card with the RC logo doesn't qualify.


2020 Bowman Chrome Sapphire Edition - [Base] #BCP-150 - Luis Robert
Courtesy of COMC.com

the P in BCP negates it from being a RC

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by rlriii13

The same card that we have today in real life, numbered #50, just with the added RC logo.

I guess (to the ire of Shank and TBP) I would say yes, that I would consider it a RC at that point… but I feel like part of it comes down to intentions. Once they decided to not put Wander in ‘21 Update, I didn’t see any of his 2021 cards as RCs. Either way, I’m only been taking sports card collecting seriously for six years, so I know that has me in the “noob” group and invalidates my opinion, but it’s just my take.

[jayjay0122]

For those of you that believe this is Wander's RC does that mean this is Dominguez, Witt and all the other young prospects RC's because of the numbering? Or do you feel it's just Wander's because he has played in MLB games already?

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by jayjay0122

For those of you that believe this is Wander's RC does that mean this is Dominguez, Witt and all the other young prospects RC's because of the numbering? Or do you feel it's just Wander's because he has played in MLB games already?

all of them

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by jayjay0122

For those of you that believe this is Wander's RC does that mean this is Dominguez, Witt and all the other young prospects RC's because of the numbering? Or do you feel it's just Wander's because he has played in MLB games already?

I'm under the assumption that yes..if you're going to label Wander a RC..then all prospects are also RC's because they are all numbered the same way

[BigL7370]

Originally Posted by jayjay0122

For those of you that believe this is Wander's RC does that mean this is Dominguez, Witt and all the other young prospects RC's because of the numbering? Or do you feel it's just Wander's because he has played in MLB games already?

I think something happened with Topps messing up, but I’m in that camp where numbering in a set dictates rookie card status regardless of the players reaching the big leagues and/or the card having the RC logo [or not].

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Super movie.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by BigL7370

I think something happened with Topps messing up, but I’m in that camp where numbering in a set dictates rookie card status regardless of the players reaching the big leagues and/or the card having the RC logo [or not].

Multiple people and steps in the production process require checking the numbers. This wasn't an error caused by an intern, this was deliberate.

Still no comment from Topps on this issue.

[liveovercome]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eAVjXhJjNA

IMO this is coming down to Beckett, Cracknell, and them holding the old standard to the modern era. Cracknell will, well, crack once Heritage comes out. Watch and see.

Its obvious by the polling and the price of these cards that interest is waning. BO prices for cases and boxes has started to come down. When Heritage comes out and all the prospects are number sequential with vets and rookies yet are grouped together 100-250 it will add further fuel for this being a fat nothing to see.

The old guard is going to be taken to the wood shed. That's what happens. Out with the old in with the new.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by liveovercome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eAVjXhJjNA

IMO this is coming down to Beckett, Cracknell, and them holding the old standard to the modern era. Cracknell will, well, crack once Heritage comes out. Watch and see.

Its obvious by the polling and the price of these cards that interest is waning. BO prices for cases and boxes has started to come down. When Heritage comes out and all the prospects are number sequential with vets and rookies yet are grouped together 100-250 it will add further fuel for this being a fat nothing to see.

The old guard is going to be taken to the wood shed. That's what happens. Out with the old in with the new.

The prices for Wander’s card are tanking fast. Not that that determines whether it’s an RC or not. Sell now if you’re planning to sell at all.

And I like some of the Old Guard even if I disagree with them! Haha. I feel like I’ve learned a lot about the hobby from TBP.

[ThoseBackPages]

we wont be quiet on this

the moneyboi's will parade Wanders 2022 cards as RCs because they want to make money (shocking, iknow)

[ThoseBackPages]

Topps did this on purpose, and most of you all will forgive them

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by jayjay0122

For those of you that believe this is Wander's RC does that mean this is Dominguez, Witt and all the other young prospects RC's because of the numbering? Or do you feel it's just Wander's because he has played in MLB games already?

[Technochocolate]

Prices are irrelevant to the discussion.

The 2022 cards will have higher value, period. but that doesn’t make them RCs. Decouple value from status in this argument.

[k13]

Less complicated than soccer where they have rookie stickers, rookie cards, rookies with rc logos that are not rookies, rookies without logo that are rookies.

[liveovercome]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

Prices are irrelevant to the discussion.

The 2022 cards will have higher value, period. but that doesn’t make them RCs. Decouple value from status in this argument.

It’s in the numbered checklist. Great. Now it fails to be endorsed by the MLBPA. It doesn’t have an RC logo like the REST of the RC’s in the set. It’s design is specific to a group of players all known to be prospects in 2021. You can’t cherry pick.
And of course 2022 will hold more value, that’s a no brainer since BB will be treated as a prospect card from now to eternity. The novelty of BB will barely hold a premium by end of the year, IMO.

And no way Topps did this on purpose. They just didn’t give a #@#@#@#@ about old antiquated rules.

If there was a RC on the card it would not only destroy 2022 and beyond for Topps, it would have destroyed there last chance of making any real money for decades.

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Super movie.

Yep watched again for the first time in years the other day. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m diving through my cards to find my 2017 Ronald Acuna Jr RCs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk