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

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

That's the argument that really makes no sense to me. Why in the world would we leave it to them to define a rookie card? That's our job! We invented it!

But doesn’t saying that weaken your argument though? You’re saying that we can make any card a rookie card just by believing it is. Like kids making a wish or playing pretend. That makes no sense to me.

Also, what if “we” decide, and “we” decide it’s not a rookie card?

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

But doesn’t saying that weaken your argument though? You’re saying that we can make any card a rookie card just by believing it is. Like kids making a wish or playing pretend. That makes no sense to me.

Also, what if “we” decide, and “we” decide it’s not a rookie card?

By "we" I mean 40 years of rookie card collectors, as opposed to 15 years of "RC" collectors. There are standards we have established through hobby activity, and though they have adapted over the years to account for a changing hobby, the core standard is basically the same: the first time a player appears in an MLB licensed base set, that's his rookie card year. Look at every player that has a RC next to his name all the way back to 1948 Bowman. What I just said is true for all of them. If we deny RC status in this situation, it will be the first time we've done that.

[Gradek]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

By "we" I mean 40 years of rookie card collectors, as opposed to 15 years of "RC" collectors. There are standards we have established through hobby activity, and though they have adapted over the years to account for a changing hobby, the core standard is basically the same: the first time a player appears in an MLB licensed base set, that's his rookie card year. Look at every player that has a RC next to his name all the way back to 1948 Bowman. What I just said is true for all of them. If we deny RC status in this situation, it will be the first time we've done that.

Except for the last 15 years, Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA set a standard for rookies that includes the RC icon and is endorsed by both MLB and MLBPA (none of which this wander has). The fact is, this will not be considered wanders rookie card by 90%+ of the hobby come early February due to the lack of the RC icon.

[Shankweather]

[Shankweather]

Sorry lol I meant

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Gradek

Except for the last 15 years, Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA set a standard for rookies that includes the RC icon and is endorsed by both MLB and MLBPA (none of which this wander has). The fact is, this will not be considered wanders rookie card by 90%+ of the hobby come early February due to the lack of the RC icon.

nothing wrong with being in the 10%!

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by Gradek

Except for the last 15 years, Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA set a standard for rookies that includes the RC icon and is endorsed by both MLB and MLBPA (none of which this wander has). The fact is, this will not be considered wanders rookie card by 90%+ of the hobby come early February due to the lack of the RC icon.

No need to try and reason with the minority. Nothing you say or do will make the 10% change their mind. The hobby will soon forget about them and we can talk about how great our actual rookie cards are.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Bcr

No need to try and reason with the minority. Nothing you say or do will make the 10% change their mind. The hobby will soon forget about them and we can talk about how great our actual rookie cards are.

this!

[jduds]

Originally Posted by Bcr

No need to try and reason with the minority. Nothing you say or do will make the 10% change their mind. The hobby will soon forget about them and we can talk about how great our actual rookie cards are.

This is true and why this goofy thread/debate got to 8 pages. I like my brain cells too much to read that much of this.

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by RaceDog

For Prospect cards, I go to Bowman
For Rookie cards, I go to Topps (until Fanatics comes along)

Both are fun

Fanatics will be Topps and Topps will be fanatics.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by jduds

This is true and why this goofy thread/debate got to 8 pages. I like my brain cells too much to read that much of this.

That's nothing, the other thread is at 34 pages.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

That's the argument that really makes no sense to me. Why in the world would we leave it to them to define a rookie card? That's our job! We invented it!

Because it’s already been proved time and time again that those for sale will define…and redefine RC to whatever creates them the most profit at any given time.

And, importantly, the term should align with…ya know… how Major League Baseball defines the term rookie.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Because it’s already been proved time and time again that those for sale will define…and redefine RC to whatever creates them the most profit at any given time.

And, importantly, the term should align with…ya know… how Major League Baseball defines the term rookie.

Well if that were the case, 2021 would be Wander's rookie card year.

Also, I'm not a dealer. I'm not sitting on any 2021 Bowman's Best. I'm an accountant at a hospital lol.

[BOOMER7]

Things change as well as interpretations. Back in the 80s if a rookie card had an autograph on it the card would be worth significantly less than a non autograph same RC. The market overtime will determine the Wander.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Well if that were the case, 2021 would be Wander's rookie card year.

Also, I'm not a dealer. I'm not sitting on any 2021 Bowman's Best. I'm an accountant at a hospital lol.

Topps doesn’t get to determine the definition of a RC either, nor do people flipping prospect cards - whether they’re Wander prospect cards or anyone else’s.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by BOOMER7

Things change as well as interpretations. Back in the 80s if a rookie card had an autograph on it the card would be worth significantly less than a non autograph same RC. The market overtime will determine the Wander.

Value doesn’t determine what a RC is or isn’t

[jduds]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Topps doesn’t get to determine the definition of a RC either, nor do people flipping prospect cards - whether they’re Wander prospect cards or anyone else’s.

This was a very common argument back in 2006 and the world moved on from it in favor of the rules and the rookie logo. That horse has been dead for 15 years now and doesn't deserve any more beatings.

[BOOMER7]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Value doesn’t determine what a RC is or isn’t

.........
The post was just a simple hobby analogy (wasn't card specific) NEWB
Just an example of how the market-hobby perception-definition of a card may or may not change in the future.
I could careless either way how it shakes out overtime with the RC debate
I don't buy/sell singles
However I do have
a pretty solid grasp of what's happened/changed in the hobby over the last 35 years. I’ve certainly seen plenty
Have a good night

[auctionjmm]

I've said a lot on this topic but I'll add one more thought without passing judgement now that the Bowman Heritage checklist is out...

IF Bowman Heritage turns out to be numbered as the checklist indicates, and Beckett codes them all as Rookies, it will be the first time in history that an online exclusive throwback set limited to about 800 cases will have burned 150 rookie designations in one swoop.

I'm fine with the other side's logic about "it's a base set, mixed with veterans, regular numbers..." but there is no precedent for an online exclusive limited throwback set that is ALSO a base set mixed with veterans and prospects, to be considered for rookie designations of the prospects. This to me feels like new enough territory to consider that the set doesn't qualify.

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

If this is happening all the time then that's kind of the point. I'm not going all in on the RC logo, because it's applied in a way that maximizes profit instead of reflecting what actually happens on the field. No reason to go against tradition in this case since the RC logo is such a joke anyway.

I'm not so sure it is completely a profit making decision for all players that debut in the current year. When a project manager is creating a set for the company, there are content deadlines to meet when it comes to printing. Topps outsources and I would imagine its a tight schedule with who they work with. I'm not sure this applies to Wander but early June seems to be where it normally cuts off. Wanders debut was June 22

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

I'm not so sure it is completely a profit making decision for all players that debut in the current year. When a project manager is creating a set for the company, there are content deadlines to meet when it comes to printing. Topps outsources and I would imagine its a tight schedule with who they work with. I'm not sure this applies to Wander but early June seems to be where it normally cuts off. Wanders debut was June 22

Anthony Rizzo was traded July 30 and he's been in 10 sets and counting as a Yankee. And that doesn't include Update. I wouldn't expect it for a September call up, but June is plenty of time.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by auctionjmm

I've said a lot on this topic but I'll add one more thought without passing judgement now that the Bowman Heritage checklist is out...

IF Bowman Heritage turns out to be numbered as the checklist indicates, and Beckett codes them all as Rookies, it will be the first time in history that an online exclusive throwback set limited to about 800 cases will have burned 150 rookie designations in one swoop.

I'm fine with the other side's logic about "it's a base set, mixed with veterans, regular numbers..." but there is no precedent for an online exclusive limited throwback set that is ALSO a base set mixed with veterans and prospects, to be considered for rookie designations of the prospects. This to me feels like new enough territory to consider that the set doesn't qualify.

I completely agree, it's unprecedented and a little nuts. Because Topps jacked it all up. But if they did all this AND marked them all with the RC logo, there wouldn't be a debate. Even though everything you just said would still apply.

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Anthony Rizzo was traded July 30 and he's been in 10 sets and counting as a Yankee. And that doesn't include Update. I wouldn't expect it for a September call up, but June is plenty of time.

I'd go with a business decision to include Wander and other rookies in 50 products in 2022, or whatever the number is, instead of the 10 in 2021. They do it because of money, bottom line, that's what matters in this case. As for the Bowman's Best issue, it seems the attitude was "I could give two f*cks, I'm out".

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Gradek

Except for the last 15 years, Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA set a standard for rookies that includes the RC icon and is endorsed by both MLB and MLBPA (none of which this wander has). The fact is, this will not be considered wanders rookie card by 90%+ of the hobby come early February due to the lack of the RC icon.

90%+ is so gullible they will accept a 2nd year MLB season card that features some goofy logo as a RC?

I would like to disassociate myself from the 90% that would qualify as "dumb" in our community. What a bunch of gullible kiddos they are.

[Clause37]

Does the Wander Franco Bowman Best card have an RC logo? If not, sorry, you have a fun card that will probably be worth more than the 2022 base, but not the variations or SP/SSP that will show up.

Demand is all that matters.