Question on McCutchen Rookies...

[cgilmo]

Completely disregard this, JoshHamilton here is still smarting from completely missing out on his player's best RC :

2005 are his hobby and industry recognized rookies. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot

in a somewhat related note, do not listen to uniquebaseballcards. He is one of those aforementioned idiots

This is getting out of hand. I understand you being a worthless ****** troll when it comes to 2006-present cards, because the hobby rules changed and whether or not BC cards are truly RC's or not is a bit unclear (although anyone with a lick of common sense considers them rookies). Not to mention your completely idiotic stance that recent BC issues are "minor league" cards (THEY AREN'T, RETARD)

But calling a 2007 Josh Hamilton card a "rookie"? Are you out of your mind? Did you ever have a mind to begin with? EVERY single definition or Hamilton's rookie, be it in baseball card mags, Ebay, message boards, and everywhere else agrees that his rookie cards were produced in 1999. The fact that the card says "rookie" doesn't make it a rookie any more than McGwire's '87 Donruss "Rated Rookie" makes it a rookie.

I wish Gilmore would wisen up and ban you, much like virtualyankee was kicked off BMB. We get that you hate prospecting. We get that you're too dumb to understand simple widely understood hobby concepts like the definition of a rookie card. But you've gone beyond the point of simply being a troll. You're giving people advice and stating facts that are flat out incorrect. McCutchen's rookie cards are 2005, plain and simple. Beckett agrees, hobbyists agree. The fact that the OP even asked means he's probably young and wasn't in the hobby in '05. Your idiotic and incorrect advice because you want to spread your warped agenda does not help, it hurts.

Your biting insults and consistent name calling hurts much worse.

I only call people idiots when they act like idiots. If people would stop acting stupid, I would stop treating them as such

Simple as that.

I am of the opinion that overreactions are idiotic responses.

 

[Adamsince1981]

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion on Players with RC's before 2006 is irrelevant.

Fact: The 2005 MLB licensed baseball cards of Andrew McCutchen are his only RC's. PERIOD.

Please, don't give a collector that is eager to learn and trying to make the correct decision bad information.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Outside of these boards, I'd say most people don't collect FY cards of their team. This board is not representative of the hobby in general.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

::facepalm::

So everyone that buys first year cards is a prospector? There are no player/team collectors that buy first year cards?

For the record, he did say "most" people.

Still, it is a huge generalization.

 

[Jays_Cards]

Outside of these boards, I'd say most people don't collect FY cards of their team. This board is not representative of the hobby in general.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

::facepalm::

So everyone that buys first year cards is a prospector? There are no player/team collectors that buy first year cards?

For the record, he did say "most" people.

Still, it is a huge generalization.

Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Buy what you want, but I don't see the benefit of having a three or four year period that's different from any other subsequent period of time. But nobody is going to remember in ten years anyway and will apply the generalization, it will fit in to whatever they happen to believe anyway.

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion on Players with RC's before 2006 is irrelevant.

Fact: The 2005 MLB licensed baseball cards of Andrew McCutchen are his only RC's. PERIOD.

Please, don't give a collector that is eager to learn and trying to make the correct decision bad information.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

 

[Adamsince1981]

Buy what you want, but I don't see the benefit of having a three or four year period that's different from any other subsequent period of time. But nobody is going to remember in ten years anyway and will apply the generalization, it will fit in to whatever they happen to believe anyway.

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion on Players with RC's before 2006 is irrelevant.

Fact: The 2005 MLB licensed baseball cards of Andrew McCutchen are his only RC's. PERIOD.

Please, don't give a collector that is eager to learn and trying to make the correct decision bad information.

No, this isn't a buy what you want, I'll buy what I want discussion. The OP asked about McCutchen RC's and his RC's are the MLB licensed 2005 releases.

 

[Jays_Cards]

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

A random guy on the street who does not have a passion for card collecting would never pay what a good FY card goes for, so your argument is irrelevant. Since when does what some guy on the street will pay for something constitute market value? Nothing you have said in this thread makes even the beginning of a good argument.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Obviously it is not a fact. Topps labels Cutch's card as a First Year Card. Really. Its right there on the card. And Topps is right.

I don't see the point of continuing this, believe what you want.

Buy what you want, but I don't see the benefit of having a three or four year period that's different from any other subsequent period of time. But nobody is going to remember in ten years anyway and will apply the generalization, it will fit in to whatever they happen to believe anyway.

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion on Players with RC's before 2006 is irrelevant.

Fact: The 2005 MLB licensed baseball cards of Andrew McCutchen are his only RC's. PERIOD.

Please, don't give a collector that is eager to learn and trying to make the correct decision bad information.

No, this isn't a buy what you want, I'll buy what I want discussion. The OP asked about McCutchen RC's and his RC's are the MLB licensed 2005 releases.

 

[Adamsince1981]

Obviously it is not a fact. Topps labels Cutch's card as a First Year Card. Really. Its right there on the card. And Topps is right.

I don't see the point of continuing this, believe what you want.

Buy what you want, but I don't see the benefit of having a three or four year period that's different from any other subsequent period of time. But nobody is going to remember in ten years anyway and will apply the generalization, it will fit in to whatever they happen to believe anyway.

Some people think a player's first card, no matter where the guy was playing, is that player's best card, whether that card is fully licensed or not. Others think a player's best card comes after he's been placed on a MLB roster, this would be a fully licensed card.

But its a little more complicated than that, as first year cards include a gambling element on player potential, which leads to (often temporary) price increases that disappear after a period of time or shortly after a player makes an MLB roster. But bear in mind that most people who buy first year cards try to unload them when or before a player makes the big leagues.

Also know that first year cards are pretty new, so nobody can really say with any certainty that they will always be more or less popular than traditional rookie cards.

[quote="crosby87":vxvstein]I don't really get this and can see it is a big issue. I didn't start collecting closely until about 2 years ago. Why would that Hamilton not be a rookie? It says rookie at the top. What makes a first year card better then a rookie?

You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion on Players with RC's before 2006 is irrelevant.

Fact: The 2005 MLB licensed baseball cards of Andrew McCutchen are his only RC's. PERIOD.

Please, don't give a collector that is eager to learn and trying to make the correct decision bad information.

No, this isn't a buy what you want, I'll buy what I want discussion. The OP asked about McCutchen RC's and his RC's are the MLB licensed 2005 releases.

[/quote:vxvstein]

They are RC's. PERIOD. You know it too, clearly you are trying to push some agenda or something.

 

[Adamsince1981]

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

Are you essentially trying to prove the point that only uneducated individuals would buy a MLB RC Logo "RC" over the players more valuable and earlier release????

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

You didn't say anything about current collectors, so your previous statement about "Most people" isn't accurate, is it?

You continue to think that elite collectors dominate the market, probably because you think of yourself as one... but the number of 'elite collectors' might comprise .5% of people who may be interested in buying cards - on a good day. These other 99.5% of people have no clue about prospects, and are lucky to be able to name half the guys on their favorite team.

Why on earth would 99.5% of the people interested in buying cards be interested in shelling out serious cash for someone they don't know in a lesser league they know nothing about? Or am I making this up.

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

[quote="Jays_Cards":2laq05ka]Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

A random guy on the street who does not have a passion for card collecting would never pay what a good FY card goes for, so your argument is irrelevant. Since when does what some guy on the street will pay for something constitute market value? Nothing you have said in this thread makes even the beginning of a good argument.[/quote:2laq05ka]

 

[Jaypers]

You didn't say anything about current collectors, so your previous statement about "Most people" isn't accurate, is it?

You continue to think that elite collectors dominate the market, probably because you think of yourself as one... but the number of 'elite collectors' might comprise .5% of people who may be interested in buying cards - on a good day. These other 99.5% of people have no clue about prospects, and are lucky to be able to name half the guys on their favorite team.

Why on earth would 99.5% of the people interested in buying cards be interested in shelling out serious cash for someone they don't know in a lesser league they know nothing about? Or am I making this up.

I'd be curious to know where you're getting these figures from. Have you conducted any sort of survey? What research have you done to draw these conclusions?

 

[FLOUR]

I'm just glad MLB finally got rid of minor league prospects having rookie cards 5 years before they played a major league game. That's what minor league cards are for. Nobody complained in the late 80s when guys like Gregg Jefferies, Jerome Walton, and Ben McDonald were in the majors before their first cards came out.

 

[Jaypers]

I'm just glad MLB finally got rid of minor league prospects having rookie cards 5 years before they played a major league game. That's what minor league cards are for. Nobody complained in the late 80s when guys like Gregg Jefferies, Jerome Walton, and Ben McDonald were in the majors before their first cards came out.

Nobody had any say in the matter at the time.

 

[MattinglyAlexander]

I had no problem with it either way. It's fun to dig around in boxes once a player makes it and find that you already had his stuff.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Your constant efforts to educate those unfamiliar with the MiLB nonwithstanding - particularly on this board - I'm sorry to say you can't say I'm wrong.

Perhaps this is one of the biggest reasons why you're polling so often here - its an effort to get people to at least recognize the names of MiLB players and stir up interest. I actually applaud this effort.

You didn't say anything about current collectors, so your previous statement about "Most people" isn't accurate, is it?

You continue to think that elite collectors dominate the market, probably because you think of yourself as one... but the number of 'elite collectors' might comprise .5% of people who may be interested in buying cards - on a good day. These other 99.5% of people have no clue about prospects, and are lucky to be able to name half the guys on their favorite team.

Why on earth would 99.5% of the people interested in buying cards be interested in shelling out serious cash for someone they don't know in a lesser league they know nothing about? Or am I making this up.

I'd be curious to know where you're getting these figures from. Have you conducted any sort of survey? What research have you done to draw these conclusions?

 

[Jaypers]

Your constant efforts to educate those unfamiliar with the MiLB nonwithstanding - particularly on this board - I'm sorry to say you can't say I'm wrong.

Perhaps this is one of the biggest reasons why you're polling so often here - its an effort to get people to at least recognize the names of MiLB players and stir up interest. I actually applaud this effort.

Just as your effort to completely dodge the question I asked - I'm sorry to say - hasn't gone unnoticed. You continue to pronounce yourself as being in the right without a shred of evidence.

My polls have nothing to do with this thread. Again, I ask - what research have you conducted to back up your claims?

 

[Jays_Cards]

You didn't say anything about current collectors, so your previous statement about "Most people" isn't accurate, is it?

You continue to think that elite collectors dominate the market, probably because you think of yourself as one... but the number of 'elite collectors' might comprise .5% of people who may be interested in buying cards - on a good day. These other 99.5% of people have no clue about prospects, and are lucky to be able to name half the guys on their favorite team.

Why on earth would 99.5% of the people interested in buying cards be interested in shelling out serious cash for someone they don't know in a lesser league they know nothing about? Or am I making this up.

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

[quote="Jays_Cards":2nwthyx0]Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

A random guy on the street who does not have a passion for card collecting would never pay what a good FY card goes for, so your argument is irrelevant. Since when does what some guy on the street will pay for something constitute market value? Nothing you have said in this thread makes even the beginning of a good argument.

[/quote:2nwthyx0]

"Elite Collectors", while a stupid term, do dominate the collecting marketshare. Obviously, there are not many people with the disposable income, desire, or means of spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on baseball cards, but the distribution of value in the card collecting market is entirely in the high end collector's corner. Trying to say otherwise is completely asinine.

 

[Jays_Cards]

So if I go up to the common man on the street and show him two cards of any player who has/had a big league career, one with a RC logo and one without, this man will always want and pay more for the one without the RC logo?

Most people prefer MLB RC Logos simply because they can get a card with a stamped RC Logo for pennies compared to the price of a similar FY card. You can hold whatever belief you want, but simple desirability and market value prove the opposite.

Are you essentially trying to prove the point that only uneducated individuals would buy a MLB RC Logo "RC" over the players more valuable and earlier release????

No, I am proving a point that only an educated, passionate card collector would spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on a baseball card. Showing a random guy on the street a card with a market value of $1000 would mean the same as showing him card with a market value of $.50.