He has HOW MANY Topps Chrome RC autos???

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Tell me the substantive difference between the current iteration of the rookie logo and a pre-2006 rookie logo. Other than one being required by MLBPA, there is none.

But then again, you tried to claim the 2014 1st Bowman was substantively different from prior 1st bowman logos, so I'm sure you vomit up some lame reasining.

They’ve been using the term “rookie” on the front of baseball cards since 1959, but of course you know that.


Cue attorney arguing about words versus logos and their iterations.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Yes, they gravitate to a player's first fully-licensed Topps cards, like flagship, TC, Heritage, Dynasty, Finest etc.

The reason why Bowman 1st cards are in such high demand at release is because they are the first and only MLB licensed cards available of those players at that time. They are the first draft and prospects cards made of those players. But once those players become official big leaguers and have their first fully-licensed MLB cards produced, Bowman 1st cards begin to loose their importance and relevance to collectors and fans.

….because many can no longer afford them.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ObanMontecristo

Fine with me if “new money” Hermano wants to waste his resources chasing down prospects and leave RCs for collectors who he calls “the poors”.

I’d just like to see the bag he’s holding years down the line when 90% of these guys never pan out, and 99.9% of the cards can be had for far less than what he originally paid for them.

There are far more rookie logo card bag holders than bowman bag holders.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

why did topps remove a popular saying from the packaging after 2006?

Bowman cards aren’t rookie logo cards. We both know that.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

Bowman cards aren’t rookie logo cards. We both know that.

wrong, its because inserts are not rookie cards

[Bosoxfan5990]

It's funny how many posts in a row in this thread are hidden

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

wrong, its because inserts are not rookie cards

First appearance depicted in major league uniform cards are released earlier than third year rookie logo cards.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

First appearance depicted in major league uniform cards are released earlier than third year rookie logo cards.

sure, if you like inserts that are made to look like regular cards.

[ThoseBackPages]

you also keep calling people that collect First Topps "poors". There are quite a few First Topps cards that are worth quite a bit

[boxbuster7]

Originally Posted by bosoxfan5990

it's funny how many posts in a row in this thread are hidden

this is the way

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

you also keep calling people that collect First Topps "poors". There are quite a few First Topps cards that are worth quite a bit

That’s true, but since 2002, there’s frequently been an earlier issue that has been available that can be more expensive.

To your point, there are several rookie logo cards that are issued the same year or even without a bowman predecessor, so yes, they can be very valuable.

But for the masses, the rookie logo option is the most affordable and budget friendly.

[boxbuster7]

it's all worthless except for cards nobody posting on this forum has

how is that for a take

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

That’s true, but since 2002, there’s frequently been an earlier issue that has been available that can be more expensive.

To your point, there are several rookie logo cards that are issued the same year or even without a bowman predecessor, so yes, they can be very valuable.

But for the masses, the rookie logo option is the most affordable and budget friendly.

i think its awesome that the "Best" Bowman Chrome card made isnt only a "Rookie Card", but is also "worth more" than any equivalent Bowman Chrome Insert

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

it's all worthless except for cards nobody posting on this forum has

how is that for a take

like Mantle?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

They’ve been using the term “rookie” on the front of baseball cards since 1959, but of course you know that.





Cue attorney arguing about words versus logos and their iterations.

LOL That’s my point. There's no difference between the 1964 "Star Rookie" on a Ron Santo card, and a modern rookie logo, even thoughSanto's rookie is 1961. Thank you for making my point.

You want to try to catch me making a mistake so badly that you have lost track of your argument entirely. I was the one saying there is no difference between prior rookie designstions and the current rookie logo. They are all just a card company calling something a rookie, whether it is or not. 2006 wasn't some grand marketing conspiracy.

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

sure, if you like inserts that are made to look like regular cards.

To clarify, the regular “Bowman” (paper) set consists of only MLB-level players and can contain RCs. Same with the “Bowman Chrome” set that is released in the August-September timeframe.

The Prospects (including First Bowmans) that are also contained in those releases are numbered as a completely different set, which are comprised of only other minor leaguers, and for that reason, those are “inserts,” i.e., not part of the main MLB set.

That’s why Ohtani’s 2017 Bowman Chrome mega box card is considered a prospect card, while his 2018 Bowman and Bowman Chrome cards are considered his “rookies”.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by ObanMontecristo

To clarify, the regular “Bowman” (paper) set consists of only MLB-level players and can contain RCs. Same with the “Bowman Chrome” set that is released in the August-September timeframe.

The Prospects (including First Bowmans) that are also contained in those releases are numbered as a completely different set, which are comprised of only other minor leaguers, and for that reason, those are “inserts,” i.e., not part of the main MLB set.

That’s why Ohtani’s 2017 Bowman Chrome mega box card is considered a prospect card, while his 2018 Bowman and Bowman Chrome cards are considered his “rookies”.

Thats correct. Topps used that loophole to fool people into continuing to buy the bowman brand, which probably would have died off otherwise

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

There are far more rookie logo card bag holders than bowman bag holders.

Yes, but the 1st Bowman collectors’ bags are a lot heavier and cost a lot more.

Regardless, value doesn’t define a rookie card.

Collect whatever you want, including First Bowmans, my only objection is that we can’t all define a rookie card however we want, or it completely loses meaning.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

LOL That’s my point. There's no difference between the 1964 "Star Rookie" on a Ron Santo card, and a modern rookie logo, even thoughSanto's rookie is 1961. Thank you for making my point.

You want to try to catch me making a mistake so badly that you have lost track of your argument entirely. I was the one saying there is no difference between prior rookie designstions and the current rookie logo. They are all just a card company calling something a rookie, whether it is or not. 2006 wasn't some grand marketing conspiracy.

It was the first time in history a rookie designation was ever mandated by the MLBPA. Topps spun it as a marketing scheme and here we are today, as successful as ever catering to two different market waves for the same player.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ObanMontecristo

Yes, but the 1st Bowman collectors’ bags are a lot heavier and cost a lot more.

Regardless, value doesn’t define a rookie card.

Collect whatever you want, including First Bowmans, my only objection is that we can’t all define a rookie card however we want, or it completely loses meaning.

A rookie card still can’t be defined to accommodate for all the cards in baseball history.

However, a rookie logo card can be defined - by the manufacturer who is trying to sell cards to you.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

It was the first time in history a rookie designation was ever mandated by the MLBPA. Topps spun it as a marketing scheme and here we are today, as successful as ever catering to two different market waves for the same player.

Wrong. The rookie designation was not mandated. You have it backward. The agreement simply prohibits the use of the term rookie on players who are prospects, and the inclusion of prospects in major league sets. It does not mandate the rookie logo. It restricts its use.

As I've shown you, Topps used rookie designstions for decades. The 2006 agreement didn't change that or mandate that they do so. It simply limited when they could. So Topps decided to put the logo on all cards meeting the parameters of the agreement so they could continue to sell Bowman to suckers like you. Like TBP said, Bowman would have died as a brand if Topps didn't adjust to the new limitations.

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Wrong. The rookie designation was not mandated. You have it backward. The agreement simply prohibits the use of the term rookie on players who are prospects, and the inclusion of prospects in major league sets. It does not mandate the rookie logo. It restricts its use.

As I've shown you, Topps used rookie designstions for decades. The 2006 agreement didn't change that or mandate that they do so. It simply limited when they could. So Topps decided to put the logo on all cards meeting the parameters of the agreement so they could continue to sell Bowman to suckers like you. Like TBP said, Bowman would have died as a brand if Topps didn't adjust to the new limitations.

In layman’s terms from my perspective, mandated = something that compelled Topps to put the rookie logo on all rookie debut cards. If the MLBPA didn’t force them to do so, then you are suggesting Topps did it on their own merit without coercion - WHAT AN INGENIOUS MARKETING SCHEME by Topps. Thank you.

It’s entertaining to see you mold people’s colloquial terms into legal terms - remember not everyone here went to law school.

Plus, Topps continues to fool the poors into buying third year rookie logo cards.

Simply brilliant.

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by hermanotarjeta

In layman’s terms from my perspective, mandated = something that compelled Topps to put the rookie logo on all rookie debut cards. If the MLBPA didn’t force them to do so, then you are suggesting Topps did it on their own merit without coercion - WHAT AN INGENIOUS MARKETING SCHEME by Topps. Thank you.

It’s entertaining to see you mold people’s colloquial terms into legal terms - remember not everyone here went to law school.

Plus, Topps continues to fool the poors into buying third year rookie logo cards.

Simply brilliant.

Is it possible that he could be right?

You’re not a bad dude and know your stuff, but you are criticizing people based on your own opinions. He has his opinions - and that’s ok.

The good news is that you won’t be bidding against each other on anything - right?

[hermanotarjeta]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

Thats correct. Topps used that loophole to fool people into continuing to buy the bowman brand, which probably would have died off otherwise

MLB and MLBPA should have forced Topps to convert all their bowman lines into minor league sets featuring players in minor league uniforms back in 2006. Then the rookie card logo would really have legitimacy, like in the other sports.

However, money talks.

As long as Topps is allowed to feature minor league players in their major league unis, these cards will for the most part always precede their rookie logo cards and render the rookie logo cards less desirable, IMO.

[TakagiShingo]

If all these "simple-minded" "poors" are manipulated or whatever into competing over RC symbols, seems that's less competition for the monied enlightened buying 1sts, and so...how is that a problem to someone values the 1sts higher? I can think of one reason.