Which card do you consider to be the True RC of a player?

MLBdays

`

Desert_Ice_Sports

The XRC issued sometimes a couple years or more prior to the players actual MLB 1st season?

There's a growing belief in the hobby that a player's true rookie card is the very first card issued of that player, whether it's a regular issue card or not... In vintage circles, good examples are the 1946 Propagandas Montiel Stan Musial, and the 1925 Exhibit Lou Gehrig, both fairly recently embraced as ture rookies.

As for the shiny, new cards, I'm no expert, but it baffles me that a 2017 card could possibly be considered a rookie when the same player has a regular issue, major league card from 2013... How does that logic work, exactly??

daltex

1952 Topps.

brad31

I am not voting. Not that much of a modern collector and I can see both cards having a valid argument. I am interested to see people’s opinions.

In the 80’s I always considered the traded card the rookie card and was in the first card camp. Both were considered rookie cards with varying opinions on which was the rookie.

Now that it is years before The debut I am not sure it is clear cut.

I guess I would call the bowman a pre-rookie card and the heritage a rookie card. I can see both having premium value over the player’s subsequent cards.

Very interested in seeing how the poll turns out.

DBesse27

I don’t count Bowman prospect cards, other minor league cards or collegiate cards as “rookie cards.” They’re awesome, I collect them, but they’re not rookie cards in my opinion.

However, the Topps Traded sets and such should count! Strawberry’s RC is not his 84 Topps. That’s just a plain old card. His 83 Topps Traded is his RC. Same with 86TT Bo instead of his 87, etc.

Conversely, Ripken’s 1982 regular issue cards are his RC, not the 82 Traded. Same with Griffey and the 89 Topps Traded. Not a RC.

The Ripken Traded is desirable in its own right, as it’s his first solo Topps card, similar to the 64 Rose and 74 Schmidt or Dwight Evans. But those weren’t RCs either.

LOTSOS

@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
There's a growing belief in the hobby that a player's true rookie card is the very first card issued of that player, whether it's a regular issue card or not... In vintage circles, good examples are the 1946 Propagandas Montiel Stan Musial, and the 1925 Exhibit Lou Gehrig, both fairly recently embraced as ture rookies.

As for the shiny, new cards, I'm no expert, but it baffles me that a 2017 card could possibly be considered a rookie when the same player has a regular issue, major league card from 2013... How does that logic work, exactly??

Hockey is a lot more clear cut, well as least as far back as 1951 for vintage. For modern the year his YG, FWA, and CRPA are issued. There are always lines that are issued before that but those three signal a rookie year for hockey. You may also feel that ICE, BD, SPGU should be on the list and that's fine. I'm just stating that the year those cards are issued is their rookie year.

Which is much simpler than the NHLs rules when it comes to Calder eligibility. Under 26 by September of the Season, plays no more than 25 games in the preceding season (Playoff games oddly don't count), or more than 9 games in each of the two previous seasons.

stwainfan

here is what I consider a rookie card.

doubledragon

The First Year Issue of a player in his 1st full qualifying year in the Bigs?

I can see both sides having a valid argument, but personally I would want the 1st MLB season card, because he's actually playing in the big time.

LarkinCollector

The XRC issued sometimes a couple years or more prior to the players actual MLB 1st season?

Beckett doesn't get to decide what a RC is for me, neither do the registry sets. If there's an earlier issue, I'm getting it.

DBesse27

@LarkinCollector said:
Beckett doesn't get to decide what a RC is for me, neither do the registry sets. If there's an earlier issue, I'm getting it.

I’m getting it too, for my player collections, and I love those cards. But to me they’re not technically RCs, that’s all.

NGS428

The First Year Issue of a player in his 1st full qualifying year in the Bigs?

First year in the bigs for sure. I agree with PSA. I may flex a bit and take some traded sets from the year before.

Anything before that is not a rookie card. How can you be a rookie if you haven’t even suited up for the major league team yet?

saucywombat

The XRC issued sometimes a couple years or more prior to the players actual MLB 1st season?

I blame the Beckett Price Guide, people yearn for those glory days I suppose.

The whole idea that a "RC" designation should equate to some future financial windfall is pretty lame. That's what drives the designation MLB required to be put on cards. That's all most people even consider if they know anything about baseball cards, if I have the RC it will be worth big bucks one day if the guy's a star (you know just like Mickey Mantle - which ironically proves the point about RC designation being meaningless). I would hope most here on this level of hobby interest wouldn't be concerned by the arbitrary designation but the merits of the card.

skrezyna23

I believe a player's RC should be the first year they step on a major league field, not necessarily the year they "become a rookie" by getting the qualified ABs or IPs, but Id choose that over anything prior to them playing in majors.

Tibor

For me the Rookie card is the first available in a wax pack. Back in the 80's Traded
sets from Topps were available but for example the Rookie card Strawberry was
'84 Topps not '83 Topps Traded. For Cal his Rookie card is '82 Topps #21. Yes he has
Minor League cards, but to my knowledge they were never available in wax packs
Nationally. It was much easier in the 70's and 80's. There were only a few card companies
and only a hand full of issues, though they were MASS produced. Today MUCH LESS
production, but the variety is endless and confusing.

1951WheatiesPremium

My answer?

It’s a moving target and always will be. Buy what you like because you like it. My personal favorite is someone once told me 1939 Play Ball is Joe DiMaggio’s rookie; to many, it is - which is fine. But these reasons are meh...

34 ZeeNut? Minor league
36 WWG? Not enough to collect
36 Goudey Premium w/McCarthy? Not alone
37 Goudey? A tall boy
38 Head’s Up? A cartoon

That’s 5 cards before his ‘rookie’ 2 of which were issued in his rookie season.

Collect what you like.

PaulMaul

@DBesse27 said:

Conversely, Ripken’s 1983 regular issue cards are his RC, not the 82 Traded. Same with Griffey and the 89 Topps Traded. Not a RC.

The Ripken Traded is desirable in its own right, as it’s his first solo Topps card, similar to the 64 Rose and 74 Schmidt or Dwight Evans. But those weren’t RCs either.

Dan, why isn’t the multi-player 1982 Topps card his rookie?

ahopkins

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Buy what you like because you like it.
Collect what you like.

As I'm scrolling down through this thread, reading everyone's responses, I'm formulating mine. Then I come to this one. It's precisely what I had in mind. I don't really care what card companies designate as a "rookie card." It's too contrived for me. I collect what I like or what I perceive as a player's rookie card. I'm comfortable with being the rogue in the room on this one.

@Tibor said:
For me the Rookie card is the first available in a wax pack.

I identify with this, too.

DBesse27

@PaulMaul said:

@DBesse27 said:

Conversely, Ripken’s 1983 regular issue cards are his RC, not the 82 Traded. Same with Griffey and the 89 Topps Traded. Not a RC.

The Ripken Traded is desirable in its own right, as it’s his first solo Topps card, similar to the 64 Rose and 74 Schmidt or Dwight Evans. But those weren’t RCs either.

Dan, why isn’t the multi-player 1982 Topps card his rookie?

Typo. I meant 1982 not 83. Yes, his multi IS the RC.

DBesse27

@Tibor said:
For me the Rookie card is the first available in a wax pack. Back in the 80's Traded
sets from Topps were available but for example the Rookie card Strawberry was
'84 Topps not '83 Topps Traded. For Cal his Rookie card is '82 Topps #21. Yes he has
Minor League cards, but to my knowledge they were never available in wax packs
Nationally. It was much easier in the 70's and 80's. There were only a few card companies
and only a hand full of issues, though they were MASS produced. Today MUCH LESS
production, but the variety is endless and confusing.

Anything in a wax pack? So there have been no RCs issued in the past 25+ years??

Nathaniel1960

The first card to have at least one game of MLB stats on the back.

PaulMaul

@Nathaniel1960 said:
The first card to have at least one game of MLB stats on the back.

However, multi-player rookie cards don’t have stats on the back.

LarkinCollector

The XRC issued sometimes a couple years or more prior to the players actual MLB 1st season?

@MLBdays said:

@LarkinCollector .....how do you feel about Minor League cards?

The player was noticed enough to get a card made of them. I don't expect or plan to convert anyone to my way of thinking, but if you step outside the big 4 collected sports or delve into pre-war or when there's decades between "major" releases, the clear cut answers are pretty muddy.

When you have to face decisions like the following, your perspective may change:

• a 1998 way past career issue being listed as a RC, but they have hand cut cards issued in 1955 from when they were active
• there were never any issues that would qualify for a RC, but they have cards
• their only issue was a foreign supersize

Is Larry Bird's RC the 1977-79 Sportscaster or 1981 Topps? What if the gap was larger and it was a decision between the Sportscaster and 86 Fleer? I know which one I'd rather have and am comfortable being in the minority.

I collect first issues, not necessarily what "the hobby" deems RCs.

stwainfan

When Topps was the only company. That was making cards. It was easy to tell rookie cards.

DBesse27

.

ahopkins

@DBesse27 said:
.

Good point.

DBesse27

@ahopkins said:

@DBesse27 said:
.

Good point.

Thanks. I gave it a lot of thought.

doubledragon

The First Year Issue of a player in his 1st full qualifying year in the Bigs?

What about Michael Jordan's true rookie card. Is it the 1986 Fleer, or his earlier cards made by Star. Most people consider his 86 fleer the rookie.

garnettstyle

@doubledragon said:
What about Michael Jordan's true rookie card. Is it the 1986 Fleer, or his earlier cards made by Star. Most people consider his 86 fleer the rookie.

Most people are wrong. The card that came out 2 years before his 86 Fleer has to be his rookie.

stwainfan

I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Tibor

It's been 20+ years that I've bought a wax pack or for that matter a sports card
of any player. When the debate was raging in the mid to late 80's about Rookie
Cards the first in a wax pack was settled upon. Kids could have a chance to buy
a pack for .50 or $1 and get a rookie card. '83 Topps Traded was first but came
in a set for $10. So a wax pack from '84 was decided as the rookie. Well anyway,
each to his own.

ReggieCleveland

@stwainfan said:
I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Except no one has multiple rookie cards from the same set. That's a rookie year card. But his base card from that set is his rookie card.

Arthur

DBesse27

@ReggieCleveland said:

@stwainfan said:
I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Except no one has multiple rookie cards from the same set. That's a rookie year card. But his base card from that set is his rookie card.

Arthur

What do you mean his “base card”? They’re both from the base set. The other one is more highly sought because Dr J and Magic were both better players than Sikma, but they’re both “base cards” from the same set.

1951WheatiesPremium

Fun one to mess with you good folks?

Derek Jeter. Never set foot on a Major League Baseball field in uniform until 1995. If you are able to get agreement on his ‘true rookie’ - Topps, Bowman, Upper Deck, SP, to name a few - it still carries a date of 1993.

Huh?

stwainfan

@ReggieCleveland said:

@stwainfan said:
I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Except no one has multiple rookie cards from the same set. That's a rookie year card. But his base card from that set is his rookie card.

Arthur

There are six different Bird cards in that set. Yes I know the one with Magic is the most valuable one.

mrmopar

rook·ie
/ˈro͝okē/
nounINFORMAL
noun: rookie; plural noun: rookies
a new recruit, especially in the army or police.
"a rookie cop"
a member of an athletic team in his or her first full season in that sport.

It would stand to reason from a common sense standpoint that a rookie card would follow the point at which the player was considered a "rookie".

Can you be a "rookie" if you have never played in a game? The definition above would say no. Are we talking MLB rookie or just professional baseball (or other sport) rookie in general? Does distribution of said card make any difference, meaning can it be a local SGA set that was limited to the first 100 fans who attended a game at a specific ballpark or does it have to be a major set, like Topps, where anyone could get one?

I know this is old school thinking, but to me a rookie card SHOULD be the card issued after the player makes his MLB debut and the stat line on the back is showing his rookie season stats. This is the way it usually was when I first discovered cards. However, it has gotten to the point that most players have a variety of cards issued well before they ever play a MLB game, that it would be impossible to settle on what defines a "rookie" card.

mrmopar

Another factor to consider in this discussion is the ridiculousness that has been placed on rookie cards, making them that much more valuable than the next year issue only because it was the first card issued. The fact that the first card gets elevated above all others is stupid to me, mostly because there is no other reason for it other than more and more people have bought into this line of thinking, making that card more desirable, thus allowing people to charge and get more for them.

It is interesting to see how cards were originally marketed and sold. You can see on the back of Goudey cards, they told you how many cards were issued. Later on, that information was not found on the cards? Why not? Eventually, checklists were needed to assist in determining what was considered a full set.

Originally, when gum cards were issued in the early days, the plan was to issue a set number of cards in a series. The cards were numbered sequentically and then later, an actual checklist could be found to help you determine how many cards you needed to collect. This enabled the company to sell more packs as the kids chased down the cards they still needed to complete the set. No card was supposed to be any harder to find, but it was a random draw to what you got in your pack and ultimately, you ended up with duplicates and had to keep buying packs until you got every last card you needed, or do some trading with your friends.

Until certain cards became short printed for one reason or another (either on purpose to drive more sales - 1933 Goudey #106 for example or because the sheets and set totals didn't align), there was no economical reason for one card of a series of 100 to be worth any more than the next if all printed in equal quantities other than popularity of the player shown. Bigger names equaled more popular, but bigger names didn't equal harder to get.

ReggieCleveland

@DBesse27 said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@stwainfan said:
I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Except no one has multiple rookie cards from the same set. That's a rookie year card. But his base card from that set is his rookie card.

Arthur

What do you mean his “base card”? They’re both from the base set. The other one is more highly sought because Dr J and Magic were both better players than Sikma, but they’re both “base cards” from the same set.

Right. But there are base cards, All-Star cards, scoring leaders, rebounding leaders, etc. It's just like any other set except Topps decided to put 3 smaller cards that were meant to be separated on one larger panel, TPGers decided not to grade individual panels, and everyone lost their mind.

Nobody considers a player's All-Star card or a Leaders card their rookie card. It's a rookie year card but no one ever refers to it as their "rookie card." Both Bird and Magic have their base card on two different 3-card panels, one of them most famously contains them both along with Dr. J. But there's also a Dr.J/Magic base panel without Bird and a Bird base panel without Dr.J/Magic base.

Arthur

ReggieCleveland

@stwainfan said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@stwainfan said:
I guess this could be considered a rookie card. Since it is from his rookie year.

Except no one has multiple rookie cards from the same set. That's a rookie year card. But his base card from that set is his rookie card.

Arthur

There are six different Bird cards in that set. Yes I know the one with Magic is the most valuable one.

And only two "cards" (ie. 3-card panels) contain Bird's rookie card.

Arthur

garnettstyle

The 1980 topps basketball set is so ugly with the 3 cards together. They should be graded individually as mini cards.

Huskies11

The XRC issued sometimes a couple years or more prior to the players actual MLB 1st season?

@LarkinCollector said:
Beckett doesn't get to decide what a RC is for me, neither do the registry sets. If there's an earlier issue, I'm getting it.

Agreed. At the end of the day the market is going to decide what the true RC is, not Topps or Beckett. By modern logic, the 85 Topps McGwire would be an XRC with his 87 issues being the 'true' RCs.

ReggieCleveland

I was a loather of the current Beckett-established rules for rookie card. It just seemed dumb. We had been operating under one simple system forever and now there was this nonsense that the first card wasn't their rookie?

But then I started actually collecting modern and I have to tell you, I like it. The entire rookie card premise was based on the assumption that the further back you go, the more difficult it is to find a card. It was back before manufactured rarity and inserts, when there were just base sets from three different manufacturers. The premise, and it held true, was that it was tougher to find a 1956 card than it was to find a 1974 card. The first card of a player would, presumably, be their toughest and therefore it became the most valuable. It was a construct of the market.

Today, even with the new Beckett rules, that simple premise still holds true. The 2009 Bowman Draft is always going to be the most valuable Mike Trout card. It doesn't matter if you consider it his rookie card or not. The market has spoken and that card is king. But with the new rules, the 2011 cards of him now have their own life breathed into them as the first cards of Mike Trout after he made his MLB debut. The hobby calls them rookie cards and if you stop thinking of it as a way to try to make them more valuable than his 2009 cards you can see the logic in it.

The market is always going to favor the 1st Bowman cards. But now we also get a second round of fun with the RC cards. No one is trying to supplant the 1st Bowman cards, it's just an added dimension to the hobby that is quite enjoyable if you embrace the sentiment behind them instead of looking at it as an attempted course correction.

Also, the market has 100% adopted the Beckett rules. You can decry them all you want but there are many collectors who prefer to chase the RC cards. I experienced it firsthand last year with the big four and found it extremely enjoyable. So while the "rules" may have changed, the market hasn't. A player's first card is still their most valuable, but now we get an added dimension of the modern "rookie card" market to enjoy. I have completely converted.

Arthur

DBesse27

I hate Bowman prospect cards and would never seek one out. Trout’s first Bowman is king? No thanks, I can think of thousands and thousands of cards I’d rather own.

doubledragon

The First Year Issue of a player in his 1st full qualifying year in the Bigs?

To me, the 1st year actually in a pro league is a rookie card. Anything before the 1st pro season, to me, is a pre rookie card.

ReggieCleveland

@DBesse27 said:
I hate Bowman prospect cards and would never seek one out. Trout’s first Bowman is king? No thanks, I can think of thousands and thousands of cards I’d rather own.

There are thousands and thousands of Trout cards you'd rather have than his 2009 Bowman Draft?

Arthur