Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

1978 Burger King BB #15 Alan Trammell is this considered a rookie?

Chargers49ersTigersChargers49ersTigers Posts: 909 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Hello to all! Is the 1978 Burger King Trammell technically/offically considered a true rookie card? Or do we all just like to term it that way. Thanks for any answers.

Comments

  • sportscardtheorysportscardtheory Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭
    A RC year card at the very least. It's certainly more desirable and harder to find than the "true" RC.
    tradingcardcommunity on reddit - CLICK HERE, JOIN AND POST!]
  • shagrotn77shagrotn77 Posts: 5,616 ✭✭✭✭
    It's not officially recognized as a rookie as it's not a mainstream card issued by a major trading card company, but it is a very cool card.
    "My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
  • jackstrawjackstraw Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭
    I consider it a rookie but as you can see it depends on who you talk to. 89 Mothers Cookies
    Griffey are considered rookies and they are not from a mainstream card from a major card company?
    Collector Focus

    ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
  • Chargers49ersTigersChargers49ersTigers Posts: 909 ✭✭✭
    Cool, an answer both ways! Ha! I like both of his 1978 cards, and am on the lookout for a nice Burger King PSA 9.
  • Sean1125Sean1125 Posts: 3,479
    If it is their first year I believe it should be called their rookie.... Yet Mantle's "rookie" year is 52.... I see some guys being printed 3 years later (Heyward) on chrome being called rookies...
  • TabeTabe Posts: 6,182 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>If it is their first year I believe it should be called their rookie.... Yet Mantle's "rookie" year is 52.... I see some guys being printed 3 years later (Heyward) on chrome being called rookies... >>


    The 52 Topps for Mantle isn't a rookie and no knowledgeable collector would call it one. His true rookie is the 1951 Bowman.

    Tabe
  • digicatdigicat Posts: 8,551 ✭✭
    If you called it a rookie card, I don't think you'd confuse anyone. They'd know what you were talking about.


    You'd only run into a problem if you tried to get the card into a registry set that needed a Trammell RC.




    << <i>I see some guys being printed 3 years later (Heyward) on chrome being called rookies... >>



    That's because MLB decided that they had the authority to tell the hobby what a "rookie card" was, and from 2006 on, only cards with the "rookie card" logo are officially rookie cards. Any other card is an "insert" or some stupid crap like that. It's all BS.

    As far as I'm concerned, if it's the guy's first appearance as part of an official MLB licensed card product (or an insert card within a licensed set), then it's in the rookie card category for my collection.
    My Giants collection want list

    WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
  • Sean1125Sean1125 Posts: 3,479


    << <i>

    << <i>If it is their first year I believe it should be called their rookie.... Yet Mantle's "rookie" year is 52.... I see some guys being printed 3 years later (Heyward) on chrome being called rookies... >>


    The 52 Topps for Mantle isn't a rookie and no knowledgeable collector would call it one. His true rookie is the 1951 Bowman.

    Tabe >>




    I'm well aware of that... that was the point I was making hence "quotes" on rookie?

    Why do I see it constantly printed in magazines auctions etc "52 rookie?
Sign In or Register to comment.