Options
Rookie Cards
Gooch12
Posts: 20
If we all had a vote on what constitutes a Rookie Card, and whatever the winning vote was is what the Grading Companies would set their Rookie Sets at, how would you vote?
FYI, this comes from Beckett pertaining to me asking about 2000 Miguel Cabrera Cards:
"Only his 2000 Major League cards are considered RCs. The 2001 cards from Bowman and other first issues companies are second year cards.
A Rookie Card must be part of the main set of a product. By “main set” we mean the base (or basic) set of a product. The 2000 Topps Traded Autograph cards were an insert set and thus not considered RCs.
Minor League cards, inserts, parallels, promo cards, etc are not considered Rookie Cards. (Minor League cards are minor league team issue sets OR minor league-specific products such as those issued by Just Minors, Royal Rookies, Tristar, etc. His Topps cards were part of a Major League Baseball licensed product and – despite the fact that he was technically still in the minor leagues at the time – considered Rookie Cards by the hobby."
When I asked bout Ryan Braun having some 2005 cards and 2007 cards listed as Rookie Cards, the response was,
"In 2006, the Major League Baseball Player’s Association implemented a “Rookie Logo” and “Rookie Card Rules”. When you see a player with (RC) in the card description, it means that he has previously issued “true” Rookie Cards, but the cards with the (RC) feature the “MLBPA Rookie Card Logo”. This is the case for Ryan Braun. All 5 of those 2005 Braun cards are true Rookie Cards. All of his cards from 2007 are (RC) cards or “Rookie Logo Cards”. Yes, it’s extremely confusing and it the logo probably did more to confuse collectors rather than to help them"
OK and I thought the WAR was confusing. So here's the vote: What would you think constitutes what a Rookie Card is?
1. What Beckett said
2. Any card issued from the first year only
3. The first card issued by a card company (Star 1988, Fleer Update 1989, Topps Traded 1990, all would be RC)
4. All cards issued up until the player played professionally (In Miguel Cabrera's case, all cards 2000-2003)
5. Another possibility???
FYI, this comes from Beckett pertaining to me asking about 2000 Miguel Cabrera Cards:
"Only his 2000 Major League cards are considered RCs. The 2001 cards from Bowman and other first issues companies are second year cards.
A Rookie Card must be part of the main set of a product. By “main set” we mean the base (or basic) set of a product. The 2000 Topps Traded Autograph cards were an insert set and thus not considered RCs.
Minor League cards, inserts, parallels, promo cards, etc are not considered Rookie Cards. (Minor League cards are minor league team issue sets OR minor league-specific products such as those issued by Just Minors, Royal Rookies, Tristar, etc. His Topps cards were part of a Major League Baseball licensed product and – despite the fact that he was technically still in the minor leagues at the time – considered Rookie Cards by the hobby."
When I asked bout Ryan Braun having some 2005 cards and 2007 cards listed as Rookie Cards, the response was,
"In 2006, the Major League Baseball Player’s Association implemented a “Rookie Logo” and “Rookie Card Rules”. When you see a player with (RC) in the card description, it means that he has previously issued “true” Rookie Cards, but the cards with the (RC) feature the “MLBPA Rookie Card Logo”. This is the case for Ryan Braun. All 5 of those 2005 Braun cards are true Rookie Cards. All of his cards from 2007 are (RC) cards or “Rookie Logo Cards”. Yes, it’s extremely confusing and it the logo probably did more to confuse collectors rather than to help them"
OK and I thought the WAR was confusing. So here's the vote: What would you think constitutes what a Rookie Card is?
1. What Beckett said
2. Any card issued from the first year only
3. The first card issued by a card company (Star 1988, Fleer Update 1989, Topps Traded 1990, all would be RC)
4. All cards issued up until the player played professionally (In Miguel Cabrera's case, all cards 2000-2003)
5. Another possibility???
0