In the realm of Modern Cards, What Defines a "True Rookie Card" ?

hobart4281

Is there a universally accepted defintion within the hobby? I'm starting to collect some of the modern cards & the selection of "rookie" cards seems to be without bounds. Thanks in advance.

fandango

a rookie card is generally considered the base card in a set, a would not include the parallels, autographed versions, and subsets cards within the sets that are so common today....

so a player, for instance, would have only 1 true RC in a set, even though he may appear on 5 cards within the set (sub sets and serial numberd versions ets)...

Blackie

i agree with fandango........usually the first base card......

hobart4281

Thanks for the replies...

Are the Chrome versions of cards considered a parrallel? If they are not, LaDainian Tomlinson's 2001 Topps would be viewed as the true rookie versus the chrome version that is included in the set registries-correct?

Thanks again.

MeteoriteGuy

I would say there is no well defined and accepted term for RC anymore. It had a blurry definition in the 80s-90s, but now it more just depends on which player you are referring to. Examples; Barry Larkin, Mark McGwire, later RC's not in base sets (MLB rule), et al.

MeteoriteGuy

<< <i>Thanks for the replies...

Are the Chrome versions of cards considered a parrallel? If they are not, LaDainian Tomlinson's 2001 Topps would be viewed as the true rookie versus the chrome version that is included in the set registries-correct?

Thanks again. >>




Topps Chrome is a parallel of Topps for any given year (although often smaller with a different card number), however in sport cards when a person mentions parallel they are usually referring to a parallel included within the same packs.

So using 2008 Bowman Football and 2008 Bowman Chrome, the Chrome would not a parallel of the base Topps, but the refractors included within would. The base 2008 Bowman Football has a parallel with gold ink and a different stock. Like I noted above, once again, it really depends on the card you are referring to. The desire for a simple short sentenced definition for all cards and all eras has to be let go. Much like life, cards are not that simple.

MeteoriteGuy

Further along what I was noting.

I don't think we could get 10 collectors to agree in all cases on what exactly a "card" is. The Pacific inserts made of cloth and twice the size of a normal card...are they cards? Small pennants from packs...are they cards? Coins from packs...are they cards? Postcards from the stadiums...are they cards? Unusual shaped box toppers? The pack wrapper? Most would say no here...but some would say yes in some cases (Donruss Preferred).

In many cases it once again comes down to....what "card" are you referring to.

Stingray

When they are stamped with the Rookie Card symbol on the front of the card!!

digicat

Chrome is generally recognized as a set by itself.

The issue of what a basecard is now is kinda dicey.

Example: From 2006 on, Bowman Chrome issued 2 "different" sets, the Prospect "insert" and the base set. Of course, the Prospect "insert" set was larger than the base set, and only forced into existance because MLB decreed that players who had not yet had their MLB debut could not appear in the "base set".

So, a great example of this lunacy is Evan Longoria. His cards in 2006 and 2007 were issued under MLB's decree, and thus situated in Prospects "insert" sets. In 2008, he made his first apperance in a "base" set. So, does that mean his rookie card is in 2008?

TheVon

Ugh. This is why my collection of newer cards is made up entirely of impulse buys while I stand in line at Target. It's all just a little too convoluted for me.

digicat

I usually go for the first card of a player released by a major set. It might not be the most valuable, but that's ok.

MintMoondog

It is quite confusing. So my advice is to each their own. For Verlander, I can choose among what seems like 100s of variations of rookies in 2005 or his single USA baseball issue from Upper Deck in 2003. I decided that the 2003s were his rookies, and it seems that I am in the minority (an understatement). But, I am happy to keep buying them on the cheap.

fandango

unfortunately the MLBPA stepped in 2006 and started making the decisions (the rookie logo)....they said "this" was a players rookie, when the player already had cards 2 years ago in a prospect set or something like that....made it all a little fuzzy....

hopefully this is batter for now on and a players true RC is more distinct...

thats why 2001 was a great year for rookie collectors....

Ichiro Pujols Teixera and many others had many TRUE ROOKIE CARDS that year.....
straight foward, no questions.......

AHH what a year....2001 in card collecting was like 1982 in Bordeaux.....A CLASSIC YEAR

digicat

MLBPA's plan failed.

MLBPA's primarly objective was to limit the production of cards for players who had yet to make their MLB debut. The card manufacturers responded by simply changing the numbering to make those cards "insert" cards, and successfully circumvented the rule.

As far as I'm concerned, a card with the "Rookie Card" logo is the same as a card with the "Rated Rookie" or "Star Rookie" logos. If it's their first card, then it's a rookie card. If it's not, then it's just another card.

benderbroeth

see this is why i onlt collect pre-78 cards...ha ha

Alfiewt

The hobby recognized definition of a rookie card is that it is the players first appearance on a regualar issue card from one of the major companies. A few years ago, Beckett published a book called the Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia that lists the rookie cards of all players. PSA uses this book to determine what cards should be listed in the Rookie sets.

WinPitcher

IMO the definition never changed. It was and is IMO a players first appearance on a nationally issued set.


Of course there are situations. notably pre war where regionals are used.

JMHO


Steve

Mickey71

It's the one you like best from the 1450 that were produced that year.

digicat

<< <i>A few years ago, Beckett published a book called the Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia that lists the rookie cards of all players. PSA uses this book to determine what cards should be listed in the Rookie sets. >>



Bah. That's why Evan Longoria's card in the Rookie of the Year registry is from 2008, not 2006.

The term "rookie card" has been hijacked.

JasP24

<< <i>

<< <i>A few years ago, Beckett published a book called the Ultimate Rookie Card Encyclopedia that lists the rookie cards of all players. PSA uses this book to determine what cards should be listed in the Rookie sets. >>



Bah. That's why Evan Longoria's card in the Rookie of the Year registry is from 2008, not 2006.

The term "rookie card" has been hijacked. >>



I never have understood why PSA is depending on Beckett to decide what a rookie card is and what isn't...I own the encyclopedia, and for the most part, its garbage..Of course the cards where a player only has one or 2, well those are no brainers..But some of the modern cards, I have no idea how they made some of their choices..

I've never been a fan of Beckett, and never taken any of their definitions or pricing or anything else as gospel. Anyone who's every looked at a Beckett understands there are always inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The Rookie card Encyclopedia is no different.

Jason

mickeymantle24

When it has the little rookie card symbol on the top. I have a Longoria autographed rookie card from 08 if anyone wants to see what i am talking about

Wabittwax

See now I would consider a 1996 Topps Chrome Kobe Bryant Refractor as a Rookie Card. But, I wouldn't call the Youthquake card of him from that set a Rookie Card. It is a strange definition I guess.