8 Years Later, thoughts on "RC" Logo?

[Brewer Andy]

Times flies and it won't be long until the "RC" logo is a decade old. This gets discussed here and there but what is everyone's thoughts/feelings about the logo or designation? I wasn't a fan of it at the time. I grew up in a time when the first cards that pictured a player in a MLB uniform and any subsequent cards released during the same calendar year were that player's "rookie card". Hell, we didn't even care about Beckett's "XRC" distinction; screw the powers that be they were rookie cards and we'd be happy to accept a USA uniform card as long as it was released in an MLB product. As I age (gracefully I must add), the RC logo has grown on me a bit when it comes to team collections but I still don't like the idea of someone other than collectors and the market deciding.
What caused the topic idea to stir in my head however was a realization that there are collectors who may not have been around pre-logo. I'm literally stunned by the number of online posters I see defending the almighty logo with comments of "that's a prospect card not a rookie card" and "I only collect rookie cards with the official logo". I can't imagine feeling like I need to collect bound by that silly little logo that when it was introduced most of us said "those aren't even close to being rookie cards"

 

[CatdaddysCards]

Hated it in 2006. Still think it is ridiculous as hell.

 

[Jaypers]

Created by a woman once employed by the MLBPA who knew absolutely nothing about baseball cards.

 

[carlitoson]

I don't have a problem with the logo except when they put it on incorrectly (or forget to put it on when they should).

I collect "first-year" cards. I USED to call them rookie cards, but that term usually no longer applies to what I collect (players' licensed cards from the first year they're shown in an MLB uniform).

With the rise of Bowman and other prospect-driven brands, it makes perfect sense (to me) that they'd migrate the term "rookie card" to those cards that show ACTUAL MLB ROOKIES.

I think the main reason folks don't like the logo is because they refuse to change their definition of the term "rookie card". Many of us still collect the same thing we always have, but to keep our sanity we just have to change what we call them...whether that's first-year card, prospect card, etc.

 

[AmishDave]

XXXXing garbage.

 

[BBCgalaxee]

A lot of pros and cons.

It's nice to get a rc logo of Jose Fernandez ( Machado, etc etc) auto but when he has one in every product, it becomes watered down.
If you get a Machado AUTO JUMBO JERSEY REFRACTOR in a mini box of finest, YOU LOST $15-20!!!!!

And since rookies charge a whole lot less than vets and stars, topps puts them in every product. Therefore, there's a million brandon mauer and Familia autos in every issue with an absolute little amount of stars, if any at all.

It's gotten to the point that most collectors assume that a rc logo card is NOT a true rc because most aren't.

But, it does help out collectors because if they don't or can't shell out big money for a bcdp Machado auto, they can drop two 20s on a rc logo and be happy.

No matter how you feel, the hobby still recognizes the player's FIRST card as a true rookie card. Just compare values of his first card and logos.



Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[athletics07]

Dumb. I can't believe it has actually caught on as being more desirable.

 

[Will Style 13]

It's pointless, and it has done nothing but muddy the waters.

 

[WildGinge]

Interesting to see others' opinions. I don't really care about the RC cards one way or the other really. It's prospects in MLB uniforms, many of whom will never even get a cup of coffee, that annoy me. If they waited until they reached the majors, the RC cards might actually hold genuine value, imho. I realise mine is a minority viewpoint.

 

[rsmath]

I ignore the rookie logo. The rookie logo doesn't even invoke any emotion in me when I open a pack of cards and see the rookie logo. It's definitely 100% opposite of "awesome! It's (player name)'s rookie!".

When I think or want a rookie card, I go for bowman/bowman chrome since it is the true first appearance on cardboard of the player pictured in a MLB uniform.

 

[Bootstraps9]

Apparently I am the only one, but I like it mainly because the whole prospecting thing is the worst thing to ever happen to the hobby IMO. For example, this one guy that hit 30 HRs in A-ball and has a BCDPP card is all of a sudden more valuable than a 4-time all-star even though the A-ball guy has probably a 25-35% chance of EVER playing a SINGLE MLB game. Players aren't rookies until they play in the MLB and I believe correspondingly that Cards shouldn't be rookie cards until that happens. But in the end no skin off my nose. My cards may be worth a little less but I pay less too so whatever.


Ogando, Michael Young, Leonys Martin and all Texas Rangers

 

[JoshHamilton]

It's good for the hobby.

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows what a player's "true" rookie card is. It's not what Beckett says. Ask 100 collectors whether they'd prefer a 2009 Trout to a 2011 Trout, and all 100 will tell you they would. The lack of RC logos hasn't affected the price of 2011 Bowman Chrome Harper prospect cards. They still sell for more than the '12 RC stuff. So it's not like its affecting value.

The reason the RC logo is awesome is because it gives otherwise worthless cards value. When 2013 Opening Day came out, I sold a Machado blue RC parallel for like $21. If it didn't have the logo, it would have been $3-$5. Same with base paper/chromes. I can sell a 20 count lot of Darvish RC's for $30

 

[sportscardtheory]

I like it now. It makes sense in a sport where prospects are traded all the time. Plus, it has upped demand for rookie season cards of players who had true RCs previously. There are still prospect cards, so everyone wins. Now if only there wasn't an exclusive license.

 

[CubsfanP]

I will use Mike Trout as an example of why I "dislike" the RC logo:

2009 = First year prospect card
2010 = prospect card
2011 = RC card
2012 = 2nd year card (even though he won ROY in 2012)

...
I rest my case.

 

[sportscardtheory]

At least players' RC cards show them in the team they actually play for's uniform now. lol

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

I actually like muddy waters and that the logo has caused discussion. Confusion may be bad for the hobby overall, but I like it personally.

 

[Tzvih123]

I don't care. I consider a player's rookie card to be any card up until and including their first card in one of Topps 3 main sets ( Series 1, Series 2, and Update)

 

[Lars]

I still want the first-year autograph prospect card to be considered a true rookie card.

However, after being priced out of those first-year cards, I do like the Rookie Card logo cards since it gives me a chance of owning something 'decent' among the 15-20 releases in a rookie's first year.

I wouldn't buy non-autographed singles of a relevant player with a "RC" logo but I'll keep them if I find them in unopened breaks.

 

[DaClyde]

Considering the logo has never been applied consistently, and was imposed arbitrarily by an entity that has no place issuing dictates to the hobby, it was, and still is, is a complete waste of time. What was ever wrong with the simple "first card in a major nationally-distributed set" rule? I hate the idea of "prospect" cards being somehow different from "rookie" cards as a thing. If the player is in a major base set, their first such card should be considered their rookie, with complete disregard to their actual MLB rookie status. This includes draft pick cards and Team USA cards that are part of major sets.

 

[bobthewondercat77]

It's good for the hobby.

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows what a player's "true" rookie card is. It's not what Beckett says. Ask 100 collectors whether they'd prefer a 2009 Trout to a 2011 Trout, and all 100 will tell you they would. The lack of RC logos hasn't affected the price of 2011 Bowman Chrome Harper prospect cards. They still sell for more than the '12 RC stuff. So it's not like its affecting value.

The reason the RC logo is awesome is because it gives otherwise worthless cards value. When 2013 Opening Day came out, I sold a Machado blue RC parallel for like $21. If it didn't have the logo, it would have been $3-$5. Same with base paper/chromes. I can sell a 20 count lot of Darvish RC's for $30

Agree. True rookie / first year BC type cards sell as well as ever. Now the RC logo stuff is an additional level of stuff that garners interest, and I personally think they're both interesting and worth collecting.