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

[BabaORiley]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

My argument is that intent could be relevant here. And that the Bowman Heritage mistake would've been the same mistake, just repeated a second time. I guess the debate ultimately comes down to the intent question. And on the "did Topps do this on purpose" question, which I've wasted way too much time in the past arguing about.

I will say though, value and sales shouldn't matter in this discussion. 2021 BB will always be a historically significant product, one way or the other, but nowhere in any RC definition does it say anything about the potential or actual value of such a card.

Absolutely true. The market may speak and say the 21 BB is worthless. There will still be a fairly large contingent of collectors who value the set for its RCs, unique status and story. I'll collect J-Rod's 2022 Update stuff and Adley's 2023 Series 1 and Cristian Hernandez's 2024-2025 Flagship cards but I'll never view anything other than 2021 BB to be each of their RCs.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

After seeing people get triggered at the mere mention of 21 BB in the J-Rod and Witt threads, I thought I would try something here and bump this baby up.

I challenge ANYONE to offer your best argument against 21 BB being the rookie cards of J-Rod, Witt, and Wander Franco.

Not a chain of arguments, not a bunch of back and forth, just simply state your best argument as to why they are not rookie cards.

For example:

They are not rookie cards because they don't have the RC logo.

I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them, but after spending several weeks weighing the arguments for/against I'm fairly confident that I can rebut any argument as to why they aren't rookie cards in one sentence, or even one picture.

And if your argument is so easily rebutted, maybe you should consider that they might just be rookie cards?

The floor is yours - GO!

Are you saying: "can we please take this thread back to page 1 - I really missed the early banter on the topic before BB'18 ended up winning the RC food fight"

[pewe]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Furthermore as to the bolded comment, that would be believable except for this:

https://www.beckett.com/news/2021-bo...aseball-cards/

Look at how many prospects would have had rookie cards if Fanatics didn't spike this product weeks if not days before release. This checklist proves that Topps employees were doing this deliberately, it wasn't just a "one off" mistake. Compare that checklist to 2020 Bowman Heritage where the prospects all had the prefix "BHP-"

https://www.beckett.com/news/2020-bo...aseball-cards/

You forgot to put in the picture of the pantless work from home guy doing it on purpose and hamburgler helping him

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

My argument is that intent could be relevant here. And that the Bowman Heritage mistake would've been the same mistake, just repeated a second time. I guess the debate ultimately comes down to the intent question. And on the "did Topps do this on purpose" question, which I've wasted way too much time in the past arguing about.

I will say though, value and sales shouldn't matter in this discussion. 2021 BB will always be a historically significant product, one way or the other, but nowhere in any RC definition does it say anything about the potential or actual value of such a card.

Its a RC regardless of being an UER

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

After seeing people get triggered at the mere mention of 21 BB in the J-Rod and Witt threads, I thought I would try something here and bump this baby up.

I challenge ANYONE to offer your best argument against 21 BB being the rookie cards of J-Rod, Witt, and Wander Franco.

Not a chain of arguments, not a bunch of back and forth, just simply state your best argument as to why they are not rookie cards.

For example:

They are not rookie cards because they don't have the RC logo.

I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them, but after spending several weeks weighing the arguments for/against I'm fairly confident that I can rebut any argument as to why they aren't rookie cards in one sentence, or even one picture.

And if your argument is so easily rebutted, maybe you should consider that they might just be rookie cards?

The floor is yours - GO!

Your entire premise comes from the perspective that things can never change. And that is a very precarious position in a hobby where it has repeatedly changed. If the hobby never once went through changes surrounding grappling with the definition of RC (see the XRC fiasco), then you might have at least a modicum of a point. But the reality is that RC and prospect cards in the hobby have been evolving for decades. The fact that you refuse to recognize it doesn't mean your 30 year old Chipper Jones example is relevant.

So you want the best argument against them as RC? Simple. Things change. The widely recognized definition of a RC has changed within the hobby. And you can't refute that with a 30 year old picture.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your entire premise comes from the perspective that things can never change. And that is a very precarious position in a hobby where it has repeatedly changed. If the hobby never once went through changes surrounding grappling with the definition of RC (see the XRC fiasco), then you might have at least a modicum of a point. But the reality is that RC and prospect cards in the hobby have been evolving for decades. The fact that you refuse to recognize it doesn't mean your 30 year old Chipper Jones example is relevant.

So you want the best argument against them as RC? Simple. Things change. The widely recognized definition of a RC has changed within the hobby. And you can't refute that with a 30 year old picture.

...yet from the earlier thread: didn't we discover that the RC shield did the opposite of change the hobby? Instead it certified that Topps, MLB, and MLBPA all understood, and would abide by, the traditional RC definition

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

...yet from the earlier thread: didn't we discover that the RC shield did the opposite of change the hobby? Instead it certified that Topps, MLB, and MLBPA all understood, and would abide by, the traditional RC definition

Um, no. They created a new definition to distinguish prospect cards that were once considered RC.

It was a compromise for sure, so the "traditional RC" crowd could be happy, but the #1 thing it did was said they did not want that Chipper Jones RC to exist. So you can't use that Chipper as an example of a traditional RC while at the same time use it as an example of why there needed to be an agreement in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Um, no. They created a new definition to distinguish prospect cards that were once considered RC.

What differed in their agreed definition vs. the traditional hobby definition?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

What differed in their agreed definition vs. the traditional hobby definition?

I'm not going in circles with you on this again. My whole point is there was no "traditional" definition. It had been fluid and no one knew what the heck was going on. Even Beckett had to grandfather in the XRC cards because the hobby was in transition.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not going in circles with you on this again. My whole point is there was no "traditional" definition. It had been fluid and no one knew what the heck was going on. Even Beckett had to grandfather in the XRC cards because the hobby was in transition.

There are no circles, just a straight line

I call for the hobby historians! Please let us know:
a) was there a "traditional definition"
b) where did Topps, MLB, and MLBPA disregarded the traditional hobby definition of a RC in their agreement.

https://media.giphy.com/media/isuB5dvkyJptu/giphy.gif

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

There are no circles, just a straight line

I call for the hobby historians! Please let us know:
a) was there a "traditional definition"
b) where did Topps, MLB, and MLBPA disregarded the traditional hobby definition of a RC in their agreement.

https://media.giphy.com/media/isuB5dvkyJptu/giphy.gif

I've been in the hobby since the 80s. People have been arguing about what a rookie card is the entire time. No historian needed.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've been in the hobby since the 80s. People have been arguing about what a rookie card is the entire time. No historian needed.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Good! What were the material disagreements on RC definitions from the 80s and 90s?

[zworykin]

I still don't understand this argument that the 2006 agreement "changed" the definition of a rookie card. It doesn't even purport to do so. All it says is that Topps won't put the logo on a card unless the MLBPA considers the player a "rookie."

Nowhere does the agreement say "we'll only put the rookie logo on rookie cards." It also does not say "only cards that we put the rookie logo on shall be considered rookie cards," though even if it had, none of us were a party to the agreement so none of us would be required to accept that purported 'new definition' in any event.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by pewe

There are no circles, just a straight line

I call for the hobby historians! Please let us know:
a) was there a "traditional definition"
b) where did Topps, MLB, and MLBPA disregarded the traditional hobby definition of a RC in their agreement.

https://media.giphy.com/media/isuB5dvkyJptu/giphy.gif

I'm no expert, but the mostly accepted(you will never get 100% agreement) definition of a Rookie Card since 2006 has included all of the following: first card in a regular set including veterans and rookies, player having MLB playing time and/or be on a 40 man roster, MLBPA license and can also include a RC logo(though not required to be considered a RC and many cards with the logo are not Rookie Cards).
This is the reason a 2002 Bowman Draft Joey Votto or Zach Greinke prospect card is considered a Rookie Card, but no Bowman Draft prospect cards after 2005 are. The only difference is after 2005, a player needed playing time and/or to be on a 40 man roster as well as the MLBPA license to be a Rookie Card. The BD or BCD on a card also don't matter as 2015 Bowman Draft Prospects are #ed without this but are still considered prospect cards, not rookie cards. The argument going back to Jeter or Chipper or Votto for that matter is going by pre-2006 accepted standards for a Rookie Card.
For 2021 Bowman's Best, the cards do meet the requirement of being a part of a regular set with veterans and rookies, but they do not meet the other requirements that were put in place beginning in 2006. Beckett knows this, so it is strange that they decided to ignore that all boxes to be a rookie card were not checked. The reason you need to check all the boxes is because a guy can have playing time in a season where he is in an all prospect set. If you take just that one box and consider it a Rookie Card, then all the other prospects in that set would then become a Rookie Card because it would then become a set that included other Rookie Card(s).

[JRX]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I'm no expert, but the mostly accepted(you will never get 100% agreement) definition of a Rookie Card since 2006 has included all of the following: first card in a regular set including veterans and rookies, player having MLB playing time and/or be on a 40 man roster, MLBPA license and can also include a RC logo(though not required to be considered a RC and many cards with the logo are not Rookie Cards).
This is the reason a 2002 Bowman Draft Joey Votto or Zach Greinke prospect card is considered a Rookie Card, but no Bowman Draft prospect cards after 2005 are. The only difference is after 2005, a player needed playing time and/or to be on a 40 man roster as well as the MLBPA license to be a Rookie Card. The BD or BCD on a card also don't matter as 2015 Bowman Draft Prospects are #ed without this but are still considered prospect cards, not rookie cards. The argument going back to Jeter or Chipper or Votto for that matter is going by pre-2006 accepted standards for a Rookie Card.
For 2021 Bowman's Best, the cards do meet the requirement of being a part of a regular set with veterans and rookies, but they do not meet the other requirements that were put in place beginning in 2006. Beckett knows this, so it is strange that they decided to ignore that all boxes to be a rookie card were not checked. The reason you need to check all the boxes is because a guy can have playing time in a season where he is in an all prospect set. If you take just that one box and consider it a Rookie Card, then all the other prospects in that set would then become a Rookie Card because it would then become a set that included other Rookie Card(s).

Beckett was pretty clear on what makes something a rookie card and didn't need a dissertation to explain it. The "RC" is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by JRX

Beckett was pretty clear on what makes something a rookie card and didn't need a dissertation to explain it. The "RC" is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

Can you explain why a 2002 Bowman Draft Joey Votto #BDP44(prospect only set) is a Rookie Card according to Beckett and a 2021 Bowman Draft Spencer Schwellenbach #BD44(prospect only set) isn't?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by zworykin

I still don't understand this argument that the 2006 agreement "changed" the definition of a rookie card. It doesn't even purport to do so. All it says is that Topps won't put the logo on a card unless the MLBPA considers the player a "rookie."

Nowhere does the agreement say "we'll only put the rookie logo on rookie cards." It also does not say "only cards that we put the rookie logo on shall be considered rookie cards," though even if it had, none of us were a party to the agreement so none of us would be required to accept that purported 'new definition' in any event.

That's because the agreement reiterated the existing traditional definition... there was no change.

Instead, it was about MLB/MLBPA getting to decide when Topps (and Panini) released a card consistent with the traditional definition. As opposed to Topps (and Panini) getting free reign to make that decision on their own.

[jhssketchcards]

Originally Posted by BabaORiley

This wasn't the first time Topps almost made an "error" of this magnitude, though. Just reaching back a couple years, 2019 Bowman Heritage was held back for a few weeks because Yordan Alvarez (and I think 1-2 others) was numbered with the regular set, not the prospects. Topps held off, reprinted the Yordans as 53P-130 so that the numbering scheme was correct, but Yordan was released as the only prospect without Chrome and Chrome Parallels. Topps catches this sh-t, except when they don't want to. Someone pretty high up didn't want anyone to catch 21 Bowman's Best. Thankfully, I guess, Topps was able to catch '21 Bowman Heritage before another 120+ RCs were created.

Intentions don't matter here. The "Thirty" in BB21 have RCs in BB21, and other than Wander, they probably shouldn't have... And yet, they do.

Including Christian Hernandez The Who just made his rookie ball debut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

"things change" is some of the most retarded stuff i have heard in the hobby.

cards (and baseball) are about tradition.

why complicate things?

Rookie Cards have been around for decades longer than Beckett and the internet.

Dont give into the RC Logo slave mind

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your entire premise comes from the perspective that things can never change. And that is a very precarious position in a hobby where it has repeatedly changed. If the hobby never once went through changes surrounding grappling with the definition of RC (see the XRC fiasco), then you might have at least a modicum of a point. But the reality is that RC and prospect cards in the hobby have been evolving for decades. The fact that you refuse to recognize it doesn't mean your 30 year old Chipper Jones example is relevant.

So you want the best argument against them as RC? Simple. Things change. The widely recognized definition of a RC has changed within the hobby. And you can't refute that with a 30 year old picture.

Of course "things change" and 10 years from now people may unanimously view 21 BB as rookie cards for Wander, J-Rod, Witt, etc. That was your argument? Yes things change. Good one.

Fortunately Beckett has been very consistent for decades with the exception of some mid-80s traded sets.

Is this a RC? It's a little more recent-

https://www.beckett.com/news/the-dai...o-rookie-card/

And if it's a RC, whose definition of rookie card are you using?

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've been in the hobby since the 80s. People have been arguing about what a rookie card is the entire time. No historian needed.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Been in the hobby since the 80s too.

It was always pretty simple - rookie card was first card produced by major manufacturer in a set shared with veterans.

Beckett did struggle with the XRC vs RC stuff in the early 90s but that was due to their rookie card standard involving numbering.

If they had just used "set shared with veterans" rather than regular numbering they could have thrown them all into the pot as RCs, no XRCs would have been needed, and problem solved. Or Topps could have done a "high number" set and not a "traded" set.

There were solutions but you are making it sound like there's been a roller coaster ride of what is/is not a rookie card for decades and things are constantly changing. They aren't. A lot of us were collecting back in the 80s and we know what it was like. It wasn't some major shift vs what we consider rookie cards today, just the traded sets were a fly in the ointment for price guides.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by JRX

Beckett was pretty clear on what makes something a rookie card and didn't need a dissertation to explain it. The "RC" is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

I consider it a




"Oh please MLBPA and Topps, please tell us what a RC is so we don't have to do any thinking and figure it out ourselves."

[ThoseBackPages]

Topps treats the RC Logo like its Frank's Red Hot

[SupermanBrandon]

Imagine needing Topps to tell you how to collect and what designation a card is to you, in your hobby.

[JoshMN]

This is a rookie card, is it not? If you do not consider this a rookie card, even though it has the RC logo, please explain.