- Thread starter
- #1
P_Manning 18
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,121
- 0
One clearly states 2009... other 2010... both came out of Rookie Retro boxes?
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Which of these is a Rookie Card?
- Thread starter P_Manning 18
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
One clearly states 2009... other 2010... both came out of Rookie Retro boxes?
Canocollector#1
New member
Technicallity
Neither. The term "Rookie" is a generally-accepted term at the Major League level normally. Therefor Bryce Harper hasn't had a Rookie Card yet.
If you are speaking of a first-issue, then that's a different story.
If you are speaking of a first-issue, then that's a different story.
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Plus he was in the 2008-09 USA Box set.
With guys that have USA stuff...the "rookie" word is too blurry and really, thanks to Beckett, MLBPA and the "rookie card" rules - the rookie lines have been blurry for years.
With guys that have USA stuff...the "rookie" word is too blurry and really, thanks to Beckett, MLBPA and the "rookie card" rules - the rookie lines have been blurry for years.
- Thread starter
- #6
P_Manning 18
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,121
- 0
Was the USA Auto released in 2009 or 2010?
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
By whos definition do you want to go by?
Simple answer, both are of the 'prospect' nature and as such both loosely fall under the umbrella of a Rookie card to most collectors. Sure, we can get technical and disect the relavence of each issue, it's place in the hobby, there licensing, ect... But whats the point really? They are what they are and as such have a rightful place in the product.
Let the hairs be split by thoes wielding a sword of discontent.
Simple answer, both are of the 'prospect' nature and as such both loosely fall under the umbrella of a Rookie card to most collectors. Sure, we can get technical and disect the relavence of each issue, it's place in the hobby, there licensing, ect... But whats the point really? They are what they are and as such have a rightful place in the product.
Let the hairs be split by thoes wielding a sword of discontent.
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
I believe that was released in early 2010, and is basically a 2009-10 card...and he had a auto/patch in the 2008-09 set.P_Manning 18 said:
- Thread starter
- #9
P_Manning 18
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,121
- 0
200lbhockeyplayer said:
Yea I knew about the other USA Auto.... but wasnt sure if the other one was released in 2009 or 2010
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
Who defined the term rookie card? Beckett.
Why does FCB exist? Beckett.
That should tell you everything you need to know.
The RC definition was created when there was one card company and no Traded/Update/box sets. And no insert sets. And no parallel sets. And no USA sets. And no minor league sets (unless you count Zeenuts, Obaks, and '48 Bowman PCL).
The definition of "rookie card" has been obsolete for 28 years. People just always made the mistake of believing Beckett was the bible. If anything, the 2006 "RC Rule" debacle destroyed the definition of a rookie card.
A RC can be anything you want it to be. The only thing it CAN'T be is an MLB card of an MLBer in his second year in MLB, when he already had a card issued the year before
Why does FCB exist? Beckett.
That should tell you everything you need to know.
The RC definition was created when there was one card company and no Traded/Update/box sets. And no insert sets. And no parallel sets. And no USA sets. And no minor league sets (unless you count Zeenuts, Obaks, and '48 Bowman PCL).
The definition of "rookie card" has been obsolete for 28 years. People just always made the mistake of believing Beckett was the bible. If anything, the 2006 "RC Rule" debacle destroyed the definition of a rookie card.
A RC can be anything you want it to be. The only thing it CAN'T be is an MLB card of an MLBer in his second year in MLB, when he already had a card issued the year before
bballcardkid
New member
Is the intent of this thread to take a poke at Razor for including "non rookies" or is this a legitimate concern? If it's a legitimate concern, it should be clear by now that you don't have to ask what a rookie card is, because due to the obscurity created over the past few years, it's up to you to decide. As for me, I see Harper's 2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010 Bowman Chromes copies as XRCs, just as I see Aroldis Chapman 2009 Bowman Chrome WBC cards as XRC, and so does most of the hobby based off of completed listings as those are outselling 2010 MLB uniform Chromes 3 to 1.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
The 'rules' would be unnecessary if Topps' odd exemption didn't exist, unfortunately Topps' exemption makes a player's status as a professional unclear - and the status of a professional is certainly important to many collectors. So as of today the rules are the "price" to pay to show non-MLBers in an MLB set.
The most clear, transparent way to define a RC is to simply ignore Topps' confusing exemption. As a collector and buyer I prefer transparency, I naturally assume others do also. But as long as that transparency doesn't exist everyone knows that people are going to continually distort the RC issue. Further, the lack of transparency seems to make RCs somewhat less important as a player could have a 'RC' in three or four different years.
The most clear, transparent way to define a RC is to simply ignore Topps' confusing exemption. As a collector and buyer I prefer transparency, I naturally assume others do also. But as long as that transparency doesn't exist everyone knows that people are going to continually distort the RC issue. Further, the lack of transparency seems to make RCs somewhat less important as a player could have a 'RC' in three or four different years.
200lbhockeyplayer said:
autocut
Active member
JoshHamilton said:
Actually, that was MLBPA licensing that defined that. That's why RCs are now "first year". then again, first Year is the replacement of XRC (extended RC).
SportsCardMojo
New member
That brings up an interesting question. When Topps puts out Aroldis Chapman's card next year, I'm guessing it won't have the RC emblem on it? Since Chapman is getting called up late in the 2010 season, is this considered his true "rookie" year?
I'm guessing this happens alot? Player in the minors gets called up late in the season after most of the cards have been produced. I guess Topps update and Chrome still have time to throw in Aroldis.
I'm guessing this happens alot? Player in the minors gets called up late in the season after most of the cards have been produced. I guess Topps update and Chrome still have time to throw in Aroldis.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Every player gets a RC, I'm betting he'll be in Updates this year along with a bunch of other guys.
sportscardfanatic said:
AKA Coastal
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,682
- 0
After '05...it's up to you to decide what a RC card is.
leatherman
Active member
I don't think the people who got a 1984 Fleer Update PSA 9 Roger Clemens XRC are complaining that they didn't get a 1985 Topps PSA 9 Roger Clemens RC.
justinmandawg
New member
jmc280zx said:
All three were? Odd, never saw an 84 Donruss Rookies set.
