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

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Clearly you weren't collecting baseball cards in 1993.

It's called an exaggeration.

Or are you saying there were more sets to choose from in 1993 than there are today?

[forest]

Looking to trade for 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson PSA 8 or higher.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

this is IMO the root of "the problem" here in the new age of the hobby

the abandonment of tradition

I absolutely agree, and it's the foundation of why I think this card won't be the go-to Wander rookie long term.

While "first card released in a set" was the end all be all from our youth, it's just not how it's looked upon today. If we brought that exact same mindset into today, we'd all be collecting a ton of EEE stuff since those are usually the first set to include players. We have much more complexity these days with all the prospect sets.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

I could argue that demand for this card is already waning considering the price decrease. Using simple economics, either:

A: The demand is dropping while supply stays the same
B: The supply is increasing while demand stays the same

The market could absolutely reverse, but considering none of the 2022 RC's have been released, it's not looking good.

This is a horrible argument.

The prices on any card decreases following the release, when enough demand has been satisfied.

Watch what happens when 22 S1 comes out, Wanders will start high and then fall off, there's no need to view it as proof of anything one way or another it's just the way things go.

FOMO is real.

Again, this isn't about card prices, this is about whether or not 21 BB is Wander's rookie card. And it is, if you look at the history of baseball cards.

Even if you look at other sports, a hockey RC has been fairly easy to identify because even though Young Guns are a special subset in Upper Deck hockey packs, they are numbered as part of the base set. It's the same reason that Future Watch autos sell for so much, while the parallels (even parallels numbered to /5) sell for much less than the standard FWA.

Those FWA are viewed as true rookie cards. They are serial #d to /999 and autographed on card. And still, they are considered true rookie cards. Because they are numbered with the rest of the base set. Veterans cards 1-100, future watch autos cards 150-250.

Trust me I fought against the logic of those hockey collectors for years until I finally came around to understand what they were prioritizing. And it actually makes things really simple once you understand the basic rules.

Standard numbering
Part of a set with veterans
Not a parallel or insert
Officially licensed product
Widely available release

That's it. When was the first one of those to come out? That's a player's rookie card. Period.

I accept this time-honored tradition of sports card collecting - why won't you?

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

I absolutely agree, and it's the foundation of why I think this card won't be the go-to Wander rookie long term.

While "first card released in a set" was the end all be all from our youth, it's just not how it's looked upon today. If we brought that exact same mindset into today, we'd all be collecting a ton of EEE stuff since those are usually the first set to include players. We have much more complexity these days with all the prospect sets.

Another horrible argument. Are you really throwing unlicensed cards out there...

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

It's called an exaggeration.

Or are you saying there were more sets to choose from in 1993 than there are today?

There’s no point in arguing. They aren’t going to change their minds. The cards were created and designed to be Prospect cards and to most of us, that’s all they will ever be. You can build 1000 Ford Fiestas and slap Shelby Cobra on the back of them. Some people would consider them Cobras because of the labeling on the back, but the majority would still consider them Fiestas since they were designed to be and look like Fiestas. People should just collect what and how they like.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

It's called an exaggeration.

Or are you saying there were more sets to choose from in 1993 than there are today?

Where did I say that? Or are you trying to invent something to discredit my (correct) memory of there being many more than 3 brands in 1993?

That being said, I'd say this is the biggest difference. There are 30 products across one licensed brand - that brand isn't going to compete with itself. Panini can do what it does, and Leaf exists, but Topps drives the boat.

In 1993, you had several brands in competition with each other. They needed to find ways to one up each other. I 100% think that if there was a Score, Fleer, Donruss, UD to go with Topps right now, that there would have been 2021-printed Wander rookies. So the market is different, but in the opposite way that you're claiming it is.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by kordell1

There’s no point in arguing. They aren’t going to change their minds. The cards were created and designed to be Prospect cards and to most of us, that’s all they will ever be. You can build 1000 Ford Fiestas and slap Shelby Cobra on the back of them. Some people would consider them Cobras because of the labeling on the back, but the majority would still consider them Fiestas since they were designed to be and look like Fiestas. People should just collect what and how they like.

Your argument would make sense if cards 1-100 were veterans, and cards 101-200 were prospects.

But again, look at the checklist:

47 Cody Bellinger
48 Buster Posey
49 Julio Rodriguez RC
50 Wander Franco RC
51 Austin Martin RC
52 Ronald Acuña Jr.
53 Max Scherzer
54 J.D. Martinez
55 Bryce Harper
56 Randy Arozarena

Sandwiched between vet base.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Your argument would make sense if cards 1-100 were veterans, and cards 101-200 were prospects.

But again, look at the checklist:

47 Cody Bellinger
48 Buster Posey
49 Julio Rodriguez RC
50 Wander Franco RC
51 Austin Martin RC
52 Ronald Acuña Jr.
53 Max Scherzer
54 J.D. Martinez
55 Bryce Harper
56 Randy Arozarena

Sandwiched between vet base.

Is that Becketts checklist? Topps doesn't have the prospects listed with the RC.

[forest]

Agree 100% with BigSeph. At the root of card collecting is putting together a base set. The overflow of inserts, whether they be prospect cards or otherwise, has become somewhat ridiculous. But a card in a base set still has some meaning to it. These cards being the first cards in a base set matters to a lot more collectors than one might think.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

This is a horrible argument.

The prices on any card decreases following the release, when enough demand has been satisfied.

Watch what happens when 22 S1 comes out, Wanders will start high and then fall off, there's no need to view it as proof of anything one way or another it's just the way things go.

FOMO is real.

Again, this isn't about card prices, this is about whether or not 21 BB is Wander's rookie card. And it is, if you look at the history of baseball cards.

Even if you look at other sports, a hockey RC has been fairly easy to identify because even though Young Guns are a special subset in Upper Deck hockey packs, they are numbered as part of the base set. It's the same reason that Future Watch autos sell for so much, while the parallels (even parallels numbered to /5) sell for much less than the standard FWA.

Those FWA are viewed as true rookie cards. They are serial #d to /999 and autographed on card. And still, they are considered true rookie cards. Because they are numbered with the rest of the base set. Veterans cards 1-100, future watch autos cards 150-250.

Trust me I fought against the logic of those hockey collectors for years until I finally came around to understand what they were prioritizing. And it actually makes things really simple once you understand the basic rules.

Standard numbering
Part of a set with veterans
Not a parallel or insert
Officially licensed product
Widely available release

That's it. When was the first one of those to come out? That's a player's rookie card. Period.

I accept this time-honored tradition of sports card collecting - why won't you?

If you have another fundamental theory of supply and demand economics, I'd love to hear it, but you basically just said the same thing I did.

As for the bolded list, I think some of these things have already morphed over time. For instance, "widely available release"? This wasn't a thing in the 80's unless your rules don't allow you to consider Tiffany releases as RC's.

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Another horrible argument. Are you really throwing unlicensed cards out there...

Why not? The 1976 Walter Payton rookie doesn't have logos or emblems...



Also, why are my arguments always "horrible"? Because they don't align with your opinion?

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Where did I say that? Or are you trying to invent something to discredit my (correct) memory of there being many more than 3 brands in 1993?

That being said, I'd say this is the biggest difference. There are 30 products across one licensed brand - that brand isn't going to compete with itself. Panini can do what it does, and Leaf exists, but Topps drives the boat.

In 1993, you had several brands in competition with each other. They needed to find ways to one up each other. I 100% think that if there was a Score, Fleer, Donruss, UD to go with Topps right now, that there would have been 2021-printed Wander rookies. So the market is different, but in the opposite way that you're claiming it is.

You do realize my original post said "like 3", right?

You just straight up attacked my intelligence to try and make yourself look better.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Your argument would make sense if cards 1-100 were veterans, and cards 101-200 were prospects.

But again, look at the checklist:

47 Cody Bellinger
48 Buster Posey
49 Julio Rodriguez RC
50 Wander Franco RC
51 Austin Martin RC
52 Ronald Acuña Jr.
53 Max Scherzer
54 J.D. Martinez
55 Bryce Harper
56 Randy Arozarena

Sandwiched between vet base.

Not trying to change your mind. To me, they will always be Prospects, to you they are RCs, and that’s completely okay.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by kordell1

Not trying to change your mind. To me, they will always be Prospects, to you they are RCs, and that’s completely okay.

Right, but God forbid someone have an opinion related to the original question that was posed in post #1 of this thread...

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

Right, but God forbid someone have an opinion about the original question that was posed in post #1 of this thread...

The issue is you look a little ridiculous when you make posts like this. You’ve created an argument nobody has made, and trying to attribute it to the BB50 crowd.

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

I absolutely agree, and it's the foundation of why I think this card won't be the go-to Wander rookie long term.

While "first card released in a set" was the end all be all from our youth, it's just not how it's looked upon today. If we brought that exact same mindset into today, we'd all be collecting a ton of EEE stuff since those are usually the first set to include players. We have much more complexity these days with all the prospect sets.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

The issue is you look a little ridiculous when you make posts like this. You’ve created an argument nobody has made, and trying to attribute it to the BB50 crowd.

I was replying to TBP's post here:

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

the abandonment of tradition

... and it was brought up by a BB50'er here:

Originally Posted by forest

BB50 is his first base card in an MLB set.

That's the entire argument. Not that hard to explain.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

You do realize my original post said "like 3", right?

You just straight up attacked my intelligence to try and make yourself look better.

It's not insulting your intelligence to say what I said - I don't know what your understanding of collecting in 1993 is, and I pointed out that your statement was not close to indicative of the number of brands/licensed products in 1993.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by Goldie

It's not insulting your intelligence to say what I said - I don't know what your understanding of collecting in 1993 is, and I pointed out that your statement was not close to indicative of the number of brands/licensed products in 1993.

Understood. I also said that was an exaggeration on my part, then I genuinely asked if you thought there were more sets in 1993 than today. There wasn't any snarkyness meant as I didn't know your understanding either.

It's squashed. Let's continue the other conversation.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

I was replying to TBP's post here:


... and it was brought up by a BB50'er here:

EEE is not an MLB set.

[wilsonsingles]

There are Bowmans Best checklists that have Franco both ways, some as a RC and some not.

The problem is that all other players designated as 2021 Rookies in Bowmans Best (and from the year 2021) have the on card RC logo in this set.
Franco does not have the logo, so Topps has decided that he is not a rookie and
of course they want all Franco's 2022 cards to have RC logo.

The majority of collectors/etc want the rookie logo or in case of prospects the 1st logo.

I believe that the Franco will be viewed as an XRC type and not a true rookie.
Who knows if this is a good or bad thing, only time will tell.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

EEE is not an MLB set.

Then Bowman. Does that analogy work better?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

Then Bowman. Does that analogy work better?

Prospect cards in Bowman sets are not part of the base set.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

If you have another fundamental theory of supply and demand economics, I'd love to hear it, but you basically just said the same thing I did.

As for the bolded list, I think some of these things have already morphed over time. For instance, "widely available release"? This wasn't a thing in the 80's unless your rules don't allow you to consider Tiffany releases as RC's.

I saw plenty of Tiffany sets in my card shop in the 80s. It was widely available.

Why not? The 1976 Walter Payton rookie doesn't have logos or emblems...

A better argument, but can you point to another competing product that had an NFL license during that season? Topps had a NFLPA license at the time, but didn't want to pay the NFL for licensing. So if Topps didn't exist today, and Panini was the only game in town with a MLBPA license (but not a MLB license), their releases would probably be considered baseball rookie cards depending on numbering.

Also, why are my arguments always "horrible"? Because they don't align with your opinion?

They just aren't very good.

[ThoseBackPages]

i dont know of any team BB50 members that wanted it to be this way.

i for one, didnt have a problem when topps said they would save Wander for 2022 products. after all, it made sense for them to make the most money for themselves.

but then they lost the MLB licence. Then they had to continue to due their job, and came up with the configuration of not only 2021 Bowman's Best, but also 2021 Bowman Heritage.

They released checklists for both releases. There were some of us that were legit shocked that Topps would include 30 new RCs in Bowmans Best, and 150 new RCs in Bowman Heritage

Then some of us thought ... its gotta be a typo, lets see how BBest is when the product is live.

and damn, card #50 is Wander Franco. it wasnt like 1-70 were MLBers, and 71 - 100 Prospects. You see, that could have been seen as a mistake. BBest has the RCs sprinkled in with the MLBers, which is why they are RCs

Then during the first week of Jan 2022, Topps send an email to MC members telling them to keep an eye out for 2021 Bowman Heritage, whoch would be available for sale to the MC members the following week

the following week came and went. its now SuperBowl Sunday, and Topps has not said ANYTHING about 2021 Bowman Heritage. NOTHING.

2021 Bowman's Best and especially 2021 Bowman's Heritage were Topps' way of giving the BIG F YOU to MLB and Fanatics by releasing a half dozne years worth of RCs on their way out

Then Fantatics bought Topps. oopsie

and 2021 Bowman Heritage has been wiped from existence

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Prospect cards in Bowman sets are not part of the base set.

You're splitting hairs at this point.

So, historically, it was the "first card released in a set", but has had to change to the following with time:

First card in a set
... that doesn't include prospects (or at least separate prospect numbering)
... that came from a pack (Topps Now, Living, Project 2020/70 don't count)
... that is "widely available" (whatever that means)
... has logos (even though Topps NFL cards didn't have logos until 1982)


See why the MLBPA wanted a logo system? There are too many hand-me-down rules and stipulations and it gets confusing for the casual collector. The logo is supposed to be fool-proof (although it fools Topps quite often).

Casual Collector Calvin will see that the BB50 does not have a RC logo. He will not immediately think to grab this card for his RC collection until he (maybe) learns about it and it's oddness. His initial go-to will be S1 and Topps Chrome, just like it was when he was buying LouBob last year, Tatis and Vladdy the year before, and Acuna/Soto before that.