My lingering anxiety about recent Bowman Baseball Issues

TonyC

Does it bother anyone else that Bowman's new set structure in regular Bowman, Bowman Draft, Bowman Chrome, and Bowman Heritage with the prospects being in a "separate" set than the base cards is leading Beckett to not recognize them as real rookie cards? For instance, Longoria and JR Towles had cards in older issues of Bowman Heritage as part of the Prospects subset that were issued at a consistent rate of about 2:1 pack, but this years' cards, not those 2006 and 2007 issues, respectively, are recognized as rookie cards. As hot prospects in recent Bowman issues start to take off such as David Price and Matt Laporta, could the non-recognition of their Bowman "rookie cards" as true rookies hurt their value and thus impact Bowman's reputation as THE BEST investment product for future rookies?

MeteoriteGuy

Topps printing "Rookie" on a card, does make me want it more, or not want other issues of the same player any more.

I don't think it matters.

billwaltonsbeard

I for one, dont think that Topps produces enough Bowman sets. I think we need about 5 or 6 more each year.

And why dont they start making cards of players in 8th and 9th grade?? Then you'll have some really good rookie cards!!

artistlost

I understand your worries but it won't matter.

The market will determine the value not the printing of a RC logo or if Beckett calls it a true rookie or not.

Perfect case. Cal Ripken Jr.

the 1982 Topps card is considered his rookie but the market would rather have his Traded card from the same year.

Another is Prince Fielder

His rookies are considered 2006 but his 2002 UD Prospect Premieres Auto card will always warrant more interest.

So...long story short.

People will always pay more for a 2006 Longoria Bowman Chrome Prospect auto than for a true rookie card (in Beckett's world) from 2008

mathew

artistlost

However,

To throw in a different angle.

I have found that the market strange with some cases...

David Price has a Bowman Chrome prospect card from 2007 and a Bowman Sterling Prospect Auto from 2007 too.

That being said it is his 2008 Bowman Chrome Prospect autograph card seems to be the one that collectors are after. Why? Well for one it is autographed and the 2007 Bowman Chrome wasn't. Also, it is an ON card auto which the 2007 Sterling didn't do (having that ugly silver sticker auto). And finally, the design and picture choice for the 2008 Bowman Chrome card is much better than the Sterling.

So again...long story short. There are other elements that can effect why the market will consider one card better than the others.

mathew

mtcards

I'll even throw in another angle. Beckett used to list Bonds 86 Cards as XRC and his 87's as RC. For a while, the 87 Fleer was the highest book, then people turned to the XRC's. Even people's opinions change over time.

Besides, Beckett is losing it with all this XRC, RC, (RC), and the since retired FTC, FDC, FUDC, etc etc. Put the cards in, let the market decide.

TonyC

Well here is another question: why doesn't Beckett label these cards as rookies? They are the first cards of the player, the part of the set they are in is issued 1 or 2 per regular pack anyway, so why not?

digicat

<< <i>'ll even throw in another angle. Beckett used to list Bonds 86 Cards as XRC and his 87's as RC. For a while, the 87 Fleer was the highest book, then people turned to the XRC's. Even people's opinions change over time. >>




The 1987 Fleer card is still the most "valuable/expensive" of Bonds' 86-87 regular issue cards.

artistlost

<< <i>Well here is another question: why doesn't Beckett label these cards as rookies? They are the first cards of the player, the part of the set they are in is issued 1 or 2 per regular pack anyway, so why not? >>



They don't do this and now use the RC on for cards that have the RC logo printed on them in a futile attempt to even the playing field between Upper Deck and Topps (since Topps can make a prospect card and UD can't).

They also claim that it will make it easier for collectors to know what the true rookie card is but it has only added more confusion.

mathew

mtcards

<< <i>

<< <i>'ll even throw in another angle. Beckett used to list Bonds 86 Cards as XRC and his 87's as RC. For a while, the 87 Fleer was the highest book, then people turned to the XRC's. Even people's opinions change over time. >>




The 1987 Fleer card is still the most "valuable/expensive" of Bonds' 86-87 regular issue cards. >>




Not that this is an important point...but last Beckett Hi Price

1987 Fleer $15
1986 Topps Traded $15
1986 Donruss Rookies $20
1986 Fleer Update $20


Checking ebay auctions, raw sells for about the same for all of the above, but the percentage of sales vs. unsold his higher for the update cards than it is for the Fleer.

digicat

<< <i>Not that this is an important point...but last Beckett Hi Price
1987 Fleer $15
1986 Topps Traded $15
1986 Donruss Rookies $20
1986 Fleer Update $20 >>




Past sales is the price guide I use.

Sticking with PSA 9s, and the past 5 sales of each....

1987 Fleer = $15.24
1986 Fleer Update = $11.97
1986 Topps Traded = $11.81
1986 Donruss Rookies = $7.93


PSA 10s follow similar rankings...

1987 Fleer = $75.35
1986 Fleer Update = $59.20
1986 Topps Traded = $41.57
1986 Donruss Rookies = $36.10

lsutigers1973

I just sold a 86TT and 86 Donruss Rookies Bonds in PSA 9. The TT sold for $13.48 and the Donruss sold for $6.50.

CDsNuts

Who cares, Beckett is irrelevant.

joestalin

Artistlost has some excellent info. If you don't like the RC structure you can blame MLB NOT topps. A rookie by definition now is
one that has played at the major league level. There are still cards produced of other players who have not gotten there but
they can not be producted by UD, can only be produced by topps and not called RC's or even have a set # on the back and
can be produced by donruss as unlicensed cards (with EEE is).

Bowman chrome is king. We need to understand that. Since 2001, that has been THE rookie card to get. EEE and Sterling have been
nice, but as was pointed out, sticker autos are NOT what people want. They want nice clean on card sigs on a bowman card, and
in different colors too. 08 Bowman was a major surprise....keeping in value and sometimes surpassing its 07 brother.

Bowman is simply topps rookie line...much like SP with Upper Deck. Heritage is gone now, its Bowman, Bowman Chrome and Bowman
Draft Picks.

If you are a prospector, Bowman Chrome is always first on your list.

Kevin

mtcards

<< <i>I'll even throw in another angle. Beckett used to list Bonds 86 Cards as XRC and his 87's as RC. For a while, the 87 Fleer was the highest book, then people turned to the XRC's. Even people's opinions change over time.

Besides, Beckett is losing it with all this XRC, RC, (RC), and the since retired FTC, FDC, FUDC, etc etc. Put the cards in, let the market decide. >>




While graded sales may be different, the original discussion noted beckett and their price guide, which was the basis of my reply.

digicat

<< <i>While graded sales may be different, the original discussion noted beckett and their price guide, which was the basis of my reply. >>




Looking at past sales of raw 1986 Fleer Bonds cards, it seems like the going rate is less than $7.