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

[BigSeph]

[green4407]

Originally Posted by pewe

Totally - I love collecting all cards from my PC players rookie card year, including inserts

…with that said… sounds like you don’t consider inserts a RC, even if you like collecting them… how can you tell it’s not an RC? I assume it’s because the card has an checklist index number that designates it outside the base checklist, and thus an “insert”.

I think this is the simplicity of the logic the hobby generally agrees with. And why BB#50 fits the bill, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah, numbering doesn't matter to me. I'd put that 87 acuna in my RCs but not a rookie debut which is part of the base set.

I find the prospect numbering artificial. You can't tell me when I open a pack of Bowman that those prospect cards aren't base cards in the set, but inserts. That's silly.

Just because Topps says they're inserts doesn't mean they're inserts, in my book. So there's prospect cards and mlb cards, don't care what # topps puts on the back.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[green4407]

Of course, I don't expect anyone else to adhere to my unique definition of RC.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ObanMontecristo]

OK, this is a serious question that I’d like ONLY the anti-BB50 people to answer (I think we all know how the pro-BB50 people would respond).

Of the 12 cards below, which ones do you consider “Rookie Cards,” and please explain why…. I think it may help move this conversation along to understand where you draw the line (and why).

1-2-3-4
5-6-7-8
9-10-11-12




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

It’s not about what Beckett, Topps or what any other corporation calls them.

The facts and history are clear. BB50 is Wander Franco’s true rookie card.

I posted early on in this thread and I absolutely agree, it checks all the boxes except the irrelevant (to me) logo. That said, the poll numbers don't agree with us.

[green4407]

4 5 6 7 8 9 11

Piece of cake!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[green4407]

Originally Posted by pewe

Sadly (as I like them, often) even those with an “RC shield” don’t have the following of a non-insert auto

I still think these ‘87 wood autos are the best auto cards I’ve seen Topps make, but they don’t have the value that suggests others agree w/me




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh and these are beautiful RC autos!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

It’s not about what Beckett, Topps or what any other corporation calls them.

The facts and history are clear. BB50 is Wander Franco’s true rookie card.

Times change

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pewe

Being an UER doesn’t make it any less of of a RC. I worry this whole “was it intended to be a RC” distracts from the fact: it is an RC. Intentions and feelings don’t matter (thanks TBP!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why do you go out of your way to refer to the 21 BB as an UER, and are on record as saying Topps can't afford copyeditors?

[Pacmeyer]

Intentions do matter. Much less interesting if it was all just some guy working from home in his underwear.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Then why do you go out of your way to refer to the 21 BB as an UER, and are on record as saying Topps can't afford copyeditors?

Because it’s most likely what it is. And very unlikely we’ll get evidence to the contrary, given Topps has declined to validate it was purposeful. If it had been purposeful they would have trumpeted it early and often.

My belief: the sooner we get comfortable with it being an UER, the sooner a possible avenue to question its authenticity as a RC is averted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Is BB50 Wander’s RC? Yes.

But I still don’t understand this narrative that the BB50 Bois are pushing that people who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 are regretting it. Wander RC logo parallels are going to sell for big money regardless of whether it’s his official RC or not.

Is any seller/flipper/breaker who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 looking to do a quick fire sale dump? I can’t speak for them, but I don’t see it.

[salthill]

Deleted.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pewe

Because it’s most likely what it is. And very unlikely we’ll get evidence to the contrary, given Topps has declined to validate it was purposeful. If it had been purposeful they would have trumpeted it early and often.





My belief: the sooner we get comfortable with it being an UER, the sooner a possible avenue to question its authenticity as a RC is averted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong

This isn't based on reality, much like your recollection that the 1987 McGwire was considered his rookie card.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Wrong

This isn't based on reality, much like your recollection that the 1987 McGwire was considered his rookie card.

Topps did trumpet it, and validate it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by pewe

Because it’s most likely what it is. And very unlikely we’ll get evidence to the contrary, given Topps has declined to validate it was purposeful. If it had been purposeful they would have trumpeted it early and often.

My belief: the sooner we get comfortable with it being an UER, the sooner a possible avenue to question its authenticity as a RC is averted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's what you think, you're totally misreading why someone would throw in a monkey wrench in the first place.

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

Is BB50 Wander’s RC? Yes.

But I still don’t understand this narrative that the BB50 Bois are pushing that people who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 are regretting it. Wander RC logo parallels are going to sell for big money regardless of whether it’s his official RC or not.

Is any seller/flipper/breaker who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 looking to do a quick fire sale dump? I can’t speak for them, but I don’t see it.

Not pushing but assuming. And understandable given how utterly extreme much of the anti-BB50 rhetoric is.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pewe

Topps did trumpet it, and validate it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But why?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

But why?

Exactly! Glad you agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

Is BB50 Wander’s RC? Yes.

But I still don’t understand this narrative that the BB50 Bois are pushing that people who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 are regretting it. Wander RC logo parallels are going to sell for big money regardless of whether it’s his official RC or not.

Is any seller/flipper/breaker who pre-ordered ‘22 S1 looking to do a quick fire sale dump? I can’t speak for them, but I don’t see it.

Calling people the "BB50 Bois" is not helping (not calling out you alone--just one of many, many people doing it).

Why can't people just talk like adults? What is with this "BB50 Bois" and "logobois" nonsense? Name calling isn't a valid tactic post-second grade. Maybe even post-first grade.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by zworykin

Calling people the "BB50 Bois" is not helping (not calling out you alone--just one of many, many people doing it).

Why can't people just talk like adults? What is with this "BB50 Bois" and "logobois" nonsense? Name calling isn't a valid tactic post-second grade. Maybe even post-first grade.

It's Blowout, what did you expect?

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Wrong

This isn't based on reality, much like your recollection that the 1987 McGwire was considered his rookie card.

Back in the day even Beckett, which had all those crazy XRCs for anything in a traded or update set and then second year cards as rookies, called the 85 McGwire his RC if memory serves. After all it was in the regular set and had a base card number. If in the day some people called the 87 McGwires rookie cards, I think they were in a distinct minority.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by 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

Great summary TBP.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

If that's what you think, you're totally misreading why someone would throw in a monkey wrench in the first place.

Enlighten me…

…but I warn you, if your rationale is “I saw something like this when watching business people stab each-other in their back on TV” then it’s clear you are coming without a grounding in how real businesses operate that aspire to go public and/or be purchased for $500MM. Particularly ones managed by business people who care about their personal wealth and ability to find jobs ever again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pspa123

Back in the day even Beckett, which had all those crazy XRCs for anything in a traded or update set and then second year cards as rookies, called the 85 McGwire his RC if memory serves. After all it was in the regular set and had a base card number. If in the day some people called the 87 McGwires rookie cards, I think they were in a distinct minority.

Correct. 85 McGwire is and has always been accepted at the rookie.
Pewe and his circle apparently fell in that minority.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

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

BTW I remind you Eisner was negotiating the sale of Topps to Fanatics “within weeks” of the announcement. And likely had been having conversations before the announcement with Fanatics about other business deals. Eisner wanted nothing to crowbar the deal from getting done for maximum $$. Purposely doing what you insinuate here is pretty much the least likely action imaginable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk