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

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

At the end of the day we have a card with a number on the back indicating it's part of the bass set for the first time. RC end of story in my book and hobby's history book. We can talk about what the card looks like and doesn't look like, and what could have been the numbering or should have been the numbering but it's probably Topps just doing this so we can talk about it. They created a beautiful rookie card.

Right. Rules are rules. No exceptions. Your opinion is noted.

Edit: RC or no, your opinion that the card is beautiful is very debatable.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Yep, this topic isn't going away - as much as the RC Logo crowd wants it to. I woke up to 50 new posts this morning!

And Wanders have bounced off their low of 4ish days ago. Heading back up.
Julio Rodriguez BB RC's are surprisingly strong in the marketplace.

You Snooze - You Lose

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Gotta give it time with new releases. Prices already have hype baked in and should come down a bit once we get newer product on the market. Happens with every set.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I'm not defending Topps. Topps screwed up. They may have even done it intentionally. In fact, they probably did. They screwed us over, but we don't have to take it.

The thing I'm railing against is the fact that for the next several years, we're going to have to endure "not a true RC" bs from a bunch of the old heads in the hobby who can't get their heads around making an exception to applying a rule when an exception is clearly warranted.

I'm practically straining an eye ligament rolling my eyes at just the thought of it.

These were supposed to be prospect cards, not RCs. Topps screwed up. We actually have the choice to ignore the screw up and treat them as the prospect non-RCs they are supposed to be.

these being RCs helps collectors save money

There is only one (unless they screwed up BHeritage as well) Wander RC

that is a GOOD thing. There is no need to chase a bunch of different cards.

Mistake, not a mistake, doesnt matter, these are RCs

[ThoseBackPages]

i see a lot of "prices will come down when 2022 stuff comes out"

Great, saves people even more money!

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

How's the weather on that island you're on?



You are literally the only person who is arguing this wasn't a screw up by Topps.

No, no he's not. There are AT LEAST another 5 or 6 guys on this thread that have argued Topps did this deliberately. Fanatics et al. Including me. It's actually one of the more popular theories.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

these being RCs helps collectors save money

There is only one (unless they screwed up BHeritage as well) Wander RC

that is a GOOD thing. There is no need to chase a bunch of different cards.

Mistake, not a mistake, doesnt matter, these are RCs

How does it help collectors save money when folks are hoarding them as we speak? It's a tiny release. Calling these RCs actually prices most collectors out of having the "true RC" of a lot of these players.

With lots of RCs, the market gets lots of different options. With one RC in a tiny, tiny release, collectors get nothing and like it.

[ThoseBackPages]

what the money people seem to be missing is.... they'll get there money fromt he 2022 wax they are speculating on. no denying that

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Right. Rules are rules. No exceptions. Your opinion is noted.

Edit: RC or no, your opinion that the card is beautiful is very debatable.

I mean, you say that you don't care if Topps knowingly or unknowingly did this. For arguments sake, let's assume Topps knowingly and purposefully did this, implying they knew the RC implications to screw over Fanatics. Your point is we should omit this because it was malicious and deceptive? Like a Rodgers "I'm immunized" kinda deceptive?

If Topps did this, they knew they were creating a card that the hobby would call rookies. Just as they knew they were placing George Bush and Derek Jeter together, just as they knew inserting a #2 draft pick into a Topps set who never made his MLB debut in 2006 was a violation of their rules. They know! An we deal with the consequences. Part of what makes it fun!

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

How does it help collectors save money when folks are hoarding them as we speak? It's a tiny release. Calling these RCs actually prices most collectors out of having the "true RC" of a lot of these players.

With lots of RCs, the market gets lots of different options. With one RC in a tiny, tiny release, collectors get nothing and like it.

what is a "True" RC?

Mantle has one RC, or have you guys now made his '52 releases RCs as well?

[ThoseBackPages]

since they dont have MLBPA logos, is every card issued before 1966 now not a RC?

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I'm sure you haven't been reading the thread, because I have argued over and over that intentionality actually doesn't matter in determining whether it is an error. Do I have to go back and quote my posts for you?

My point is, and has always been, (let me number it for you, so you can follow along):

1) Whether or not this was an intentional act by Topps, it is a screw up. I have quoted plenty of folks on your side of the argument who have stated that same thing, that this is a screw up.

2) The screw up in this case is in the numbering of the cards. The numbering should have been 1-70 and a separate set for prospects. Just like they have done in every release before, and how they will likely do in every release going forward. Just like they're bound to do under their agreement with the MLBPA.

3) The numbering of the cards is the thing that makes these cards RCS under the definition. If everything else were the same, but they had numbered the cards 1-70 for the vet and rookie cards (with logo), and a separate set for the prospects, the prospects would not be RCs. Disagree? Of course you don't.

4) If these cards are misnumbered, and the misnumbering is what causes the cards to be rookie cards under the definition, then an exception to applying the definition is called for here. Why are we hidebound to apply the traditional RC definiton to these cards without exception? No one has an answer for that outside of "rules are rules", as if exceptions to rules did not exist.

Intentionality does not determine whether this card is or is not an error. In that sense, intentionality does not matter.

But intentionality may be a factor in why the error calls for an exception to the RC rule being applied. Different issue.

Exceptions to rules are only warranted in unusual circumstances. Would you say Topps intentionally screwing with the checklist as an FU to the MLBPA, and maybe not so intentionally an FU to collectors, might be an unusual circumstance? One that might warrant considering an exception?

Oh right, you're one of those "rules are rules" guys. So no.

But maybe some other folks might see some shades of grey here.

Very well said. In the 80's and 90's(since so many here keep referencing this time period) the companies absolutely put out intentional errors because it sold more product. They are still considered error cards even the ones that were done intentionally. I also think the unusual circumstance should absolutely be recognized by Beckett and PSA(if they say these are RC's). They both know these cards were meant to be prospects and should be prospects. If they choose to not recognize that the numbering is incorrect based on every recent BB set, they are burying their heads in the sand. If a card is supposed to be numbered with a TP prefix just as every recent BB set before it had been, and it's not, it is an error(intentional or not). Is there a single person on either side that thinks that numbering this set 1-100 instead of 1-70 and TP1-TP30 is correct and the way Topps has always done it?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by redauto5

No, no he's not. There are AT LEAST another 5 or 6 guys on this thread that have argued Topps did this deliberately. Fanatics et al. Including me. It's actually one of the more popular theories.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You're not following my arguments or his. Many of us think Topps may have done this deliberately. That's different from saying it's not a screw up. This set is not supposed to be released this way. It is screwed up. I have quoted most of the people on your side of the argument saying the same thing, so it's really not controversial.

Or do you believe Topps is supposed to release sets that violate their agreement with the MLBPA? Because that would be a strange position. But that seems to be the position of this other guy. You too?

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by Bcr

They shouldn't of sold them as 50 packs period. Especially since they also released a 24 pack standard box as well. I would definitely say cramming 50 loose packs worth $750 into a loose box was a mistake. Let alone it was extremely delayed.

Loose pack was pictured on product page for a box of 50 packs. Buyers received a box with 50 packs inside... poorly packaged and late.

No surprises there. Pretty much Topps SOP and not a screw up.

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

You answered you’re own question. There hasn’t been anytime like this before. These guys are remote working in their underwear.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lockdowns/restrictions started March/April 2020. If anything, Topps and its partners would have settled into more of a routine by September 2021 which makes mistakes less likely then than in the previous year and a half.

Now I've answered the question.

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I'm sure you haven't been reading the thread, because I have argued over and over that intentionality actually doesn't matter in determining whether it is an error. Do I have to go back and quote my posts for you?



My point is, and has always been, (let me number it for you, so you can follow along):



1) Whether or not this was an intentional act by Topps, it is a screw up. I have quoted plenty of folks on your side of the argument who have stated that same thing, that this is a screw up.



2) The screw up in this case is in the numbering of the cards. The numbering should have been 1-70 and a separate set for prospects. Just like they have done in every release before, and how they will likely do in every release going forward. Just like they're bound to do under their agreement with the MLBPA.



3) The numbering of the cards is the thing that makes these cards RCS under the definition. If everything else were the same, but they had numbered the cards 1-70 for the vet and rookie cards (with logo), and a separate set for the prospects, the prospects would not be RCs. Disagree? Of course you don't.



4) If these cards are misnumbered, and the misnumbering is what causes the cards to be rookie cards under the definition, then an exception to applying the definition is called for here. Why are we hidebound to apply the traditional RC definiton to these cards without exception? No one has an answer for that outside of "rules are rules", as if exceptions to rules did not exist.



Intentionality does not determine whether this card is or is not an error. In that sense, intentionality does not matter.



But intentionality may be a factor in why the error calls for an exception to the RC rule being applied. Different issue.



Exceptions to rules are only warranted in unusual circumstances. Would you say Topps intentionally screwing with the checklist as an FU to the MLBPA, and maybe not so intentionally an FU to collectors, might be an unusual circumstance? One that might warrant considering an exception?



Oh right, you're one of those "rules are rules" guys. So no.



But maybe some other folks might see some shades of grey here.

Ok, so can an "error" or a "screw up" be intentional?

Hmm, in the vast majority of cases I'd say no. A screw up or an error is usually portrayed as accidental.

What a "screw up" or and "error" DOES have to include is an explanation by the perp. If they don't explain it as an accident, at the LEAST they must address the issue and show remorse in some way. Usually followed by their reasoning for said screw up or error if it was, in fact, intentional.

Yes, I'm thinking of all the times I've had to fall on my sword in my marriage lol.

Topps has done none of these things and I don't expect them to.

In other words, "deal with it".

We are dealing with it.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by pewe

This is a consumer friendly video that doesn’t accurately describe the actual workflow or handoffs that occur.

First you have to remember those printers are 3rd party contract manufacturers. They all use different equipment and internal processes that were glossed over in that video.

And during COVID a few huge wrenches were probably thrown in (some I’ve heard second hand on these boards, but make sense):
— had to use new contract manufacturers as existing ones were bottlenecked
— process steps, like proofing, were cut short or out
— in-person checks across the process were eliminated

In the best possible case the graphics designer knows exactly the characteristics of the printer that will execute the card and thus the contract manufacturer has to do very little to realize the product person and the designer’s vision. That becomes harder when you use more than one manufacturer and even harder when they are brand new and happening on the fly.

The error would have occurred upstream, but the challenges of managing this new more complicated supply chain and time pressures and difficult remote collaboration would have made realized design flaws in final product much much more likely in the game of telephone and version control issues they would be dealing with. Particularly in the final product that is low focus and needs to ship enough before 2022 product starts ramping. They just jammed it out the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, a lot of this SOUNDS pretty reasonable and I do agree that COVID could have unknown complications on the process flow but do you really think that proofing would have been eliminated? Unless trading cards are unlike any other printed product, proofing is the single most important step in the printing process. Whether it was magazines, books, CD booklets, Vinyl album covers, liner notes, show posters, internal reference resources and marketing materials, etc. there is not a single printing project I've ever worked on where we just said "Ah, things are tough so we'll just cut out proofing". There may have been some times where we weren't as thorough as we would have liked to be, but proofing is never a corner you'd cut, especially if you were using a new vendor to handle the printing/pressing.

And Bowman's Best wasn't exactly a rush job. Sure, Topps needed to get it out quickly but the release date was pushed back weeks. There was plenty of time to get everything proofed, signed off on and then printed. Small mistakes can make it through even thorough proofing but I'm struggling with how something as key as the basic numbering scheme could be missed in a proof when that numbering scheme usually has 30 prospects grouped together with a prefix and 70 others grouped together without. Even the earliest iterations of the checklist would have had that same basic numbering convention.

[tedwilliamsfan]

OK, now I agree that the 2021 Bowman's Best is in fact a RC. I believe this because I just bought one. Just didn't want to miss out on the controversial card.

I will also buy the 2022 Topps Series 1 "RC" Logo card.

Hooray.

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what the money people seem to be missing is.... they'll get there money fromt he 2022 wax they are speculating on. no denying that

Absolutely. This conversation will only serve to bring more of a spotlight on the card industry. It's a win/win for Topps and for flippers.

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

I'm not defending Topps. Topps screwed up. They may have even done it intentionally. In fact, they probably did. They screwed us over, but we don't have to take it.



The thing I'm railing against is the fact that for the next several years, we're going to have to endure "not a true RC" bs from a bunch of the old heads in the hobby who can't get their heads around making an exception to applying a rule when an exception is clearly warranted.



I'm practically straining an eye ligament rolling my eyes at just the thought of it.



These were supposed to be prospect cards, not RCs. Topps screwed up. We actually have the choice to ignore the screw up and treat them as the prospect non-RCs they are supposed to be.

I appreciate your earlier post on agency, and our ability to think for ourselves. We aren't beholden to Topps or the MLBPA or "old heads" in deciding if we as individuals will take the massive leap with massive consequences that these 30 cards are, in fact, rookies. I respect your use of your own agency in deciding they are not.

I'm using my agency to decide they are. Because I'm an "old head" and to me, regardless of the massive 5 year earthquake it is causing, these are in fact Rookie Cards. Call it black and white thinking, call it being manipulated by Topps, call it what you will. I'm not close to being alone in my use of agency. Your attempt in putting the genie back in the bottle is a noble one, but in my opinion it's just not going to work.

You're going to have to hear about this set over and over and over for the next 5, 10, 20 years. I'm sorry man.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by redauto5

No, no he's not. There are AT LEAST another 5 or 6 guys on this thread that have argued Topps did this deliberately. Fanatics et al. Including me. It's actually one of the more popular theories.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Raises hand] I see you, redauto5.

It's the simplest explanation to me.

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by Bcr

Gotta give it time with new releases. Prices already have hype baked in and should come down a bit once we get newer product on the market. Happens with every set.

Granted - and I've been following prices closely. We could definitely see a dip, but me and LOTS of other buyers will be using that dip to buy lots of cool Rookie Cards and Rookie Parallels.

It's interesting though that the next release, series 1, won't be coming for 5 weeks or so. That's a LONG time in this hobby for a trajectory being set before the next release, compared to the middle of the release season. I'm excited to see how the next few months play out.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

How's the weather on that island you're on?

You are literally the only person who is arguing this wasn't a screw up by Topps.

Have you read this thread?

You are clearly very confused. Nobody is accepting your "error" definition. Let it go.

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

Absolutely. This conversation will only serve to bring more of a spotlight on the card industry. It's a win/win for Topps and for flippers.

Unless the public views this as “The supposed ‘expert’ in the field (Topps) is inept…. What does that say about the hobby? I’m going to concentrate on ________, at least those companies know their business and rules.”

Not that I would care, I’m going to collect anyway, but re-sale prices will drop due to decreased demand.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Rooftop

Maybe a .00001% chance, so I guess it is a possibility

Exactly.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pewe

You are asserting there is someone whose job title is “set index number checker” at Topps???

Topps is a small small company compared to many others who can’t afford a similar specific QA oriented person…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Topps can't afford copy editors now?

Pewe this is your best since "It is okay to pack a stadium when trying to prevent COVID spreading" or "Ronald Acuna peaked at age 21"

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Topps can't afford copy editors now?

Ahhh! So you agree the closest person to a check on whether card index numbers meet MLB/MLBPA agreement is someone who at most glances at it and doesn’t necessarily have context or logic to validate or invalidate the numbering scheme they are looking at… and says “good, there are numbers and no duplicates”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk