What is a true MLB RC?

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

This is right.

This definition is needed because it’s been repeatedly shown that people who sell cards (manufacturers, prospectors, flippers) will constantly adjust their definition to whatever will make them the most money.

Especially by putting RC logos on veteran cards to sell a full years worth of product that flippers speculate on.

#ThanksTopps

[Banks8181]

For me it goes:

Bowman 1st
RC Logo
Anything else rookie year
Pre-rookie year

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

Especially by putting RC logos on veteran cards to sell a full years worth of product that flippers speculate on.

#ThanksTopps

Topps isn’t making any rules.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Topps isn’t making any rules.

But those rules that Topps abides by from the MLBPA sure does make both of them a whole lot of this. Lots of incentives to make illogical RC rules year by year to help print more money. I'd figured you'd be up in arms with such a scam.

[Shankweather]

This is not that complicated. A RC is just a base card in a nationally distributed MLB set.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

But those rules that Topps abides by from the MLBPA sure does make both of them a whole lot of this. Lots of incentives to make illogical RC rules year by year to help print more money. I'd figured you'd be up in arms with such a scam.

Irrelevant. They’d each be making bank whatever route they chose to follow. It’s just inappropriate for Topps or you to create arbitrary definitions.

Originally Posted by Shankweather

This is not that complicated. A RC is just a base card in a nationally distributed MLB set.

A RC is whatever the MLBPA says it is.

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

The first card (or multiple cards if applicable across multiple sets in a single year) that appears in a base set alongside other major league players. That simple. Ignore the RC designation, just use that definition.

The Bowman Prospect cards of today (labeled BP or BDPP or whatever) aren't RCs because those aren't considered base cards by topps. Topps Pro Debut or Heritage Minors don't count because no major leaguers or major league teams appear. For junk era cards, those are rookie cards where the top prospects and draft picks snuck into the base set.

I don't understand why the "first cards in a base set including other major league players" rule is so tough to interpret.

Yep. I got back into collecting in '09 and my main focus was Giants and autos. Of course I have picked many RC's along the way from all teams, but honestly never gave much thought into what made a RC an RC. But, reading what it has always been over in the Franco thread, it is pretty simple. Regardless if Topps blew it or did it on purpose, the cat is out of the bag.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Irrelevant. They’d each be making bank whatever route they chose to follow. It’s just inappropriate for Topps or you to create arbitrary definitions.

I didn't create arbitrary definitions. History has been pretty clear. MLBPA rules are the arbitrary ones, used to make money. If that is your take, Topps could put a RC on a 2024 Wander Franco bass Topps card per MLBPA rule and you'd call it a RC? Logic defying. Lots of cards that have "rookie" on them through the years that aren't treated as such. And lots of post 2005 cards released missing the RC logo that are treated as RCs.

Again, I just figured you'd be all up in arms for the scam. Because your accusing 2021 BB Wander RC believers for only pumping a card to make more money. Completely illogical. 2021 BB RC believers yields an exponentially less net revenue for the hobby as 2022 becomes worth significantly less...but that's a side point. For someone so anti money and speculation you haven't thought this one all the way out on who is incentivized to "pump" what.

[GMRide27]

The 2017 Ohtani Japanese bowman chrome cards can be had for a fraction of the 2018 bowman chrome RC logo cards. Strange to me.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I didn't create arbitrary definitions. History has been pretty clear. MLBPA rules are the arbitrary ones, used to make money. If that is your take, Topps could put a RC on a 2024 Wander Franco bass Topps card per MLBPA rule and you'd call it a RC? Logic defying. Lots of cards that have "rookie" on them through the years that aren't treated as such. And lots of post 2005 cards released missing the RC logo that are treated as RCs.

Again, I just figured you'd be all up in arms for the scam. Because your accusing 2021 BB Wander RC believers for only pumping a card to make more money. Completely illogical. 2021 BB RC believers yields an exponentially less net revenue for the hobby as 2022 becomes worth significantly less...but that's a side point. For someone so anti money and speculation you haven't thought this one all the way out on who is incentivized to "pump" what.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Banks8181

For me it goes:

Bowman 1st
RC Logo
Anything else rookie year
Pre-rookie year

This is exactly where I fall too.

[ThoseBackPages]

so no RC's before 1966? got it

[AnthonyT]

For me, more specifically, is the first Topps Flagship base card with the RC logo that is the true rookie card. Parallels, autos, chrome, etc, are not the "TRUE" rookie cards. Just additional cards that are more rare or popular.

[GMRide27]

Originally Posted by AnthonyT

For me, more specifically, is the first Topps Flagship base card with the RC logo that is the true rookie card. Parallels, autos, chrome, etc, are not the "TRUE" rookie cards. Just additional cards that are more rare or popular.

But they have the RC stamp on them, so technically, they are rookie cards.

[eye4talent]

Originally Posted by AnthonyT

For me, more specifically, is the first Topps Flagship base card with the RC logo that is the true rookie card. Parallels, autos, chrome, etc, are not the "TRUE" rookie cards. Just additional cards that are more rare or popular.

For me, this raises the question: Then, so what if a card is the true rookie? If there are a few hundred thousand of them, and they are easy to come by, that doesn’t generate a whole lot of excitement. There’s the universality of the card, in that all collectors can recognize the flagship card and then, I guess, be part of the same club by owning a $5 piece of cardboard, or the $40 version in a PSA 10 case. (Unless it’s short-printed. Or the player doesn’t have many other rookie cards.)

If the Topps black or Topps Chrome gold refractor versions aren’t rookie cards, then why do they demand so much more money? Because they’re rare, yes, but they demand significantly more than equivalent second-year cards and rookie-year cards that are distinctly inserts. And why are rookie-year autographs so desirable? A Juan Soto 2018 Topps Chrome Update sticker auto sells for significantly more than a 2019 Topps Chrome Future Stars orange /25 auto. The lesser card is a lot more rare and with an on-card sig. Why is the other one worth so much more?

I suppose the answer is because they’re rookie-year (or rookie-related). But it’s a distinction without a difference. Whether someone wants to deem a card a true rookie card or a rookie-year card, collectors approach them with the same mindset—as long as we’re talking about cards that are, in one way or another, variations of the base set. (This would primarily be marked by the shared design.)

And there is definitely a distinction between a rookie auto or parallel and an insert rookie-year auto or insert. The 35th anniversary cards, for instance, are inserts, and thus aren’t quite as desirable as their main-set counterparts, whether we’re talking autos, color parallels, or Chromes.

So, to me, limiting the distinction of “true rookie card” to the base flagship card doesn’t really seem to mean a whole lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by AnthonyT

For me, more specifically, is the first Topps Flagship base card with the RC logo that is the true rookie card. Parallels, autos, chrome, etc, are not the "TRUE" rookie cards. Just additional cards that are more rare or popular.

so nothing before 2006

got it

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I didn't create arbitrary definitions. History has been pretty clear. MLBPA rules are the arbitrary ones, used to make money. If that is your take, Topps could put a RC on a 2024 Wander Franco bass Topps card per MLBPA rule and you'd call it a RC? Logic defying. Lots of cards that have "rookie" on them through the years that aren't treated as such. And lots of post 2005 cards released missing the RC logo that are treated as RCs.

Again, I just figured you'd be all up in arms for the scam. Because your accusing 2021 BB Wander RC believers for only pumping a card to make more money. Completely illogical. 2021 BB RC believers yields an exponentially less net revenue for the hobby as 2022 becomes worth significantly less...but that's a side point. For someone so anti money and speculation you haven't thought this one all the way out on who is incentivized to "pump" what.

No, you’re lost, stuck looking at ways for yourself to make money; further you don’t want anyone to tell you how you have to do it.

The MLBA gets to decide what a ROOKIE is. This has nothing to do with money, but how they serve their CONSTITUENTS.

Or, in other words, you don’t get to decide terms.

Duh.

[1800gambler]

Originally Posted by TarjetasBéisbol

Ugh...another one of these RC threads?? How many more before the season ends?

A NEW ONE EVERY DAY UNTIL WANDER GET INDUCTED INTO DA HoF BABBBBBYYYY!!

[JrFinest]

I refuse to vote until the card companies can get it right themselves. lol

[ThoseBackPages]

[Triple B]

Any card with the RC logo post-2005 EXCEPT for Wander’s RC that appears in 2021 Bowman’s Best minus the RC logo.

Yes, I know I’m being a troll.

[thenightman]

It's pretty straightforward. The true RC is the Topps flagship that comes out after the players debut that has the RC logo.

If a player doesn't have one of those then player doesn't have a rookie card.

[Remmons22]

Originally Posted by thenightman

It's pretty straightforward. The true RC is the Topps flagship that comes out after the players debut that has the RC logo.

If a player doesn't have one of those then player doesn't have a rookie card.

Agreed.

[ThoseBackPages]

The Rookie Card Definition doesn't care about your feelings

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by thenightman

It's pretty straightforward. The true RC is the Topps flagship that comes out after the players debut that has the RC logo.

If a player doesn't have one of those then player doesn't have a rookie card.

no "true" RC's before 2006, got it.