Wander Franco Rookie Card Debate (2021 Bowman's Best vs. 2022 RC logo cards)

[LittleJimmies]

I don't believe in this being Wander's RC simply because it is driven entirely by not being an "insert" anymore due to a card numbering mistake (or huge card numbering conspiracy as some people are claiming) in a set that it's silly to claim prospect cards were ever an insert. I will give it credit as a standalone card in its own weird hybrid prospect/RC grey space and think it ultimately slots below 1st and the main 2022 RC logo cards, but above non-1st prospect cards and low-level 2022 RC logo cards.

And people really need to stop referencing Beckett as some sort of authority in this. Sure, they have rules, but those rule are so disconnected from what collectors ascribe to now and are themselves inconsistent. I had no idea how Beckett classified rookie cards, or that them classifying cards on their own was even a thing anyone was supposed to care about. But when those rules state that 2018 Acuna Sapphire Bat Down is not a RC, but 2021 Bowman's Best Cristian Hernandez is, those rules simply don't work.

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

I don't believe in this being Wander's RC simply because it is driven entirely by not being an "insert" anymore due to a card numbering mistake (or huge card numbering conspiracy as some people are claiming) in a set that it's silly to claim prospect cards were ever an insert. I will give it credit as a standalone card in its own weird hybrid prospect/RC grey space and think it ultimately slots below 1st and the main 2022 RC logo cards, but above non-1st prospect cards and low-level 2022 RC logo cards.

And people really need to stop referencing Beckett as some sort of authority in this. Sure, they have rules, but those rule are so disconnected from what collectors ascribe to now and are themselves inconsistent. I had no idea how Beckett classified rookie cards, or that them classifying cards on their own was even a thing anyone was supposed to care about. But when those rules state that 2018 Acuna Sapphire Bat Down is not a RC, but 2021 Bowman's Best Cristian Hernandez is, those rules simply don't work.

Well said. I think I agree with every bit of this.

[k13]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

His point is baseball in the United States is far more popular than hockey and soccer in the United States. I can't name a time in American history where it wasn't. Demand for sports cards is no different and will probably never change.

As for this "paper modern base" question.... why does it have to be paper? Per usual, you are creating your own fantasy world in an attempt to prove yourself right for some strange reason. Heck, does Panini or Topps even make a Topps BB flagship equivalent in soccer? Isn't it all chrome technology? For hockey, what recent Young Guns is worth $1000?

It can be whatever but most compare flagship sets or the most popular sets.

It can be chrome/prizm/whatever.

Ohtani Chrome Refractor psa 10 can't even fetch $1000.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

I don't believe in this being Wander's RC simply because it is driven entirely by not being an "insert" anymore due to a card numbering mistake (or huge card numbering conspiracy as some people are claiming) in a set that it's silly to claim prospect cards were ever an insert. I will give it credit as a standalone card in its own weird hybrid prospect/RC grey space and think it ultimately slots below 1st and the main 2022 RC logo cards, but above non-1st prospect cards and low-level 2022 RC logo cards.

And people really need to stop referencing Beckett as some sort of authority in this. Sure, they have rules, but those rule are so disconnected from what collectors ascribe to now and are themselves inconsistent. I had no idea how Beckett classified rookie cards, or that them classifying cards on their own was even a thing anyone was supposed to care about. But when those rules state that 2018 Acuna Sapphire Bat Down is not a RC, but 2021 Bowman's Best Cristian Hernandez is, those rules simply don't work.

This has been the rule for rookie cards for a long time. Base cards in an MLB set. Who cares about the logo? We're going to listen to MLB about this? Manfred gets to tell us what a rookie card is? If I have to choose between Beckett and Manfred, that's an easy choice.

Bat Down isn't a true RC because it's a variation, not base. But that doesn't mean it's not desirable, obviously. People are confusing "not RC" with "not valuable." Variations and parallels of RCs are hella valuable BECAUSE of the true RCs they're based on.

When people work to complete RC sets of their favorite players, they don't have to chase every card produced in their RC year. Just the base cards from each regular set, which has been the definition of a rookie card for decades. In every way except for the very non-essential RC logo, 2021 Bowman's Best qualifies as Wander's one and only rookie card. That does not mean his 2022 "RC"s won't still be valuable, because they will.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

I don't believe in this being Wander's RC simply because it is driven entirely by not being an "insert" anymore due to a card numbering mistake (or huge card numbering conspiracy as some people are claiming) in a set that it's silly to claim prospect cards were ever an insert. I will give it credit as a standalone card in its own weird hybrid prospect/RC grey space and think it ultimately slots below 1st and the main 2022 RC logo cards, but above non-1st prospect cards and low-level 2022 RC logo cards.

And people really need to stop referencing Beckett as some sort of authority in this. Sure, they have rules, but those rule are so disconnected from what collectors ascribe to now and are themselves inconsistent. I had no idea how Beckett classified rookie cards, or that them classifying cards on their own was even a thing anyone was supposed to care about. But when those rules state that 2018 Acuna Sapphire Bat Down is not a RC, but 2021 Bowman's Best Cristian Hernandez is, those rules simply don't work.

Beckett classifies them, at least post 2006, the same way the MLBPA and MLB do.

By the criteria in MLBPA and MLB's 2006 agreement the 2021 Bowman's Best Wander Franco should have the RC logo.

[hoos]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

Beckett classifies them, at least post 2006, the same way the MLBPA and MLB do.

By the criteria in MLBPA and MLB's 2006 agreement the 2021 Bowman's Best Wander Franco should have the RC logo.

Only thing better than a 2021 Wander RC is a 2021 “No RC logo” UER RC!

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by hoos

Only thing better than a 2021 Wander RC is a 2021 “No RC logo” UER RC!

Guess it could be like JT Realmuto, Carson Kelly, or Enrique Hernandez or any of the other RCs that Topps has missed putting the RC logo on their RCs.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

Beckett classifies them, at least post 2006, the same way the MLBPA and MLB do.

By the criteria in MLBPA and MLB's 2006 agreement the 2021 Bowman's Best Wander Franco should have the RC logo.

That is correct. By the agreement MLBPA and Topps agreed on, 2021 Bowman's Best is Wander's rookie card.

[LittleJimmies]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

This has been the rule for rookie cards for a long time. Base cards in an MLB set. Who cares about the logo? We're going to listen to MLB about this? Manfred gets to tell us what a rookie card is? If I have to choose between Beckett and Manfred, that's an easy choice.

Bat Down isn't a true RC because it's a variation, not base. But that doesn't mean it's not desirable, obviously. People are confusing "not RC" with "not valuable." Variations and parallels of RCs are hella valuable BECAUSE of the true RCs they're based on.

When people work to complete RC sets of their favorite players, they don't have to chase every card produced in their RC year. Just the base cards from each regular set, which has been the definition of a rookie card for decades. In every way except for the very non-essential RC logo, 2021 Bowman's Best qualifies as Wander's one and only rookie card. That does not mean his 2022 "RC"s won't still be valuable, because they will.

Dislike for Manfred (which is pretty universal) has nothing to do with this.

Acuna's Sapphire Bat Down is in the base set. It is probably the most iconic RC to the hobby in the past decade. Yet Beckett says its not a RC because of some antiquated distribution requirement based on pre-online exclusive times. 2019 Sapphire Tatis is also not a RC for them, but 2019 Transcendent is? And 2020 Sapphire Yordan is a RC too??? Times change, their rules are broke for the current era.

[auctionjmm]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

That is correct. By the agreement MLBPA and Topps agreed on, 2021 Bowman's Best is Wander's rookie card.

"Or in such other manner that ensures that such Prospects shall not be viewed as rookies and which shall be approved by MLBPA"

I referenced this earlier. That's a pretty vague "OR" and leaves the door open for Topps to say "the prospect cards are designed differently" (which they are), and MLBPA to say "Ok, we're good with that".

[ScooterD]

So two things make a RC - (1) the logo and (2) the issue meets the defined criteria.

It seems that most on these boards ignore the logo criterium in favor of the definition. Two examples - Bat Down and 2006 Topps Verlander. The RC logo isn’t dispositive of the matter for these people.

Those same people should consider the 2021 Bowman’s Best a RC because there is no logo, but it meets the definition.

Is there another player that has RCs in issues from different years?

[LittleJimmies]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

Beckett classifies them, at least post 2006, the same way the MLBPA and MLB do.

By the criteria in MLBPA and MLB's 2006 agreement the 2021 Bowman's Best Wander Franco should have the RC logo.

Originally Posted by Shankweather

That is correct. By the agreement MLBPA and Topps agreed on, 2021 Bowman's Best is Wander's rookie card.

That it should have the RC logo is not the argument, it's that this inclusion in the base set instead of being an "insert" is what dictates it and intent is wide open to interpretation. People are going crazy because of the Wander aspect, and his situation being a super high profile real-life rookie that is being held back to 2022 products for his RC warrants it. But if the card numbering is THE nail in the coffin, that means all those other prospects are also RC's. Which is what Beckett has correctly gone with per their rules, and is absurd in practical terms.

[LittleJimmies]

Originally Posted by auctionjmm

"Or in such other manner that ensures that such Prospects shall not be viewed as rookies and which shall be approved by MLBPA"

I referenced this earlier. That's a pretty vague "OR" and leaves the door open for Topps to say "the prospect cards are designed differently" (which they are), and MLBPA to say "Ok, we're good with that".

Those damn lawyers! The other easy Topps defense of "or" is that they put the RC logo on rookie cards and it doesn't have it.

[mgariepy14]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

So two things make a RC - (1) the logo and (2) the issue meets the defined criteria.

It seems that most on these boards ignore the logo criterium in favor of the definition. Two examples - Bat Down and 2006 Topps Verlander. The RC logo isn’t dispositive of the matter for these people.

Those same people should consider the 2021 Bowman’s Best a RC because there is no logo, but it meets the definition.

Is there another player that has RCs in issues from different years?

I believe Joey Votto's and Zack Greinke's 2002 Bowman Chromes are considered their RC. Votto's cards in 2008 are labeled with RC label.

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by mgariepy14

I believe Joey Votto's and Zack Greinke's 2002 Bowman Chromes are considered their RC. Votto's cards in 2008 are labeled with RC label.

You are 100% right on that, but my understanding is that players whose first prospect and RC cards span 2005 aren’t part of this conversation.

[LittleJimmies]

I want to add that this topic is like a masterclass in the history of the RC and is awesome. Some really great discussion. A few holier than thou members of course, but generally good discussion. Feels a bit like when I joined the boards a long long hobby time ago on 2019 haha!

[hoos]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

Those damn lawyers! The other easy Topps defense of "or" is that they put the RC logo on rookie cards and it doesn't have it.

Topps doesn’t need a defense. They already lost the license, they’ve been bought out, and the league now has an ownership interest in Topps…

Very interesting final move on their part.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by mgariepy14

I believe Joey Votto's and Zack Greinke's 2002 Bowman Chromes are considered their RC.

The only people who still think think these cards and Verlander’s 2005 issues are rookie cards are the people who were socialized to think they were rookies decades ago over a period of approximately a dozen years so that people would buy into the entirely new idea of prospecting and to buy in to Bowman.

Fewer and fewer people hold the belief they’re rookies every year and that number will continue to decline - it’s really time to move on.

[mgariepy14]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

You are 100% right on that, but my understanding is that players whose first prospect and RC cards span 2005 aren’t part of this conversation.

Gotcha. I think it was brought up in another thread but Mike Tauchman has RCs in both 2018 and 2019 flagship update.

[wood minis]

Wander Franco's rookie cards will be 2022 with the rookie logo. Doesn't make it right, but it's what Topps chose to do despite him being a rookie of the year finalist in 2021. They generally get the rookie logo right, but not in this case.

[hoos]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

The only people who still think think these cards and Verlander’s 2005 issues are rookie cards are the people who were socialized to think they were rookies decades ago over a period of approximately a dozen years so that people would buy into the entirely new idea of prospecting and to buy in to Bowman.

Fewer and fewer people hold the belief they’re rookies every year and that number will continue to decline - it’s really time to move on.

This is an interesting opinion, but not borne out by the facts. The 2005 Verlander PSA 10 is worth more than twice what the 2006 PSA 10 is worth, despite having twice the pop count. Also, the gap widened between the two over the last year. It did not narrow.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

Dislike for Manfred (which is pretty universal) has nothing to do with this.

Acuna's Sapphire Bat Down is in the base set. It is probably the most iconic RC to the hobby in the past decade. Yet Beckett says its not a RC because of some antiquated distribution requirement based on pre-online exclusive times. 2019 Sapphire Tatis is also not a RC for them, but 2019 Transcendent is? And 2020 Sapphire Yordan is a RC too??? Times change, their rules are broke for the current era.

2018 Sapphire Acuna is not a RC, but 2019 Sapphire Tatis actually is. That part I REALLY don't understand. I asked the Beckett guy on Twitter to explain that one and he said he'd ask the guy in charge when they go back to work.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by LittleJimmies

That it should have the RC logo is not the argument, it's that this inclusion in the base set instead of being an "insert" is what dictates it and intent is wide open to interpretation. People are going crazy because of the Wander aspect, and his situation being a super high profile real-life rookie that is being held back to 2022 products for his RC warrants it. But if the card numbering is THE nail in the coffin, that means all those other prospects are also RC's. Which is what Beckett has correctly gone with per their rules, and is absurd in practical terms.

Not that absurd when you consider 1985 McGwire or 1991 Chipper Jones or 1993 Jeter. It used to be fairly common for RCs to appear years before the player debuted. Baseball cards weren't invented in 2006.

[Seitas]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

2018 Sapphire Acuna is not a RC, but 2019 Sapphire Tatis actually is. That part I REALLY don't understand. I asked the Beckett guy on Twitter to explain that one and he said he'd ask the guy in charge when they go back to work.

Maybe because you could pull the tatis from a pack? 2018 sapphire was distributed way differently. I think it was just a 100 count box packed with the cards, almost like an old vending box.

[brewtown107]

Nothing can get me to care about Bowman's Best. Even Juan Soto couldn't get me to care about Bowman's Best. This ass-ugly card sure isn't going to do it. 2022 Flagship and Chrome ftw.