Why are cards released in 2011 considered Mike Trout's rookie cards?

Cloudster

Doesn't his 2009 Bowman Chrome card preceed them? I thought the universal rule of defining a rookie card is, the first time a major card company releases your card THAT is your rookie card and any cards released AFTER that year are not. Hasn't this always been the criteria?

swish54

Ever since Topps came out with the RC logo for MLB cards, and with so many minor league cards now, it has really muddied the water on what is a true RC. You'll get answers all over the board.

GreenSneakers

If you apply logic you’ll get a headache. I’m pretty sure the Topps 82 base set came out before the Topps 82 Traded set. But check the first ballot HoF rookie registry for what is considered Ripken’s rookie.

rexvos

I believe it was Beckett that changed the designation in the mid 2000s. The 2009 is a prospect card the 2011 are rookie cards.

ReggieCleveland

Starting in 2006, MLB decided that a player could not have a base card in a MLB-licensed set if they hadn't appeared in a MLB game.

At first, the hobby laughed it off the table. But what happened was, routine developed. Every year, Bowman got around the rule by having their Prospect cards be inserts, they just happened to have the same exact design as the base set and they airbrushed MLB uniforms on the players. But still, the market rejected the rule.

Two things changed the hobby's opinion on it: 1. Mike Trout, and 2. the tilt-like run MLB went on in the 2010s with prospects performing at a high level immediately upon arriving in MLB. Both factors really kicked into overdrive in 2017.

Trout. His 2009 Bowman got priced out of most collectors' budgets. With demand spilling over, it had to go somewhere. His first "official MLB" card ended up being the target.

The RC logo cards had become more accepted in the decade+ since it was first introduced and that was mainly due to incredible run of players that showed up and were immediate hobby lightning. You can say it started with Harper, Trout, Machado, Puig, etc., but really, it was Aaron Judge. The hobby had been growing and growing year-over-year since 2010 and a slugging Yankees prospect just lit the whole place on fire.

People couldn't get enough Judge. It wasn't enough to get his 1st Bowman Chrome Auto, people wanted to actively follow along and that meant current cards being released throughout the year that were considered his "RC." Throw in Cody Bellinger for good measure and it was a phenomenon.

Things didn't cool down in 2018, either. Ohtani, then Acuna and Soto; there weren't enough cards to go around. Being a collector in 2018 took on an entirely different definition than it had even 5 years prior. People didn't just want the player's cards, they wanted to post in the player's thread. They wanted to share in the collective jubilation as card values went up virtually overnight. And Topps RC cards had given them the perfect platform.

Everyone was buying the same cards, they were just adjusted rarity to fit each individual's budget. Someone would buy the red refractor /5 for $3,000 and another person could buy the regular refractor for $100, but everyone was in it together. Cards became a social endeavor and it stayed current by the constant release of new material with new RC cards.

It's become such a hobby phenomenon that it's actually affected cards from previous generations. The easiest example is the 1987 Topps Mark McGwire. Long a passed over base card, it's taken on RC status as his first Oakland A's card and gone from a $20 card to a $300 card.

So while 1st Bowman Chrome Autos will ALWAYS be the key card and most valuable, the hobby demand has legitimized "RC year" cards and given them a market all their own.

Arthur

orioles93

Good write up, ReggieCleveland. I think in the case of Trout, it was also because the 09 Bowman Chrome was only an auto card. There were not any non auto cards for Trout. Also all cards before 2011 were "minor league" cards because he hadn't played in the MLB yet. So his first base Topps issue during his rookie season in which he actually started playing in the MLB became his "main" rookie. I agree with this premise for all players. I don't mind them having cards made while they are in the minors, I just don't consider them they're actual rookie card until they play in the MLB. We've been doing this same thing for years and years. Rickey Henderson had a minors 1979 TCMA card but we consider 1980 Topps to be his rookie card. All the 80s guys are the same way. Boggs, Gwynn, Ripken, Sandberg, etc all had minor league cards made but we don't consider them their actual rookies.

JoeBanzai

@GreenSneakers said:
If you apply logic you’ll get a headache. I’m pretty sure the Topps 82 base set came out before the Topps 82 Traded set. But check the first ballot HoF rookie registry for what is considered Ripken’s rookie.

I remember seeing the Traded card and thinking it was WAY better than the Ripken "TRUE" rookie. I was told the traded card was not the card to buy, so I bought neither.

There can be a difference in a "true" rookie and a most desirable card.

I don't think anyone cares any more buy what you like. Or you can do what I did....walk away clean! ;-)

JWBlue

Both the 2009 Prospect card and 2011 Update Rookie card appeal to me for different reasons.

Prospect cards are a gambling aspect of the hobby. The Rookie cards are about tradition for me.