Mlb rc logo: 9 years later. Your thoughts.

[Dilferules]

I think it's just one more thing contributing to a high barrier to entry for new collectors. Somebody with no knowledge of cards buys a 2011 Mike Trout "rookie card" and is happy then they find out he had earlier major league cards, which could sour them on the whole experience.

MLB shouldn't have half-assed it...either RC logo cards after a player debuts in the majors and no Bowman MLB uniform "pre-rookie" cards, or just go back to the old system where the first MLB uniform card is the rookie card regardless of when it was released. I felt like MLB only did this whole thing anyway because of complaints from non-Topps companies due to the huge advantage Topps had with RCs. Well Topps has been the only MLB company for 4 years now so there's no need to appease anybody else, go back to the way it was.

 

[Wes]

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.

Sorry I should have said "meaningless to me." I get that they add value for others.

 

[MGiuseffi]

I tried to explain baseball "rookie cards" to a non collector. After 5 minutes of babbling he told me... never mind. Needlessly complicated.

 

[timfsu2k]

Wow...thanks for the info on the Kershaw cards! Had no idea the RC logo had such a difference on them!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBCgalaxee]

Yeah, have fun explaining it to a non/ new/ returning collector.

Customer: Hi, do you have any Kershaw rookie cards?

Dealer: sure, this 06 draft auto

C: But it's not labeled a rc in Beckett

D: well it's generally considered a rc by the hobby

C: ok, but how about this '06 card with the nifty rc logo?

D: well, actually it was issued in '08, a couple years after his first card.

C: then how come, if it's his third year card, it has a rc logo on it? And what's that card next to it showing him in a futures game Jersey?

D: it's some crazy rule set up by mlb, makes things confusing sometimes....That futures game card is from 07.

C: so his 06 card isn't considered a rookie card and neither is his 07, but his third year card from 08 is labeled a rc?

D: yeah...I know...confusing.

C: sure is, maybe I'll stick to an easier player to understand. Have any Josh Hamilton rookie cards?


Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[sportscardtheory]

To me, all his cards from the 2005 USAs to the RC Logo stuff in 2008 can generally be considered rookie cards.

 

[bobthewondercat77]

Looks like in the minority here, but I actually like it. Of course there are times where it is inconsistently applied but when done correctly it adds value to non-first-year cards. I also like the consistency that RCE logo cards will always reflect the year of MLB debut. I also collect prospect cards but they sometimes pre-date MLB debut by multiple years and sometimes do not. I like the consistency. Basically, it adds value, and adds another niche to collect, and I'm always for more choices and niches.

 

[Lars]

I see both sides - kids and common folk can have access to base cards that are considered rookies as opposed to having to look for some first year auto / related parallels that has been over hoarded by prospectors.

If you want someone's first-year auto / related auto, then there is still option is there to chase it but sometimes the simplest option works too - regardless of its imperfections.

 

[swish54_99]

To me, all his cards from the 2005 USAs to the RC Logo stuff in 2008 can generally be considered rookie cards.

That's the way I look at it.

 

[IUjapander]

I think it's just one more thing contributing to a high barrier to entry for new collectors. Somebody with no knowledge of cards buys a 2011 Mike Trout "rookie card" and is happy then they find out he had earlier major league cards, which could sour them on the whole experience.

MLB shouldn't have half-assed it...either RC logo cards after a player debuts in the majors and no Bowman MLB uniform "pre-rookie" cards, or just go back to the old system where the first MLB uniform card is the rookie card regardless of when it was released. I felt like MLB only did this whole thing anyway because of complaints from non-Topps companies due to the huge advantage Topps had with RCs. Well Topps has been the only MLB company for 4 years now so there's no need to appease anybody else, go back to the way it was.

Here's the thing though. Bowman edits those MLB uniforms on players. So technically, "where the first MLB uniform card is the rookie card regardless of when it was released" would not apply to any Bowman cards.

 

[DaClyde]

Agreed.

There have always been RC logos on non-rookie cards (87 Donruss McGwire, etc).

When Donruss used the "Rated Rookie" logo, they weren't declaring "This is the rookie card for this player." They were just saying these were the rookies (meaning they were still MLB-qualified rookies for that season) they expected to do well that year. In many cases, said players had cards in previous sets, or even "Rated Rookie" cards in previous sets. But due to the limited plate appearances they had in previous years, they were still considered rookies and Donruss was still expecting them to do well that year. That didn't mean Danny Tartabull's 1985 & 1986 cards were both his rookie card.

To me, all his cards from the 2005 USAs to the RC Logo stuff in 2008 can generally be considered rookie cards.

Which logically makes no sense. How can a player have four years worth of rookie cards? It's like on eBay where any Japanese card of a Japanese player before they came to the US is listed as a rookie card. Ichiro didn't have 7 years of rookie cards in Japan anymore than Clayton Kershaw should have 3 or 4 years worth of rookie cards in the US. The term "rookie card" used to have a specific meaning. That meaning is now largely lost if a player can have 50+ MLB cards before their "official" rookie card.

I guess there's no point in arguing this thing all over again. If people are making money off it, it's here to stay. Topps might as well just plaster it across every card for a player until they have officially exceeded their rookie status.

 

[Bootstraps9]

It fits my opinion perfectly. I don't consider a card of my player a rookie card until he has played for the Rangers. Photo-shopped pictures putting a guy in a Rangers uniform have no place in my collection. I did briefly try it but I have no interest. 80-90% of the players never make it, and 30-50% are traded away before they even get a chance (percentages are based on the shot in the dark guesses coming from my head but the gist should be easily understood). A secondary benefit of this is cost stays down for me as the fake first year cards tend to hold higher prices.

 

[All The Hype]

Bowman Chrome Autos are by far and away the strongest they've ever been from what I've seen.


As for prospect cards vs rc logo cards, I treat both as RCs because both have a following. I put them on a very similar level, so I'd absolutely say their plan to kill the Bowman prospect cards was a complete and total failure. If anything, they added a new breed of cards (the RC logo cards) that have more value than cards from a player's first MLB season would have otherwise.

 

[SINFULONE]

I hate it.Unless it is signed or maybe a rare parallel, I have zero interest in 3rd or 4th year cards of some player who had MLB cards produced years earlier.For awhile, I couldn't decide if I even wanted to bother with this dilemma and avoided buying any prospect/rookie cards at all, but decided eventually to devote my dollars to Bowman/first MLB cards.I wish MLB would have just left the hobby alone, they have done more damage to the hobby than anything else.