Mlb rc logo: 9 years later. Your thoughts.

BBCgalaxee · Sep 21, 2014

In the summer of 2005, mlb announced the "rc logo" as a way of "killing" bowman prospect cards while trying to make baseball rookie cards like the other sports.

Extremely comical at first (Josh Hamilton is the poster card for this), I think the hobby has accepted it in a way...sort of.

But I also think that it's failed as a way of "killing" bowman prospect cards.

Generally speaking, outside of Trout, rc logo cards and prospect cards have both hit skids in terms of value but it's because the hobby placed an extreme amount of demand for autographs.

Again, generally speaking, a star's first prospect autograph is almost always worth more than his rc logo autos, especially if at least a year separates them.

And because of this, it shows that most collectors/ investors consider a player's FIRST CARD (rc logo or prospect) a rookie card.

What do you all think?

Will Style 13 · Sep 21, 2014

I personally think a players first appearance on a major league card is his rookie. The rookie card logo is a joke to me and always will be. I actually think the logo caused more confusion for many than anything.

Jaypers · Sep 21, 2014

Woohooo!!!!

sheetskout · Sep 21, 2014

I don't really spend a whole lot of time thinking about the labels put on a card (as far as the words rookie, xrc, etc). If a prospect has met my criteria for investing he's going to have a signature release somewhere. If the player performs well, that card will increase in value (most of the time). It doesn't matter to me what it's designated - but I strictly prospect.

r2d2 · Sep 21, 2014

Still sucks

AmishDave · Sep 21, 2014

Absolute ****-show.

Brewer Andy · Sep 21, 2014

I don't think it's hurt prospect cards at all. If anything it's given a slight bump to "1st year cards". But yeah, still just as stupid today as it was then

smapdi · Sep 22, 2014

It did two things: Complicate understanding of what people mean by "Rookie Card" and highlight the fact that things needn't be a "Rookie Card" to be worth a lot. Cross that with Beckett's obstinate and arbitrary definition that many people still follow, and you get massive confusion. I got sucked into a FB discussion about the term Rookie Card recently, and it's bewildering how people think about what really should be something extremely simple.

DaClyde · Sep 22, 2014

Still pointless, and still inconsistently applied. Has a year gone by since its introduction that some company hasn't either missed using it on a card or used it two years in a row? Prior to MLBP sticking their nose into it, a rookie card was just a player's first major league card (typically a mainstream, pack-issued, major league baseball card set), and it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they met any official MLB rookie year rules. It was a hobby term anyway, not a "Major League Baseball" term. And the fact that there were so many cards that didn't meet the new "official" definition that were grandfathered into Beckett's listings (where was SCD during all of this?) that it left a seriously confusing field for years after the introduction of the RC logo.

Johnny G · Sep 22, 2014

Its stupid. Most Ebay sellers will list a prospect card as the players rookie card, so it isn't working in my opinion. In football I guess it works, not so much with baseball.

nkdbacks · Sep 22, 2014

Agreed with others - it's pointless and has done nothing to correct the perceived problem - it's only caused more confusion. If MLB really wants it to work, they'll have to stop Topps from making Bowman and prospect products all together, which is obviously never going to happen.

sportscardtheory · Sep 22, 2014

I don't believe it was meant to "kill" prospect cards. If they wanted to kill prospect cards, they would have denied companies the right to produce them, which they didn't do. I didn't like the Rookie Logo when it when it started, but now I love it. It keeps products valuable, instead of the old days when players in their rookie seasons had cards during their rookie seasons that weren't considered rookie cards because they already had cards released in previous years before they ever made the Big Show. A great example is the 2008 Topps Update Clayton Kershaw. In the old days, the 2006 Bowman products of his would have been his RCs and his 2008 Topps Update card would have no designation and little to no value, now, it sells for $25 to $30 because it is a RC and he's the hottest pitcher on the planet. It would be a $1 card without the Rookie Logo. Same goes for the 2011 Topps Update Mike Trout RC. And it hasn't negatively affected sales prices of Bowman prospect cards in any way, shape or form. That's good for the hobby, not bad. It's win/win.

Wes · Sep 22, 2014

Meaningless.

sportscardtheory · Sep 22, 2014

Wes said:
Meaningless.

Every product containing RC Logo cards begs to differ. Without the RC Logo, you could still find affordable boxes/cases of 2008 and 2011 Topps Update. The Kershaw and Trout RCs have made them nearly impossible to find now, and if you did, you would pay a hefty price. No RC Logo, those boxes/cases are a dime a dozen. That's just two examples out of probably thousands of "added value" due to the RC Logo.

sportscardtheory · Sep 22, 2014

I have seen 2008 Bowman, that's PAPER, Clayton Kershaws bringing nearly $10 recently. TEN DOLLARS. If anyone believes that the RC Logo is truly meaningless, they aren't paying attention. That's a $.25 card without it.

JoshHamilton · Sep 22, 2014

sportscardtheory said:
I have seen 2008 Bowman, that's PAPER, Clayton Kershaws bringing nearly $10 recently. TEN DOLLARS. If anyone believes that the RC Logo is truly meaningless, they are crazy. That's a $.25 card without it.

Agreed.

There have always been RC logos on non-rookie cards (87 Donruss McGwire, etc). Now the only difference is what Beckett designates them as.

To use the 2008 Topps Kershaw RC as an example, it sells for around $15. Now look at the 2007 Bowman Draft prospect card without the RC logo. Issued a year earlier and it sells for around $2.

Please explain how the RC logo is a bad thing for people who like making money? It certainly hasn't affected the price of his 06 BC Draft auto, that's for damn sure

sportscardtheory · Sep 22, 2014

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2008-Clayton-Kershaw-Topps-Update-ROOKIE-RC-Los-Angeles-Dodgers-UH240-/201165991502?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2ed66d6e4e&nma=true&si=nUWmN84SNr3CZD5bnARWcYwh28Q%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Lars · Sep 22, 2014

The 2007 Bowman Draft Prospect is a Futures Game subset card / that is why it maybe worth a few bucks less than a 2008 Topps 'rookie card.'

MansGame · Sep 22, 2014

Interesting read. Good thread.

sportscardtheory · Sep 22, 2014

The RC Logo phenomena has retroactively brought to life other non-RC rookie season cards as well. Look at Miguel Cabrera sales of his 2003 cards from his true rookie season as evidence. In the past, those cards would have had little interest, now they actually sell pretty well. Same with Jeter cards from 1996, Mariano cards from 1995, etc...

Heck, even Mike Trout stuff from his true rookie season of 2012 (non-RC Logo) sells well.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Mlb rc logo: 9 years later. Your thoughts.

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Featured Contributor, Collector Showcase, Senior M

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

OG

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in