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

[dizzydolse]

Haha sorry logobois!! Beckett admitted his true RC is 2021 BB, BUY!!!!

[Technochocolate]

Originally Posted by green4407

So bb50 crowd, you all let topps tell you what's a RC by how they number cards?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Not to over-emphasize the simplicity of the answer, but: yeah. The number on the back of the card is indeed everything here. If it's numbered with the base set, it's an RC. If it's not, it's not. It really is literally that simple.

Everyone overlooks this because this particular mistake was the first time in 15 years a manufacturer messed up this rule.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I’m dumbfounded how after 165 pages there are still people making these kinds of posts.

Exactly. The vast majority has already said Wander’s RC hasn’t been released yet.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

Not to over-emphasize the simplicity of the answer, but: yeah. The number on the back of the card is indeed everything here. If it's numbered with the base set, it's an RC. If it's not, it's not. It really is literally that simple.

Everyone overlooks this because this particular mistake was the first time in 15 years a manufacturer messed up this rule.

No, the MLBPA logo is. The Bowman’s Best obviously isn’t a fully licensed card.

[green4407]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Exactly. The vast majority has already said Wander’s RC hasn’t been released yet.

It's coming Wednesday!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by pewe

Why would you run around yelling UER??? Put the UER issue to bed. It’s out. The error is not going to be corrected. It’s a RC. And glorious for being one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until you mention "UER" again.

[dizzydolse]

2022 Flagship will still be cool but I'm loving that 2021 Best will be his one true RC. Hopefully turns out to be a pretty iconic release!

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Until you mention "UER" again.

I accept it, and proceed accordingly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by dizzydolse

Haha sorry logobois!! Beckett admitted his true RC is 2021 BB, BUY!!!!

You’re completely confused. The logobois are those who want pre-RCs to have MLB logos.

[dizzydolse]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

You’re completely confused. The logobois are those who want pre-RCs to have MLB logos.

Aren't they the ones convinced that 2022 Flagship will be an actual RC because of the logo? I may be confused admittedly...I'm new to the logobois thing

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by green4407

I'm dumbfounded that one letter missing, literally a P on the back of the card makes you consider this a RC and not a prospect card.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Because it's literally what makes Acuna's 17 Bowman card not his rookie, and Vlad/Tatis' 2016 Bowman. Companies differentiate prospects from veterans. That's what keeps random Bowman cards not being the rookies for every single player. That tradition has been kept in place throughout the entire RC logo era.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Because it's literally what makes Acuna's 17 Bowman card not his rookie, and Vlad/Tatis' 2016 Bowman. Companies differentiate prospects from veterans. That's what keeps random Bowman cards not being the rookies for every single player. That tradition has been kept in place throughout the entire RC logo era.

worse yet, it was the RULES that Topps agreed to.

Topps spit on the rules

[dizzydolse]

Wander qualified as a rookie in 2021. He had a base set release in a Topps set. It's his RC.

[green4407]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

Not to over-emphasize the simplicity of the answer, but: yeah. The number on the back of the card is indeed everything here. If it's numbered with the base set, it's an RC. If it's not, it's not. It really is literally that simple.



Everyone overlooks this because this particular mistake was the first time in 15 years a manufacturer messed up this rule.

Yep I get the argument.

For me it's this simple: pre-2006 mlb sets had prospects. There was no delineation between them and mlb guys. They're RCs.

2006 and forward there's prospect cards and mlb cards. RCs are a players first year mlb cards.

I could also see ignoring the whole 2006 rules, ignoring the RC logo, and considering a players 1st bowman as their RC.

These are clearly prospect cards, other than one letter missing on the back. I won't let topps and how they decide to number cards tell me it's a RC and not a prospect card.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[green4407]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Because it's literally what makes Acuna's 17 Bowman card not his rookie, and Vlad/Tatis' 2016 Bowman. Companies differentiate prospects from veterans. That's what keeps random Bowman cards not being the rookies for every single player. That tradition has been kept in place throughout the entire RC logo era.

They did differentiate the prospects from RCs in this set. The prospects have their own design!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by dizzydolse

Wander qualified as a rookie in 2021. He had a base set release in a Topps set. It's his RC.

A rookie card has nothing to do with the player being a rookie. Some of these guys wont sniff the majors for many years and already have a RC based on the hobby definition.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by green4407

They did differentiate the prospects from RCs in this set. The prospects have their own design!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Topps Archives have several completely different designs every year. The unified checklist and numbering unite all of the designs under one set. Same with 21 BB, ie whether or not the designs are different (and they are different) is irrelevant.

[Timsterino]

Originally Posted by dizzydolse

2022 Flagship will still be cool but I'm loving that 2021 Best will be his one true RC. Hopefully turns out to be a pretty iconic release!

It will be.

[Timsterino]

Originally Posted by green4407

They did differentiate the prospects from RCs in this set. The prospects have their own design!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Designs don’t differentiate the cards, numbering does. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for some.

[green4407]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Topps Archives have several completely different designs. The unified checklist and numbering unite all of the designs under one set. Same with 21 BB, ie whether or not the designs are different (and they are different) is irrelevant.

Yep just providing my viewpoint, I get viewing these as RCs too. This set will always have this debate which is part of what makes collecting fun.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ObanMontecristo]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

Designs don’t differentiate the cards, numbering does. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for some.

It’s not hard… it’s just not as easy as a RC logo. This is why Topps puts it on everything

[green4407]

Originally Posted by Timsterino

Designs don’t differentiate the cards, numbering does. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for some.

Thanks for your opinion. You being a condescending know it all is not an opinion though, that's a fact.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

I wonder how much the poll results would change if it were retaken now.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by pspa123

I wonder how much the poll results would change if it were retaken now.

And reworded to actually ask the question that's being debated...

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by zworykin

And reworded to actually ask the question that's being debated...

Right. It does seem more binary than originally worded. Pick one or the other but not both. I can’t imagine anyone would argue both are rookie cards.