Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Rookie card designation

BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 9,544 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
Does anyone have any opinions on how the RC designation came to be in regard that this would determine that that card would have the highest value? Who/whom designated it as such.How it evolved into that price point. But not so much now due to all the inserts in many cases dwarfing the RC price value.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".

Comments

  • WillBBCWillBBC Posts: 56 ✭✭
    Topps added the logo in 2006 and I am not a fan at all. I don't collect much modern at this point but I do like to buy what I consider rookie cards of current Nationals and Yankees players. So take Anthony Rendon for example.

    His first MLB licensed cards came in 2012 Bowman Draft. He has autographs, Refractors, all kinds of colorful parallels, you name it from 2012. I consider those his true rookie cards, logo be damned (his RC logo cards came out in 2013, after he made his debut with the Nats).

    The value thing is consistent across baseball. Rendon's 2012 Bowman cards sell for far more than his 2013 Topps Chrome cards (more autographs, Refractors, you name it, they're great looking cards, carry the RC logo, but they weren't his first licensed card). Average sale price of his 2012 Bowman Chrome rookie is 20-25 bucks, 2013 Topps Chrome is 12-16. The difference gets much more significant when you start getting into the numbered parallels.

    Now--I'm not completely against the RC logo. It has added value to numerous cards that would have been considered 2nd or 3rd year cards just ten years ago. Take Clayton Kershaw for example. His 2006 Bowman Chrome autograph sells for a ton, but his RC designated cards from a few years later sell for far more than what a standard 3rd year, basic product would sell for.

    My final answer: The RC designation was a bad idea. It creates confusion. When a player's first MLB licensed, nationally distributed card is no longer a rookie card after being a rookie card for 50 years because MLB says so...it leaves a lot of people asking why?
  • bsavagebsavage Posts: 204 ✭✭
    MLB was actually the one that mandated the RC designation in 2006. The licensed card producers were "forced" to abide by the mlb guidelines. However, I suspect that the card producers were also in on the decision.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookie_card

    From my perspective, I somewhat agree with what they did. Often times, players get cards as soon as they hit low-A ball. In my opinion, that should not be his rookie. Especially when you consider the fact that it may be 5 years before the guy ever makes a major league team or he may never make a MLB roster.

    Anyway, that is just my opinion, and people should collect how they like regardless of what Topps, MLB, etc tell you image
  • jfkheatjfkheat Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think it really matters if the card has the RC designation on it or not. The collectors will make their own decision which card they think is the RC.
    James
  • FrozencaribouFrozencaribou Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not that anyone asked, but I'll give the NHL perspective on RC's.

    I know that for the NHL, the players association had a big say in how the rookie cards were issued. From 1990 to 2001, major card companies kept pushing rookie cards earlier and earlier, so most of the hot rookies were made before the players were even drafted or a part of the NHLPA. I suppose the players didn't want to lose revenue and also were worried about protecting the NHL focus on hockey cards.

    Now a player must play a game in the NHL before they can appear on an NHL licensed card. I think that is okay. I do miss the world junior card rookies. They were pretty cool.

    As for baseball, I am still a little nostalgic for the beckett designations from the 80's. XRC's, FTC's, FUDC's, FDC's, and FFC's were all tags I used with relish when describing cards for sale. I also liked the added prestige that beckett gave cards of players that won major awards such as MVP that particular year.

    -Nathanael
  • sbfinleysbfinley Posts: 357 ✭✭


    << <i>Topps added the logo in 2006 and I am not a fan at all. I don't collect much modern at this point but I do like to buy what I consider rookie cards of current Nationals and Yankees players. So take Anthony Rendon for example.

    His first MLB licensed cards came in 2012 Bowman Draft. He has autographs, Refractors, all kinds of colorful parallels, you name it from 2012. I consider those his true rookie cards, logo be damned (his RC logo cards came out in 2013, after he made his debut with the Nats).

    The value thing is consistent across baseball. Rendon's 2012 Bowman cards sell for far more than his 2013 Topps Chrome cards (more autographs, Refractors, you name it, they're great looking cards, carry the RC logo, but they weren't his first licensed card). Average sale price of his 2012 Bowman Chrome rookie is 20-25 bucks, 2013 Topps Chrome is 12-16. The difference gets much more significant when you start getting into the numbered parallels.

    Now--I'm not completely against the RC logo. It has added value to numerous cards that would have been considered 2nd or 3rd year cards just ten years ago. Take Clayton Kershaw for example. His 2006 Bowman Chrome autograph sells for a ton, but his RC designated cards from a few years later sell for far more than what a standard 3rd year, basic product would sell for.

    My final answer: The RC designation was a bad idea. It creates confusion. When a player's first MLB licensed, nationally distributed card is no longer a rookie card after being a rookie card for 50 years because MLB says so...it leaves a lot of people asking why? >>




    I don't mind the current setup in baseball because it makes sense. All of the Bowman brands are geared towards minor league prospects and recent draft picks. They picture the players in MLB uniforms and carry a price premium because they are a player's first printed cards, but they're not rookies because non of them have even dressed in the show yet. If they didn't carry the current setup one of the following would occur:

    A. 99% of players would not have a rookie card printed in the season they were actually a "rookie". If player X was drafted in 2012 and had his only RC in 2012 Bowman DPP and then made the show in 2015 it would be kind of senseless not to have a 2015 RC. Also under these circumstances the base Topps set (the most important annual set in the hobby's history) would only have RC cards occur in rare instances of players jumping directly to the show ie. Jose Abreu.

    or

    B. Do away with the prospect driven bowman sets (which arguably keep the hobby sustainable and are the most popular sets with modern collectors) and include top prospects in Topps brand sets. This would dilute Topps brand sets even further, increase already high print runs, limit the number of prospects with new cards hitting the market, and severely minimize the ability to gamble on prospects.


    I don't find the current setup that difficult. A minor league player's first bowman card is denoted with "first bowman" and "first bowman chrome" designations and then all cards printed in the calender year following a major league call up receive the "RC" designation on card. Some consider them all RC's, some prefer 1st Bowman, some prefer RC logo, most collect both, and all of them carry a premium.
Sign In or Register to comment.