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

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

one could say that its the other way around

those saying 2022 are his RCs are saying so because of monetary reasons

The majority doesn't care about outdated hobby rules.

The majority also already considers 2022 to be his RC year so I think you got that backwards considering the inflated price of Bowmans Best.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by SupermanBrandon

Imagine needing Beckett to tell you how to think &/or collect

Beckett certainly has a valid point of view. It just conflicts with your preferred view which is to discourage hobbyists from thinking for themselves especially if they don’t agree with your point of view.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

one could say that its the other way around

those saying 2022 are his RCs are saying so because of monetary reasons

This is not true for everyone. I have nothing invested in 2022 and don't open much product anymore because it's become too expensive(money wise, him not being a RC in 2022 would be better for me to reduce wax prices). The only Wander I collect is his 2020 Topps Update Prospect because I am old and love the design. To me, it's pretty simple. In 2015-2020, Bowman's Best had 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Tops Prospects. Because someone at Topps made a numbering mistake(intentional or unintentional) does not change the Bowman's Best set having 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Top Prospects in 2021. I could see maybe an UER designation, but these are not RC's by any current standard outside of Beckett trying to do anything for attention and relevance and using outdated criteria. The 1990's have come and gone. In 2022, these are prospect cards.

[THE(NEXT)LEVEL]

Even if this doesn't end up being considered his true RC for whatever reason, it will still be an iconic Wander card and one to own, because of the giant crapstorm it is creating.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Bcr

The majority doesn't care about outdated hobby rules.

The majority also already considers 2022 to be his RC year so I think you got that backwards considering the inflated price of Bowmans Best.

not everyones worried about the majority

[k13]

He's not a prospect anymore so why would it be a prospect card....

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by kordell1

This is not true for everyone. I have nothing invested in 2022 and don't open much product anymore because it's become too expensive(money wise, him not being a RC in 2022 would be better for me to reduce wax prices). The only Wander I collect is his 2020 Topps Update Prospect because I am old and love the design. To me, it's pretty simple. In 2015-2020, Bowman's Best had 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Tops Prospects. Because someone at Topps made a numbering mistake(intentional or unintentional) does not change the Bowman's Best set having 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Top Prospects in 2021. I could see maybe an UER designation, but these are not RC's by any current standard outside of Beckett trying to do anything for attention and relevance and using outdated criteria. The 1990's have come and gone. In 2022, these are prospect cards.

i wasnt saying "everyone".

i will continue to collect by tradition. if thats "out of date", so be it

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by THE(NEXT)LEVEL

Even if this doesn't end up being considered his true RC for whatever reason, it will still be an iconic Wander card and one to own, because of the giant crapstorm it is creating.

and the "shut up and dribble" crowd thinks that people will just stop talking about it. or at least they hope so

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i wasnt saying "everyone".

i will continue to collect by tradition. if thats "out of date", so be it

I understand what you are saying, and firmly believe everyone should collect who and how they like. But wouldn't recent tradition tell you that Bowman's Best sets include 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Top Prospects? Should a numbering error change that? What if Topps came out and offered to send a sheet of 100 tiny numbered stickers with 1-70 and TP1-TP30 for anyone that purchased Bowman's Best to correct the error, would you still consider these RC's or would that change anything? I understand that everyone has differing opinions. I still consider 2018 Topps Bat Down Acuna a RC, but I don't believe it would qualify under Beckett standards. I doubt you can convince many Acuna collectors that it's not a RC. At the end of the day, this set is very interesting topic and we should all just enjoy the hobby.

[koneil]

Originally Posted by k13

He's not a prospect anymore so why would it be a prospect card....

This viewpoint doesn't matter to people but...
He was a prospect in the 2021 season was he not? The set commemorates "Top prospects from the 2021 Season". He was literally THE top prospect at one point.

[notoriousrmb]

Originally Posted by ScattMan

If you look at the checklist on Topps' website it doesn't have RC on there.

Means nothing.

Topps puts "1st Bowman" on non-1st cards and neglects to put it on actual 1st Bowman. We see it all the time.

We also see printing errors where the RC logo is applied to non rookie cards, and missing RC logos on actual rookies.

I don't think the logo, or lack of logo, means anything.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by notoriousrmb

Means nothing.

Topps puts "1st Bowman" on non-1st cards and neglects to put it on actual 1st Bowman. We see it all the time.

We also see printing errors where the RC logo is applied to non rookie cards, and missing RC logos on actual rookies.

I don't think the logo, or lack of logo, means anything.

Those should all be considered UER, unless of course they have a corrected version.

[k13]

If they put him in update with a rookie logo, it would be a rc right?

[notoriousrmb]

Originally Posted by kordell1

Those should all be considered UER, unless of course they have a corrected version.

So...how would that be different than the Wander being an UER?

Just playing devil's advocate here

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by notoriousrmb

So...how would that be different than the Wander being an UER?

Just playing devil's advocate here

I personally think it's more an UER than a RC. It was designed and meant to be a prospect card, so if a mistake in numbering was made, it should be considered an error that is not corrected(UER).

[notoriousrmb]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I personally think it's more an UER than a RC. It was designed and meant to be a prospect card, so if a mistake in numbering was made, it should be considered an error that is not corrected(UER).

But in that train of thought, you are assuming Topps 100% meant it to be a prospect card.

What if they meant it to be a controversial RC?

Then the UER portion is the missing RC logo only...

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by notoriousrmb

But in that train of thought, you are assuming Topps 100% meant it to be a prospect card.

What if they meant it to be a controversial RC?

Then the UER portion is the missing RC logo only...

How about even more fun? What if Topps had made the card #TP30 and they put a RC logo on it "accidentally"??!! You could triple the pages in this thread and the Bowman's Best thread.

[notoriousrmb]

Originally Posted by kordell1

How about even more fun? What if Topps had made the card #TP30 and they put a RC logo on it "accidentally"??!! You could triple the pages in this thread and the Bowman's Best thread.

Ooo that would be fun! Shame it didn't happen that way, but most of the exact same arguments would be made in reverse!

Really comes down to who put their money where. People holding the Best Wander will argue until death its the RC. People heavily invested in 2022 pre-sales will come up with any reason why it isn't.

Same as in all of life, follow the money.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I understand what you are saying, and firmly believe everyone should collect who and how they like. But wouldn't recent tradition tell you that Bowman's Best sets include 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Top Prospects? Should a numbering error change that? What if Topps came out and offered to send a sheet of 100 tiny numbered stickers with 1-70 and TP1-TP30 for anyone that purchased Bowman's Best to correct the error, would you still consider these RC's or would that change anything? I understand that everyone has differing opinions. I still consider 2018 Topps Bat Down Acuna a RC, but I don't believe it would qualify under Beckett standards. I doubt you can convince many Acuna collectors that it's not a RC. At the end of the day, this set is very interesting topic and we should all just enjoy the hobby.

this is 100% on Topps. Intentional or not, it happened. this is one they'll have to own up to for sure

[auctionjmm]

Got my Wander rookies in today! Not bad for 1 case...

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by auctionjmm

Got my Wander rookies in today! Not bad for 1 case...

NICE!

[FreshOutThePack]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

this is 100% on Topps. Intentional or not, it happened. this is one they'll have to own up to for sure

I just really can't believe it has been almost 2 years since P2020 died. Seems like yesterday we were all still on that lunar voyage.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I understand what you are saying, and firmly believe everyone should collect who and how they like. But wouldn't recent tradition tell you that Bowman's Best sets include 70 Vets/RC's and 30 Top Prospects? Should a numbering error change that? What if Topps came out and offered to send a sheet of 100 tiny numbered stickers with 1-70 and TP1-TP30 for anyone that purchased Bowman's Best to correct the error, would you still consider these RC's or would that change anything? I understand that everyone has differing opinions. I still consider 2018 Topps Bat Down Acuna a RC, but I don't believe it would qualify under Beckett standards. I doubt you can convince many Acuna collectors that it's not a RC. At the end of the day, this set is very interesting topic and we should all just enjoy the hobby.

The 70/30 argument might have some legs, except the prospects are scattered throughout the set, not all together at the end. That suggests it's not a numbering error, or they forgot to put a prefix before the number.

Bat Down isn't a true RC, but it's an amazing iconic card that will have value forever. RC and value are not the same concept. I own a PSA 10 Bat Down, but I'm not looking to dump it because it's not a true RC, that would be nuts.

The importance of rookie card standards is especially important for rookie card set registries. Collectors looking to complete a PSA set of Acuna rookie cards can't possibly pick up every 2018 Acuna that has the "RC" logo on the front, every insert, every parallel. That's one reason why it's important that rookie cards are limited to base cards.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by FreshOutThePack

I just really can't believe it has been almost 2 years since P2020 died. Seems like yesterday we were all still on that lunar voyage.

agreed!

Topps really messed up by lying about the Project

[rlriii13]

Originally Posted by kordell1

How about even more fun? What if Topps had made the card #TP30 and they put a RC logo on it "accidentally"??!! You could triple the pages in this thread and the Bowman's Best thread.

I hadn't gone down this path of thinking until reading these few posts, but I like it. It made me consider all this from a different perspective. To add to it:

What if Topps kept the card numbering the same (#50), but had printed the Wander with the RC logo? At that point, whether or not they violated their MLB agreement is on them, and I would have a hard time calling next year's releases his rookie cards. Does that mean all this debate is over the RC logo and nothing else? If the 2021 Bowman Best had the RC logo, would any of you not call it his rookie card? (Genuine question, looking for honest answers who like long walks on the beach.)