Jeter Rookies: 1993 or 1996?

[jlebron44]

Have been thinking about picking up a nice Jeter recently, and while I feel like the 1993 SP is the quintessential rookie for him I'm a little confused.

Why are Jeter rookies are considered to start in 1993 even though his rookie season was in 1996? I feel like the 1996 cards make more sense to be considered his rookies, so just curious if there is a specific reason for the hobby designating 1993 as his rookie year.

Thanks!

[akaus21]

Not sure, but 1993 are his rookie cards.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Card numbering.

[ThoseBackPages]

- Legitimate Set Release.
- Issued via Packs for this case
- 1st time inclusion in a Base Set that contains veterans.
- Numbered normally within that Base Set.

[BigL7370]

His 93T and 93 UD SP were part of mass distributed baseball card sets.

[hxcmilkshake]

93 SP is the card to have. Be cool and get one.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

the cool thing about the 1993 SP Jeter is that while raw copies may be altered, they are real thanks to the hologram

[jlebron44]

Thanks for the quick responses. It just seems like 1993 would be more akin to a bowman first whereas 1996 would be the actual rookies which is what isn't making sense to me.

Could just be that "it is that way because it is" but wasn't sure if there was a better reason.

[Easycards]

Originally Posted by jlebron44

Thanks for the quick responses. It just seems like 1993 would be more akin to a bowman first whereas 1996 would be the actual rookies which is what isn't making sense to me.

Could just be that "it is that way because it is" but wasn't sure if there was a better reason.

Bowman 1sts are technically inserts, they are not numbered as part of the base set of the release, they are separately numbered and therefore don’t meet the criteria of a rookie card, while Jeter 1993s are part of the base set numbering and meet the other criteria to be considered a rookie card. The 90s were an interesting time, a bit of the Wild West compared to the “order” that is attempted today.

On a side note, BB 2021 says hi to everyone.

[danthemansstore]

Originally Posted by Easycards

Bowman 1sts are technically inserts, they are not numbered as part of the base set of the release, they are separately numbered and therefore don’t meet the criteria of a rookie card, while Jeter 1993s are part of the base set numbering and meet the other criteria to be considered a rookie card. The 90s were an interesting time, a bit of the Wild West compared to the “order” that is attempted today.

On a side note, BB 2021 says hi to everyone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[88horsepower]

1993, no question.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Clearly 1996. Anything earlier is purely a money grab.

[smanzari]

Just buy them all to cover your bases - most his '96 stuff is super cheap

[Foo3112]

1993 is recognized and welcomed with open arms by all collectors and those who deny just simply can't afford one.

[jlebron44]

Originally Posted by Easycards

Bowman 1sts are technically inserts, they are not numbered as part of the base set of the release, they are separately numbered and therefore don’t meet the criteria of a rookie card, while Jeter 1993s are part of the base set numbering and meet the other criteria to be considered a rookie card. The 90s were an interesting time, a bit of the Wild West compared to the “order” that is attempted today.

On a side note, BB 2021 says hi to everyone.

Good summary of it all, thanks! Didn't realize that about Bowmans 1sts either.

Definitely interesting to see how things have changed over time!

[superdan49]

I'm in the minority here, but I collect Jeter and view his cards from '92-'96 as "rookie era" and thus put a premium on those issues. But 1993 is the answer if you are looking for a single year.

[daeve]

I think all his stuff from 93-96 is pretty fun/collectible. You can get hung up on technicalities, or you can draw the reasonable comparisons to today's rules, which are more rigid than they were in the 90s.

93 = first year cards
95 = MLB debut year
96 = broke rookie elibility

[Orneville]

The 1993 cannot be a prospect card because 13 years later a rule was established that a prospect card must be numbered separately from the main set

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by daeve

I think all his stuff from 93-96 is pretty fun/collectible. You can get hung up on technicalities, or you can draw the reasonable comparisons to today's rules, which are more rigid than they were in the 90s.

93 = first year cards
95 = MLB debut year
96 = broke rookie elibility

They aren't any more rigid. They're just different. RCs before 2006 were one set of criteria and post 2006 are the current criteria. It isn't that difficult.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

They aren't any more rigid. They're just different. RCs before 2006 were one set of criteria and post 2006 are the current criteria. It isn't that difficult.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

They aren't any more rigid. They're just different. RCs before 2006 were one set of criteria and post 2006 are the current criteria. It isn't that difficult.

If cards are still around 100 years from now, nobody’s going to think of there being two sets of “rules”.

The only pre-2006 “rules” were created by sellers who tried their best to figure out the best way to make a buck in what was a hobby for everyone else. This included the manufacturers. And we’re only talking about the beginning of the second Bowman era.

Sellers today still try to do the same thing, but thankfully the licensing bodies provide sensible definition.

[JWBlue]

1996.....

[athletics07]

I guess I’m old enough to see the day where the “RC” stamp is not mocked but accepted and now retroactively questioned for why it’s lacking or different in eras past. Smh.

[Rooftop]

Can’t be 93..just ask all 21 BB haters

[cnewby]

It's '93. But if looking to purchase a '96, maybe go with the Leaf Signature Extended Century Marks. Stunning card.