Why did collectors fall for the MLB RC designation?

Planemonkey

Seems like the system of first card from a pack or set was working for years.
Did we have it wrong all those years?
I think they pulled a fast one on collectors.
Remember those cards we laughed at in the 90's like a 1995 Jeter "Rookie"?
Now collectors take them seriously like that's a rookie card see it says it on the card.

Albertdidit

Yes we have had it wrong the whole time - Jeter 1st played in the MLB in 1995 so the 95 is his rookie

Moving forward the 93 and 94 Jeters will be considered "pre rookies"

Stone193

I've always found the whole thing confusing.

What if someone comes up for "1" game? Then back. And the next year comes back and stays. Which is the "rookie year?"

Is 1 at bat enough to call it a rookie year and get the RC designator?

edit: a while back I read this article in the Cardboard Connection. Always nice to stay in a state of confusion.

I do remember that many agreed that an "insert" card would not be an RC. And I remember many said that the RC "has" to be pulled from a pack to qualify?

Just stuff I'm beginning to remember.

vintagefun

I like what they've done. It was too easy for crappy product to start releasing cards of every prospect that may never see an MLB field in hopes that product might sell. I don't want a race for the first card produced. I want good sets of MLB players. The RC designation helps that.
This wasn't a huge issue in the 80s when we had essentially 3 brands, but the 90s onslaught of product kinda necessitated the distinction and while it may have caused some early confusion with the likes of guys like Jeter, it's helped immensely with guys like Judge and Bellinger.

At least that's my 2 cents.

Stone193

@vintagefun said:
I like what they've done. It was too easy for crappy product to start releasing cards of every prospect that may never see an MLB field in hopes that product might sell. I don't want a race for the first card produced. I want good sets of MLB players. The RC designation helps that.
This wasn't a huge issue in the 80s when we had essentially 3 brands, but the 90s onslaught of product kinda necessitated the distinction and while it may have caused some early confusion with the likes of guys like Jeter, it's helped immensely with guys like Judge and Bellinger.

At least that's my 2 cents.

That's an excellent defense of the RC designator Jim. Can't argue with what you're saying.

I just remember when people had trouble deciding how the RC logo got applied in the first place.

OddRodz

The thing is indeed all effed up. I just go by the first card of the player having an official MLB jersey on is the rookie. 93 Jeter SP is the true rookie for me. (unless someone is going to tell me that was a little league Yankees jersey )

vintagefun

Funny thing is, I have no idea what the deciding factor is, but with so much available some sort of designation is key.

Judge has cards dating back to 2013. But 2017 product across all brands has the RC designation. Super helpful for collectors IMO. The pre-RCs still hold value for player collectors and such, but those that just want to chase "true" RCs now have that ability. Plus guidelines for a group of set collectors to determine what goes into say a Future HOF or whatever Registry.

demondeacs

@Stone193 said:
I've always found the whole thing confusing.

What if someone comes up for "1" game? Then back. And the next year comes back and stays. Which is the "rookie year?"

Is 1 at bat enough to call it a rookie year and get the RC designator?

edit: a while back I read this article in the Cardboard Connection. Always nice to stay in a state of confusion.

I do remember that many agreed that an "insert" card would not be an RC. And I remember many said that the RC "has" to be pulled from a pack to qualify?

Just stuff I'm beginning to remember.

By MLB standards, he would still qualify as a rookie in the second year because he had less than 130 at bats. I don't know if the card companies follow the same rules as MLB, but IMO the rookie card should be the last year where the player qualifies for rookie of the year. Or at least that should be the goal (I suppose there are events, like injuries, that could occur after printing that could complicate things).

First year cards are a separate concept. I always thought it was ridiculous to have a rookie card in '92 and then have the player get rookie of the year in '96. 1996 should have been considered Jeter's rookie year. By today's standards, I think it would have been from the outset. Certainly not earlier than '95. However, I don't think anything done today will change how cards from previous eras are viewed. That ship has sailed.

epatmythes

@demondeacs said:

@Stone193 said:
I've always found the whole thing confusing.

What if someone comes up for "1" game? Then back. And the next year comes back and stays. Which is the "rookie year?"

Is 1 at bat enough to call it a rookie year and get the RC designator?

edit: a while back I read this article in the Cardboard Connection. Always nice to stay in a state of confusion.

I do remember that many agreed that an "insert" card would not be an RC. And I remember many said that the RC "has" to be pulled from a pack to qualify?

Just stuff I'm beginning to remember.

By MLB standards, he would still qualify as a rookie in the second year because he had less than 130 at bats. I don't know if the card companies follow the same rules as MLB, but the rookie card should be the last year where the player qualifies for rookie of the year. Or that should at least be the goal (I suppose there are events, like injuries, that could occur after printing that could complicate things).

First year cards are a separate concept. I always thought it was ridiculous to have a rookie card in '92 and then have the player get rookie of the year in '96. 1996 should have been considered Jeter's rookie year. By today's standards, I think it would have been from the outset.

For all intents and purposes, the card companies do (at least, try) to follow MLB guidelines. There are drawbacks though... like Cody Bellinger, he will have the at bats to be a RC this year, but he was so late to the game and came on so unexpectedly hot... Card companies couldn't get him in product. At the end of the day, we'll be lucky if he's in half the 2017 product that is released.

You also have the trouble with expected RC's and injuries. A lot of early Topps product had Cardinals phenom pitcher Alex Reyes RC cards this year, but he got hurt and likely won't pitch this year... by MLB standards, he'll be a rookie next year (God willing).

Then, you have the absolute best player in baseball... Mike Trout. His RC cards, albeit few by normal modern comparisons, are all from 2011. He finished 2011 just a few AB shy of the MLB standard... and thus by MLB standards, was still a rookie in 2012, when he won 2012 AL ROY!

Also, one other point not mentioned yet. The MLB RC logo is MLB enforced, the hobby is just kind of adapting and following suit. That is why Topps Now puts call up on some of there cards... and some of them might actually get the AB's this season to technically not be rookies next year, but it's decided based on proposed MLB guidelines. It is part of their exclusive contract with Topps. Only Topps products carry the official MLB RC logo. Panini puts some kind of RC logo on some of their product, but it's still not MLB RC... but at the end of the day, those are still considered, in the hobby, as also official RC cards.

I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but it won't surprise me to see Panini, and one of their bastardized products, put out a hot mid-to-late season call up with their non-MLB-authorized RC logo in a year in which Topps is putting out only online Call-Up cards and holding the official RC's out for the following season products.

I doubt Panini would do it, but look at a guy this year like Rafael Devers. He got called up well before the September call-ups and has had 55 AB's in 14 games. The Red Sox still have 46 games remaining... putting him on pace to have approximately 235 AB's this season... thus making 2017 his official MLB rookie season... but Topps will be putting out his RC's next year!

If Panini decides to put money over hobby standards, and why wouldn't they with all their already non-MLB licensed product... that's when this whole idea of an official RC logo and the acceptance of official RC cards will really hit the fan!!!

demondeacs

@epatmythes said:

@demondeacs said:

@Stone193 said:
I've always found the whole thing confusing.

What if someone comes up for "1" game? Then back. And the next year comes back and stays. Which is the "rookie year?"

Is 1 at bat enough to call it a rookie year and get the RC designator?

edit: a while back I read this article in the Cardboard Connection. Always nice to stay in a state of confusion.

I do remember that many agreed that an "insert" card would not be an RC. And I remember many said that the RC "has" to be pulled from a pack to qualify?

Just stuff I'm beginning to remember.

By MLB standards, he would still qualify as a rookie in the second year because he had less than 130 at bats. I don't know if the card companies follow the same rules as MLB, but the rookie card should be the last year where the player qualifies for rookie of the year. Or that should at least be the goal (I suppose there are events, like injuries, that could occur after printing that could complicate things).

First year cards are a separate concept. I always thought it was ridiculous to have a rookie card in '92 and then have the player get rookie of the year in '96. 1996 should have been considered Jeter's rookie year. By today's standards, I think it would have been from the outset.

For all intents and purposes, the card companies do (at least, try) to follow MLB guidelines. There are drawbacks though... like Cody Bellinger, he will have the at bats to be a RC this year, but he was so late to the game and came on so unexpectedly hot... Card companies couldn't get him in product. At the end of the day, we'll be lucky if he's in half the 2017 product that is released.

You also have the trouble with expected RC's and injuries. A lot of early Topps product had Cardinals phenom pitcher Alex Reyes RC cards this year, but he got hurt and likely won't pitch this year... by MLB standards, he'll be a rookie next year (God willing).

Then, you have the absolute best player in baseball... Mike Trout. His RC cards, albeit few by normal modern comparisons, are all from 2011. He finished 2011 just a few AB shy of the MLB standard... and thus by MLB standards, was still a rookie in 2012, when he won 2012 AL ROY!

Also, one other point not mentioned yet. The MLB RC logo is MLB enforced, the hobby is just kind of adapting and following suit. That is why Topps Now puts call up on some of there cards... and some of them might actually get the AB's this season to technically not be rookies next year, but it's decided based on proposed MLB guidelines. It is part of their exclusive contract with Topps. Only Topps products carry the official MLB RC logo. Panini puts some kind of RC logo on some of their product, but it's still not MLB RC... but at the end of the day, those are still considered, in the hobby, as also official RC cards.

I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but it won't surprise me to see Panini, and one of their bastardized products, put out a hot mid-to-late season call up with their non-MLB-authorized RC logo in a year in which Topps is putting out only online Call-Up cards and holding the official RC's out for the following season products.

I doubt Panini would do it, but look at a guy this year like Rafael Devers. He got called up well before the September call-ups and has had 55 AB's in 14 games. The Red Sox still have 46 games remaining... putting him on pace to have approximately 235 AB's this season... thus making 2017 his official MLB rookie season... but Topps will be putting out his RC's next year!

If Panini decides to put money over hobby standards, and why wouldn't they with all their already non-MLB licensed product... that's when this whole idea of an official RC logo and the acceptance of official RC cards will really hit the fan!!!

That's interesting about Devers. Is he not going to be in the Topps Update release? I thought their late release products would cover situations like that.

I agree there's never going to be a perfect answer to this problem, but I still prefer situations like Trout's over what we had in the 90's when different card companies were printing "rookies" four years in a row. Since the cards are printed in advance, I think all they can really do is try to meet the sport's rookie definition knowing it won't always work out perfectly.

shagrotn77

I don't care what the new rules are. I play by the old ones. You know, the ones that actually made sense. First issue of a player in an MLB uniform = rookie.

JWBlue

Interesting discussion. Some things I never thought of.

I never thought about the use of the term rookie card. To me the first card of a player in a MLB uniform should be the most valuable. If that is the case "rookie" should not be used to describe the card. First Year card would be a better designation.

A card company could not really know what a player's last year will be that he qualifies as a rookie. That would be the best definition of rookie.

BillyKingsley

For the most part I like how the NBA does it better...if you play, it's your rookie season. There are instances where it doesn't work, though. Joel Embiid got his rookie cards in 2013 but didn't play until 2016, due to injury.

I agree with what others have said above, first year of playing in the top league is rookie cards, regardless of whatever mandate is given.

I'm a fan of professional minor league cards, but they don't count as RC in my opinion.

Indy78

I gave up a long time ago trying to understand what is and what is not considered a "rookie" card and trying to come up with a definition for it in my mind that fits all situations and all opinions. The "market" and card companies have pretty much decided it anyway, and from my view, aside from the RC logo, there doesn't seem to be a fully consistent pattern to it. Perhaps others get it - I don't.

FWIW, I try to collect the "first Topps base card" of a player from the plain old 660-card set and call it a day.

Planemonkey

I think as soon as a player gets drafted and has a card in a set with other major league players that is the rookie card. It is the rookie ie first card, has nothing to do with if the player is a rookie. I don't think they need a uniform on, but a big league logo at least. Even a team USA logo is pretty good with the tradition of Mcgwire etc. RC seems like a way to hype up cards that in the past would be the eqivalent of a 1989 Topps Greg Jefferies. Yeah it looked cool and said future star, but at 9 years old I knew it wasn't the real deal. Technically they are cards of a rookie, not sure if they are rookie cards. I think the hobby was way more interesting when we had more card companies. Did we really need protection from those terrible baseball card people making too many cards we couldn't collect them all, guess what we still can't, now they just look more similar.

epatmythes

@demondeacs said:

@epatmythes said:

@demondeacs said:

@Stone193 said:
I've always found the whole thing confusing.

What if someone comes up for "1" game? Then back. And the next year comes back and stays. Which is the "rookie year?"

Is 1 at bat enough to call it a rookie year and get the RC designator?

edit: a while back I read this article in the Cardboard Connection. Always nice to stay in a state of confusion.

I do remember that many agreed that an "insert" card would not be an RC. And I remember many said that the RC "has" to be pulled from a pack to qualify?

Just stuff I'm beginning to remember.

By MLB standards, he would still qualify as a rookie in the second year because he had less than 130 at bats. I don't know if the card companies follow the same rules as MLB, but the rookie card should be the last year where the player qualifies for rookie of the year. Or that should at least be the goal (I suppose there are events, like injuries, that could occur after printing that could complicate things).

First year cards are a separate concept. I always thought it was ridiculous to have a rookie card in '92 and then have the player get rookie of the year in '96. 1996 should have been considered Jeter's rookie year. By today's standards, I think it would have been from the outset.

For all intents and purposes, the card companies do (at least, try) to follow MLB guidelines. There are drawbacks though... like Cody Bellinger, he will have the at bats to be a RC this year, but he was so late to the game and came on so unexpectedly hot... Card companies couldn't get him in product. At the end of the day, we'll be lucky if he's in half the 2017 product that is released.

You also have the trouble with expected RC's and injuries. A lot of early Topps product had Cardinals phenom pitcher Alex Reyes RC cards this year, but he got hurt and likely won't pitch this year... by MLB standards, he'll be a rookie next year (God willing).

Then, you have the absolute best player in baseball... Mike Trout. His RC cards, albeit few by normal modern comparisons, are all from 2011. He finished 2011 just a few AB shy of the MLB standard... and thus by MLB standards, was still a rookie in 2012, when he won 2012 AL ROY!

Also, one other point not mentioned yet. The MLB RC logo is MLB enforced, the hobby is just kind of adapting and following suit. That is why Topps Now puts call up on some of there cards... and some of them might actually get the AB's this season to technically not be rookies next year, but it's decided based on proposed MLB guidelines. It is part of their exclusive contract with Topps. Only Topps products carry the official MLB RC logo. Panini puts some kind of RC logo on some of their product, but it's still not MLB RC... but at the end of the day, those are still considered, in the hobby, as also official RC cards.

I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but it won't surprise me to see Panini, and one of their bastardized products, put out a hot mid-to-late season call up with their non-MLB-authorized RC logo in a year in which Topps is putting out only online Call-Up cards and holding the official RC's out for the following season products.

I doubt Panini would do it, but look at a guy this year like Rafael Devers. He got called up well before the September call-ups and has had 55 AB's in 14 games. The Red Sox still have 46 games remaining... putting him on pace to have approximately 235 AB's this season... thus making 2017 his official MLB rookie season... but Topps will be putting out his RC's next year!

If Panini decides to put money over hobby standards, and why wouldn't they with all their already non-MLB licensed product... that's when this whole idea of an official RC logo and the acceptance of official RC cards will really hit the fan!!!

That's interesting about Devers. Is he not going to be in the Topps Update release? I thought their late release products would cover situations like that.

I agree there's never going to be a perfect answer to this problem, but I still prefer situations like Trout's over what we had in the 90's when different card companies were printing "rookies" four years in a row. Since the cards are printed in advance, I think all they can really do is try to meet the sport's rookie definition knowing it won't always work out perfectly.

He has 4 Topps Now cards so far, and they all were labeled as Call-Up cards. This is usually a pretty good indicator that Topps has interpreted MLB guidelines (or were told by MLB) to not put the RC logo on them... thus indicating his cards with the RC logo will be in 2018 product. So, I wouldn't expect him to have base MLB cards (IE. non-prospect cards) in any future 2017 releases.

Seems to be how Topps rolled last year, so I would expect the same right now.

Panama Mutiny (Formerly lawyer05)

still looking for an allen lewis rookie card