- Thread starter
- #1
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Just wow. Everything's here.
[ebay:3kowzsgo]180569591197[/ebay:3kowzsgo]
[ebay:3kowzsgo]180569591197[/ebay:3kowzsgo]
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Best Stras RC?
- Thread starter uniquebaseballcards
- 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.
mannyramirezcollec
New member
- Apr 11, 2009
- 509
- 0
Too bad the "wood" looks like crap
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
Clearly a very sick card, but for that kind of coin? Who knows I guess..... What I do know is that if I pulled it I would be extatic to get ~$5000 for it!
nosterbor
Well-known member
20K! I see the offers are overflowing on this. why don't the seller grow some BALLS and list it at .99 and then we would see how FAR his cards have fallen! should get what you can for these now.
IndyManning18
Active member
That's a parallel, not a RC.
nosterbor
Well-known member
are you serious!IndyMann said:
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
nosterbor said:
Yes
ballerskrip
New member
JoshHamilton said:
So his superfractor isn't a rc in your eyes?
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
ballerskrip said:
Accordingto Beckett's RC rules, no
And since uniquebaseballcards is the defender of all things sacred when it comes to rookies, I thought it was hilarious when he can't even practice what he preaches
IndyManning18
Active member
ballerskrip said:
Nope. It's an insert. Is a 2007 Bowman Chrome Albert Pujols Superfractor a base card? No, it's an insert.
- Thread starter
- #11
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
JoshHamilton said:
I don't use Beckett rules...I've consistently said a rookie card can only be of someone whose been a rookie on an MLB roster the same year. Beckett says something about parallels, I don't care about Beckett too much...you're just a little misinformed.
But this particular card is almost an 'anti-chrome' card. The wood cards look great in person, but they just done scan as well as chrome because they're not shiny. Obviously it could never be a FY card because of the logoman. What better way to announce a new rookie by inserting a logoman?
chompsmcgee
New member
IndyMann said:
Regardless, that is one nasty card.
IndyManning18
Active member
I wasn't questioning the nastiness of the card. I was just saying.chompsmcgee said:
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
uniquebaseballcards said:
You've constantly cited Beckett and the MLBPA when making your retarded arguments. The only time you shy away from Beckett's rule is when someone brings up a pre-2006 RC like Tulo (when Beckett considered them RC's.
How about you stop stating your personal opinion as gospel.
Do you consider the 1993 SP Jeter a rookie?
- Thread starter
- #15
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
I'd love to play...I'd enjoy it on some level I suppose...but I've *only* and consistently agreed with the MLBPA in that only MLBers can have RCs. I've never spoken about anything else because I consider the MLBPA's stance on this common sense and all that matters to me on the subject. Why else would I post this beautiful and unbelievable Stras?! But if you're still unsure:
Show me a single example where I've said a parallel isn't a rookie card.
Parallels are what started you on your current tirade here, no?
If you wish by all means spend the next few hours using the 'search' function here looking up my posts if you've nothing else better to do...which seems to be the case. I'd love to know what you find.
But I already know what you'll find: that you're the person who thinks and worries about Beckett's and MLBPA's rules, the years they apply, etc... not me. I just say MLB=rookie and I'm done (LOL)
So how about you admitting that you are acting retarded (can't stop laughing)
Show me a single example where I've said a parallel isn't a rookie card.
Parallels are what started you on your current tirade here, no?
If you wish by all means spend the next few hours using the 'search' function here looking up my posts if you've nothing else better to do...which seems to be the case. I'd love to know what you find.
But I already know what you'll find: that you're the person who thinks and worries about Beckett's and MLBPA's rules, the years they apply, etc... not me. I just say MLB=rookie and I'm done (LOL)
So how about you admitting that you are acting retarded (can't stop laughing)
JoshHamilton said:
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
You're right. I don't recall you ever talking about parallels in the RC debate. My bad.
Answer the question, though. Do you consider the 1993 SP Jeter a rookie?
Answer the question, though. Do you consider the 1993 SP Jeter a rookie?
- Thread starter
- #17
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Jeter wasn't a rookie until '95, the '93 IMO is a FY card but I don't know off hand if he had anything released prior although I'm guessing he did.
Sometimes too many rules makes things too complicated, some things just need to make sense for people both in the hobby and outside it.
Sometimes too many rules makes things too complicated, some things just need to make sense for people both in the hobby and outside it.
JoshHamilton said:
kdailey4315
New member
- Mar 4, 2009
- 5,458
- 0
uniquebaseballcards said:
Is this a FY also?
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
uniquebaseballcards said:
I'll give you credit: even though 99.999% of the hobby disagrees with you, at least you stand your ground and stick to what you believe in. Thanks for answering my question, finally
- Thread starter
- #20
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Jeter's misrepresentation as an MLBer on the card will make people think that way, as will thirteen years of the MLBPA being asleep behind the wheel. Topps' exemption hasn't been all good for the hobby, it hasn't done the MiLB any favors either. But none of this means that people should or shouldn't think this is Jeter's card to get.
Fifty years from now the hobby, assuming it still exists, will want to think of consistency in its terminology and views of Jeter's different cards may change. Its already starting to happen and logos, etc shouldn't make a difference.
Fifty years from now the hobby, assuming it still exists, will want to think of consistency in its terminology and views of Jeter's different cards may change. Its already starting to happen and logos, etc shouldn't make a difference.
JoshHamilton said:
Similar threads
