Question about statement in Beckett

frankhardy

In a recent Beckett (David Wright on front), it listed a bunch of David Wright rookie cards. When they talked about the 2001 Upper Deck Prospect Premiers XRC, it said this -

...the "CONTROVERSIAL" 2001 Upper Deck Prospect Premiers.

That sort of got my attention because I have a few of the Ryan Howards's.

What was controversial about that set? Does anyone know?

XanaduNow

If I'm not mistaken (which I frequently am) it is due to the fact that none of the players had signed with the MLBPA yet and therefore aren't considered a mainstream release (hence, the XRC instead of the RC). I'm not 100% on this though so hopefully someone else will come along and clarify.

Those UD P+P sets are essentially the baseball draft sets. Between those sets and the Bowman product it's pretty much why there are no more advance rookie cards in mainstream basic sets anymore. From here on out, a player has to have played in a major league game before a company can release their rookie card into their basic set. Of course, Bowman got around it by issuing their cards as part of an insert set. It still remains to be seen if this will affect the hobby's take on them.

Arthur

digicat

<< <i>Those UD P+P sets are essentially the baseball draft sets. Between those sets and the Bowman product it's pretty much why there are no more advance rookie cards in mainstream basic sets anymore. From here on out, a player has to have played in a major league game before a company can release their rookie card into their basic set. Of course, Bowman got around it by issuing their cards as part of an insert set. It still remains to be seen if this will affect the hobby's take on them. >>



Hmm, the whole "official MLB Rookie Card" deal STARTED with the 2006 sets.