- Thread starter
- #1
xcantgobackx
New member
Anyone notice the jump in price on these since the start against Lincecum? They were going for $20-$30 before hand, now they're going for $70-$100.
Listing mine today!
Listing mine today!
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Ubaldo Jimenez Topps Chrome base autos
- Thread starter xcantgobackx
- 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.
- Thread starter
- #2
xcantgobackx
New member
sportscardtheory
Active member
Not even rookie cards. Not even close.
my leaf limited auto jumped after his star against lincy. its already up into the 60 range
ehh...its a rookie logo card. Who cares really. I know all you purists do, but SOMEBODY is buying these. I know I buy both 2005 AND 2006 Verlander stuff. I just don't care. Its my guy and i'll collect what I want. Some of his 2006 stuff (UD and Topps) looks a ton better than his 2005 Donruss autos.sportscardtheory said:
Just saying that just becasue its not a first year card doesn't mean its less valuable to others. Educated on the rules or not.
ajbraves25
Active member
Those prices are crazy, but so are his stats right now. Maybe they are just catching up? I know that the dreaded "RC" logo is on it and it is an auto so the uninformed are bidding accordingly. I know that we all couldve gotten those around $10-15 all day last year and never saw a reason to pay that for them.
~AJ
~AJ
markakis8
Active member
- Oct 31, 2008
- 12,081
- 2
sold a bowman sterling refractor for $2 to an FCB member. gotta ship it out today or tomorrow ::facepalm::
saferseas
Member
well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
Russ S.
New member
YOU said it!saferseas said:I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
Very "unique" opinion that very few share.
Tell me, what is Derek Jeter's RC?
sportscardtheory
Active member
saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
markakis8
Active member
- Oct 31, 2008
- 12,081
- 2
it still doesn't deter away from the fact that people have different views than you and thus this is why the topps chrome auto is so high.
sportscardtheory said:saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
sportscardtheory
Active member
markakis8 said:it still doesn't deter away from the fact that people have different views than you and thus this is why the topps chrome auto is so high.
sportscardtheory said:saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
I never said it did. A card is worth what someone is willing to pay whether it's a RC, a (RC) or neither of those.
sportscardtheory said:saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
We are approaching a very slippery slope. Several high school players now have 1st Year Chromes. Are these considered RC's? XRC's? Bryce Harper was a 16 year old kid when he had an Upper Deck issue. Where is the cutoff? Little League? I was against the MLB rules, but now I am starting to understand why they imposed them. How long will it be before prospecting autohounds line the fences in Williamsport, PA?
sportscardtheory
Active member
jbhofmann said:sportscardtheory said:saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
We are approaching a very slippery slope. Several high school players now have 1st Year Chromes. Are these considered RC's? XRC's? Bryce Harper was a 16 year old kid when he had an Upper Deck issue. Where is the cutoff? Little League? I was against the MLB rules, but now I am starting to understand why they imposed them. How long will it be before prospecting autohounds line the fences in Williamsport, PA?
A card has to have the player in his big-league uniform with that team's logo on it for it to even be in consideration for a RC. Everything from 2006 until now "prospect" cards can be debated, but you can't debate that 2005 Ubaldo Jimenez cards are his only RCs. It's the same thing with 1999 Bowman Chrome Josh Hamiltons. Do you really consider the 2007 (RC) cards his RCs? I certainly don't. I think this whole thing started with 2004 SP Prospects and earlier Donruss EEE putting players in their college uniforms on Major League licensed cards. That was ridiculous and MLB put and end to it, but ruined the RC in the process.
sportscardtheory said:jbhofmann said:sportscardtheory said:saferseas said:well, actually it IS a rookie card, and non-prospectors consider it valuable. As in, 2007 was his first year in the major leagues. (not counting 1 start in '06, which is not enough to be eligible.) Most Bowman cards are not rookie cards in the traditional sense.....they are prospect cards. They became known as rookie cards because they are usually the players first card.
I consider most players to have 2 rookie cards: First year bowman card (signed by organization/or simply drafted).....and rookie year card (reaches the big-leagues of that organization or another). Probably blasphemous on this site, but oh well.
No, they are not rookie cards. He has RCs in 2005, before the "rules" were changed in 2006. You can say they are RCs until you are blue in the face, but they are not and never will be RCs. I know this hobby is what you make it, but that doesn't give you the right to alter reality to suit your needs and wants. They are and always will be (RC)s.
We are approaching a very slippery slope. Several high school players now have 1st Year Chromes. Are these considered RC's? XRC's? Bryce Harper was a 16 year old kid when he had an Upper Deck issue. Where is the cutoff? Little League? I was against the MLB rules, but now I am starting to understand why they imposed them. How long will it be before prospecting autohounds line the fences in Williamsport, PA?
A card has to have the player in his big-league uniform with that team's logo on it for it to even be in consideration for a RC. Everything from 2006 until now "prospect" cards can be debated, but you can't debate that 2005 Ubaldo Jimenez cards are his only RCs. It's the same thing with 1999 Bowman Chrome Josh Hamiltons. Do you really consider the 2007 (RC) cards his RCs? I certainly don't. I think this whole thing started with 2004 SP Prospects and earlier Donruss EEE putting players in their college uniforms on Major League licensed cards. That was ridiculous and MLB put and end to it, but ruined the RC in the process.
You're dead right with the point of it being his true RC since it was before they changed the rules. Doesn't matter tho...as the logo has really been accepted...not by prospectors mind you but by the rest of the buying community.
I think we can agree tho, those that stayed away from buying this auto at sub $10 prices because it wasn't his true RC are probably slapping themselves now.
sportscardtheory
Active member
Hey, people making money off of any card is cool in my book. My only peeve with the situation is that such high sales of 2007s are taking money out of the pockets of those who invested in or collected heavily the 2005 true RC stuff. That's the main issue I have always had with (RC)s. They leach off the success of true RCs and however minimally, they do affect the end-prices of true RCs.
shephech
New member
Wow! I was just about to pick up a white ref auto from the set over a year ago for $25 bucks ::facepalm::
Yeah I see where you are going, and you have a legit gripe since its pre rule change. Post rule change tho, I don't feel bad for those who would make the same arguement on say like Justin Upton stuff. I don't think him having 2007 stuff hurts the value of his 2006 stuff.sportscardtheory said:
I think it only helps add value to products and gives collectors more to chase.
Superfractor
Active member
Incredible. I was one of the people that sold in the 20USD range. My profit was relatively fantastical, as I bought at a dollar.
