Did Topps just give a big FU to MLB?

[BBCgalaxee]

How 2021 Bowman's Best Has Impacted Rookie Cards for Several Years

2021 Bowman's Best Baseball has a lot of prospects that meet Beckett's criteria to qualify for a Rookie Card. Here's an explanation why.

www.beckett.com

Basically, the prospects and vets are mixed together, like pre 2006 issues, so Beckett is classifying prospects like Jasson etc as a TRUE RC.

And same for Wander meaning his only RC, according to Beckett, will be in 2021 Bowman's Best, not in any 2022 issue.

Does this mean that prospects will be in most Topps issues like it was pre 2006?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[Dilferules]

I'm predicting Beckett is pressured to change the designations for these main set prospect cards without the RC logo to "XRC."

The bigger FU move from Topps would be if they issued a huge base set with a RC for every single prospect right before the license goes to Fanatics, in order to screw them so their sets have no RCs for years.

 

[zyceoa]

Maybe they can sneak Wander into 2021 Topps Big League since it's STILL not out yet. If anything, Topps is giving the FU to themselves if there is no hot "rookie" to carry the 2022 products.

 

[smapdi]

I think Topps does not, ultimately, decide the checklist. I'm sure they would have put Wander into anything and everything this year if they had their choice, as they should since he debuted, you know, this year, and would have been a much bigger driver of sales versus Alec Bohm et al. No one who debuted after 5/27/21 had a card this year until BBest, AFAIK, and that's sub-optimal, in my opinion.

I would not be surprised if the reason these players appear in a 2021 product is because they were expected to debut sooner than 5/27 and production took longer than expected. Or Topps messed up by putting them in the main set instead of a prefix-numbered subset and it wasn't caught by the licensors. Or it could be the opposite and MLB/MLBPA allowed them to put them in there without the logo.

But really, this is just a Beckett issue. Beckett is the party that always wanted to distinguish main set cards from inserts, alternate-numbered sets, parallels, and so on and only calling main set, base cards RCs (not to mention XRCs). The conventional definition of rookie cards prior to 2006 was a lot more inclusive, which made sense. After all, why should a Bowman Chrome card be a RC, but a Bowman Chrome Refracotor not be? Both of these entities wanting to be "the authority" in the hobby as far as arbitrating what is a rookie card and what isn't is just silly to me, since collectors themselves had a perfectly workable definition for decades. If people want to call Wander's 2019 cards RCs, that's fine with me.

Add: I do appreciate how Beckett phrases things. "Same set, continuous numbering, different ways in how the logo is applied. It’s not a knock on the logo or how it’s used but from a collecting standpoint there are times where it’s confusing and feels arbitrary." Yeah, one of the most important factors in modern card collecting being confusing and arbitrary isn't anything of which one should be critical.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

BaseballCardPedia is echoing Beckett.

2021 Bowman's Best - BaseballCardPedia.com

baseballcardpedia.com

 

[WizardofOz1982]

I think Topps does not, ultimately, decide the checklist. I'm sure they would have put Wander into anything and everything this year if they had their choice, as they should since he debuted, you know, this year, and would have been a much bigger driver of sales versus Alec Bohm et al. No one who debuted after 5/27/21 had a card this year until BBest, AFAIK, and that's sub-optimal, in my opinion.

I would not be surprised if the reason these players appear in a 2021 product is because they were expected to debut sooner than 5/27 and production took longer than expected. Or Topps messed up by putting them in the main set instead of a prefix-numbered subset and it wasn't caught by the licensors. Or it could be the opposite and MLB/MLBPA allowed them to put them in there without the logo.

But really, this is just a Beckett issue. Beckett is the party that always wanted to distinguish main set cards from inserts, alternate-numbered sets, parallels, and so on and only calling main set, base cards RCs (not to mention XRCs). The conventional definition of rookie cards prior to 2006 was a lot more inclusive, which made sense. After all, why should a Bowman Chrome card be a RC, but a Bowman Chrome Refracotor not be? Both of these entities wanting to be "the authority" in the hobby as far as arbitrating what is a rookie card and what isn't is just silly to me, since collectors themselves had a perfectly workable definition for decades. If people want to call Wander's 2019 cards RCs, that's fine with me.

Add: I do appreciate how Beckett phrases things. "Same set, continuous numbering, different ways in how the logo is applied. It’s not a knock on the logo or how it’s used but from a collecting standpoint there are times where it’s confusing and feels arbitrary." Yeah, one of the most important factors in modern card collecting being confusing and arbitrary isn't anything of which one should be critical.

Pre 2006 I didn't know anyone that considered inserts or non-base cards as Rookie Cards. A Rookie Card were the first year base cards that were available in nationally distributed packs for a player. 1993 Topps Derek Jeter, 1991 Topps Chipper Jones etc. The Gold versions of those cards weren't considered RCs at that time. It's only since 2006 that I've seen the hobby as a whole referring to those parallels and inserts as RCs rather than Rookie Year.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Not sure what’s funnier, people arguing over the semantics of a tiny number on the back of the card, or people taking Beckett’s opinion of anything seriously


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smapdi]

Pre 2006 I didn't know anyone that considered inserts or non-base cards as Rookie Cards. A Rookie Card were the first year base cards that were available in nationally distributed packs for a player. 1993 Topps Derek Jeter, 1991 Topps Chipper Jones etc. The Gold versions of those cards weren't considered RCs at that time. It's only since 2006 that I've seen the hobby as a whole referring to those parallels and inserts as RCs rather than Rookie Year.

All that is based on Beckett's extremely narrow definition. Yet you likely saw it all the time. 1985/1987 Tiffany Mark McGwires were never called rookies? 1991 Leaf Gold Kleskos, Vaughns, and Mussinas weren't called rookie cards? Not in Beckett, but I never accepted Beckett's reasoning on that, nor did many and I'd have to guess most people, given what people call those cards.

 

[WizardofOz1982]

All that is based on Beckett's extremely narrow definition. Yet you likely saw it all the time. 1985/1987 Tiffany Mark McGwires were never called rookies? 1991 Leaf Gold Kleskos, Vaughns, and Mussinas weren't called rookie cards? Not in Beckett, but I never accepted Beckett's reasoning on that, nor did many and I'd have to guess most people, given what people call those cards.

I never saw the 1987 McGwires referred to as RCs back in the day. 1985 was the RC. Some people might have referred to the 1985 Tiffany as a RC but they were in the small minority. The definition of RC that was widely used back then predates Beckett. The Leaf Golds were inserts and not RCs.