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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

1)

4) "What would you say if I said your 93 Jeter is a prospect card?" - I would say happy trails, and best of luck on your stash of 1995 Select Certified Jeters. After all it clearly says "rookie" on the front, so it must be a rookie. The manufacturer told you it was.

So now who is confused about the difference between a rookie card and which card has more value?

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

This is what you refuse to understand. And why I am confident you have no interest in changing your mind. Beckett has no more authority than Topps, MLBPA, you, or me. And the "tradition " isn't what you claim. I've personally seen arguments about what makes a rookie card for decades and decades. You are just willfully blind and appealing to false authority just to support your position. So don't blow smoke claiming I don't know you and you are honestly willing to listen. You have no interest in listening.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

1) "Beckett has no more authority than Topps, MLBPA, you, or me." - Has Topps, the MLBPA, you or I produced a price guide classifying cards as RCs or not RCs for decades? Rhetorical.

2) "And the "tradition " isn't what you claim." - Sure it is. You can come on this forum and lie all you want, be intellectually dishonest all you want, and you are proving that you will stoop to any level to get your point across. This from Cardboard Connection-

"Not long ago, most every collector and publication agreed on what a rookie card was. In a nutshell, it was the first fully licensed base card issued of a player for any given brand in a single year."
https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...l-rookie-cards

That article was written at least 8 years ago. Will this change YOUR mind? Of course not. Now go tell me what I think and what kind of a person I am again. Because one thing is for sure on this thread - your arguments suck.

Which is pretty sad given your profession.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Rookie cards aren't created. They are what collectors say they are. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there isn't some magical authority out there? You're just butt hurt that most collectors don't agree with you. It's sad really.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Not butthurt at all. I've really enjoyed your astute arguments against 21 BB being rookie cards of Wander/J-Rod/Witt on this thread. You have made some amazing contributions.

Cheers mate.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

So now who is confused about the difference between a rookie card and which card has more value?

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Which is pretty sad given your profession.

Objection - there's no evidence that he actually is a lawyer.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

1) Because one thing is for sure on this thread - your arguments suck.



Which is pretty sad given your profession.

The only sad thing is you are convinced you're right and any arguments to the contrary must be illogical and wrong.

I'll let you guys get back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber in here. You don't care about logic anyway.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Not butthurt at all. I've really enjoyed your astute arguments against 21 BB being rookie cards of Wander/J-Rod/Witt on this thread. You have made some amazing contributions.



Cheers mate.

Aww, maybe one day your airtight logic will convince collectors you're right. I have faith in you. You just keep at it.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Aww, maybe one day your airtight logic will convince collectors you're right. I have faith in you. You just keep at it.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It must be really frustrating to believe as strongly as you do that you are right and still have the vast majority of collectors disagree with you. I'm glad you can get some therapy by posting GIFs.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by zworykin

Objection - there's no evidence that he actually is a lawyer.

He sounds like a lawyer at least.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I just want someone to believe in me like BigSeph believes in BB21. That's true love right there.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It must be really frustrating to believe as strongly as you do that you are right and still have the vast majority of collectors disagree with you. I'm glad you can get some therapy by posting GIFs.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by pewe

Its a RC regardless of being an UER

Not if the error is the very thing that causes it to fall under the definition of RC. That's been my position from the start, and I'm sticking with that.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

Not if the error is the very thing that causes it to fall under the definition of RC. That's been my position from the start, and I'm sticking with that.

It's not an error.

The 2021 Bowman Heritage checklist proves it wasn't an error.

[brewtown107]

It's an error.

[ObanMontecristo]

An error is an occasional issue like misspelling a name or getting a stat wrong. We’re talking about 30% of the set here. Topps had been making BB for years, and always split out the rookies/vets from the prospects. Here, they’re interspersed and there was a clear intention to make them all part of the same 100-card set.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

It's an error.

Hundreds of consecutive products according to their codified agreement with MLBPA.

MLBPA gives license to Fanatics.

Topps has an "error" on 2 checklists in a row after the Fanatics announcement.

Sure.

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[mnvikingstwins]

how is this at 82 pages?

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by mnvikingstwins

how is this at 82 pages?

Honestly it's because the anti-BB21 crowd can't formulate a solid argument against BB21 being rookie cards.

If there was a simple argument against it, this thread is probably 4 pages.

They are struggling.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by mnvikingstwins

how is this at 82 pages?

Its an error. Its TP-82 pages.

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It's not an error.

The 2021 Bowman Heritage checklist proves it wasn't an error.

Thats a stretch. Some might say the product was cancelled because it was an error.

This debate has reached equilibrium.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

He sounds like a lawyer at least.

I don't know - if we had a summer associate at my firm demonstrate this level of reasoning/arguing ability, there's a real possibility we wouldn't invite them back full time...

[brewtown107]

The definition of error card has never required the "error" to be unintentional. Famous error cards like Billy Ripken FF and Juan Gonzalez reverse negative (along with a lot of other error cards in that period of 1989-1990) were widely rumored to have been allowed into the product intentionally. This never caused anyone to question whether they were to be considered error cards. The error, you might say, is that they were released in improper form. Intent is immaterial, just like whether or not the error was ever corrected is immaterial. Still error cards.

BB21 prospect cards were obviously released in improper form, because they were released in a form that violates Topps' agreement with the MLBPA. Error cards. The error is the sole reason why they fall under the traditional definition of RC. An exception is warranted.

The RC definition is a list of exceptions (must be a base card (as opposed to what? inserts and parallels) must be a major release (as opposed to what? small regional releases), must be a set that includes veterans (as opposed to what? dedicated prospect releases)). Each exception exists to exclude some cards from being defined as a RC.

Another exception is warranted here. Can't be an error card where the error is what causes what would have otherwise been not a RC to fall under the definition of RC.

The numbering of the entire BB21 set is the error. Should have been numbered the same way every prior BB set was numbered--with prospects separate from the actual RCs and veterans. Improper release of an improperly numbered set does not qualify these as RCs in my book. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

The definition of error card has never required the "error" to be unintentional. Famous error cards like Billy Ripken FF and Juan Gonzalez reverse negative (along with a lot of other error cards in that period of 1989-1990) were widely rumored to have been allowed into the product intentionally. This never caused anyone to question whether they were to be considered error cards. The error, you might say, is that they were released in improper form. Intent is immaterial, just like whether or not the error was ever corrected is immaterial. Still error cards.

This has nothing to do with printing errors, foul language, a Marlboro ad in the background, etc. You are really taking a huge logical leap here to equate a product not only produced but released in wide distribution, with specific errors on single cards. The difference between this and, say, the Alex Gordon card I posted earlier, is that this alleged error with 21 BB was never corrected.

The FF Ripken was corrected. The Alex Gordon card was hunted down by Topps and very few escaped into the wild. There was no recall on 21 BB.

BB21 prospect cards were obviously released in improper form, because they were released in a form that violates Topps' agreement with the MLBPA. Error cards. The error is the sole reason why they fall under the traditional definition of RC. An exception is warranted.

As was the 2007 Alex Gordon but, again, Topps attempted to destroy or mutilate any they could find before they were packed out. That violated the MLBPA/Topps codified agreement on production of baseball cards when that Alex Gordon was packed out. And they attempted to correct that error.

No one has attempted to correct this error on 21 BB if it was indeed an error, so again, your logic is faulty.

The RC definition is a list of exceptions (must be a base card (as opposed to what? inserts and parallels) must be a major release (as opposed to what? small regional releases), must be a set that includes veterans (as opposed to what? dedicated prospect releases)). Each exception exists to exclude some cards from being defined as a RC.

Another exception is warranted here. Can't be an error card where the error is what causes what would have otherwise been not a RC to fall under the definition of RC.

You literally made this up and posted it. The worst arguments are the ones where a guy literally makes up some crap and says there, that's why I'm right. Please point to one baseball card publication in the history of mankind that says what you have said here today. Go ahead and prove that your definition here exists anywhere in a hobby publication. Who's the ultimate appeal when you offer this argument? You made it up? Ok then? Would you like to tell us all what is and is not a rookie card on every product released hereafter since you've made yourself the ultimate arbiter of the rookie card definition?

The numbering of the entire BB21 set is the error. Should have been numbered the same way every prior BB set was numbered--with prospects separate from the actual RCs and veterans. Improper release of an improperly numbered set does not qualify these as RCs in my book. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.

It's not really rational if you literally made up this "standard" out of thin air.

The moon is made of cheese. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.

The earth is balanced on the back of a cosmic turtle deep at the bottom of our solar system. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.



I'd like to take your argument seriously but it can't just be something you made up.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by zworykin

I don't know - if we had a summer associate at my firm demonstrate this level of reasoning/arguing ability, there's a real possibility we wouldn't invite them back full time...

Some lawyers just like using at least 4 times the number of words needed to get their point across.