what the heck are rookies anyway

[hofautos]

It seems anymore, everyone has their own meaning of rookie.

If someone wants to collect rookies, it used to be easy, just the first year of the player, even with some exceptions to that, where it was widely accepted as the first year "by a major manufacturer".

Then it was defined as the card had to come from a "base set". Then some say you can't call iniserts and parallel's rookies. But the colored refractors of today are the most desired "rookie" regardless if they came out 2,3,4 years after the players first card. But there are exceptions to that too, if it's a "draft" refractor then it is ually frowned on, UNLESS it was made in a previous year. Then it seemed like "the first bowman" was the desired card, but then there are exceptions to that too, if the first bowman is non-autographed, and there is a UD or Donruss that is autographed, sometimes it is the key card, and other times it won't be the key card unless it is autographed AND a year or two older.

There doesn't seem to be any real easily identified pattern any more.

I would say thank goodness to "book value", but book value doesn't always tell the most desired by the highest value either.

rant rant

For me, I think i will go with my OWN definition of pick the best looking limited print within your pocketbook first year card. Sometimes I think just to go with the "any first year auto i like".

 

[pujolsjunkie]

Boy...there was nothing in that post that hasn't been well-known for the past five years.

 

[hofautos]

Boy...there was nothing in that post that hasn't been well-known for the past five years.

Yea, I know, but I guess I am kind of upset at buying a 2005 Hawpe #/10 auto because it is probably one of his more expensive rookies, but he actually has a 2003 rookie auto and "his true" rc is a lonely $2.50 2001 bowman draft with no rare versions.

Should I be content calling this one of his nicest "rookies"
It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

 

[carlitoson]

In my opinion, the confusion starts when we continue to use the term "rookie card" the same way we did prior to 2006. Personally, I now use the term "first year card" to describe what I collect because true rookie cards are now identified with the RC logo (and those players often have already had previous cards). I've narrowed my focus further these past few years to include ML licensed first year cards simply because there's so much to choose from.

To answer your question, rookie cards have the logo. And yes, there are folks who prefer those to first-year cards. The companies have made mistakes with some players which adds to the confusion I suppose, but the main cause is the fact that the collecting public in general doesn't want to change their view of what a "rookie card" is. The logo makes sense though (to me at least)...once the player is a rookie in the big leagues he gets a rookie card.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I think its just important to be able to distinguish between first-year and rookie cards. But Topps' exemption makes this tough though and it should be eliminated.

With that said I think there will ALWAYS be drama associated with first year cards - drama with licensing, which one is the real or best FY, etc etc etc. I suppose this drama is interesting to some, but it serves another purpose - it helps keep FYs in people's minds which definitely helps to drive sales.

...rant rant

For me, I think i will go with my OWN definition of pick the best looking limited print within your pocketbook first year card. Sometimes I think just to go with the "any first year auto i like".

 

[ThoseBackPages]

It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

I couldnt disagree with this more, and i believe the mega-shiny-**** is what has smothered this "hobby" of ours.

Prior to 1993, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-glossy 1992 Bowman.
Prior to 1981, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-ordinary Topps/Bowman/Tobacco/Etc. card.

 

[hofautos]

In my opinion, the confusion starts when we continue to use the term "rookie card" the same way we did prior to 2006. Personally, I now use the term "first year card" to describe what I collect because true rookie cards are now identified with the RC logo (and those players often have already had previous cards). I've narrowed my focus further these past few years to include ML licensed first year cards simply because there's so much to choose from.

To answer your question, rookie cards have the logo. And yes, there are folks who prefer those to first-year cards. The companies have made mistakes with some players which adds to the confusion I suppose, but the main cause is the fact that the collecting public in general doesn't want to change their view of what a "rookie card" is. The logo makes sense though (to me at least)...once the player is a rookie in the big leagues he gets a rookie card.

To some degree, I agree...to the point where I used to collect 1st year cards, but I can't even say that anymore.
I guess a more accurate way of what I collect now is:

The "first limited print card that I like and that is considered key"

See examle of hawpe above...
if i said I collected rookies, i would end up with the 2001 Hawpe which you can't give away.
if i said I collected 1st year auto, I would end up with the 2003 Hawpe, which was 2 years later
I actually decided to look in book value and saw the SPX 2005 as his most expensive Non 1 of 1 (looks like mine without the jersey and #/350), so I am going to assume people will accept that as his most desired rookie?? So i bought the parallel #/10.

So I guess I can say that i collect the "first limited print card that I like and that is considered key",
or maybe just shorten it to "first key card within reach" (most colored refractors are out of reach or out of sight).

 

[hofautos]

It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

I couldnt disagree with this more, and i believe the mega-shiny-shat is what has smothered this "hobby" of ours.

Prior to 1993, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-glossy 1992 Bowman.
Prior to 1981, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-ordinary Topps/Bowman/Tobacco/Etc. card.

Well, for the most part I agree, but I can't 100% agree with that, as I collect Tiffany's

 

[Rudzud]

No one really knows what a rookie is, thats why we need the MLBPA to tell us

 

[beefycheddar]

It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

I couldnt disagree with this more, and i believe the mega-shiny-shat is what has smothered this "hobby" of ours.

Prior to 1993, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-glossy 1992 Bowman.
Prior to 1981, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-ordinary Topps/Bowman/Tobacco/Etc. card.

Well, for the most part I agree, but I can't 100% agree with that, as I collect Tiffany's

But Tiffany's weren't ever pack inserted.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Common rhetoric, Bowman Chrome caused this particular confusion because of Topps' exemption.

No one really knows what a rookie is, thats why we need the MLBPA to tell us

 

[Rudzud]

Common rhetoric, Bowman Chrome caused this particular confusion because of Topps' exemption.

No one really knows what a rookie is, thats why we need the MLBPA to tell us

No, clearly the average collector was puzzled so thats why we needed someone to step in.

 

[tramers]

Boy...there was nothing in that post that hasn't been well-known for the past five years.

Yea, I know, but I guess I am kind of upset at buying a 2005 Hawpe #/10 auto because it is probably one of his more expensive rookies, but he actually has a 2003 rookie auto and "his true" rc is a lonely $2.50 2001 bowman draft with no rare versions.

Should I be content calling this one of his nicest "rookies"
It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

do you have hawpe's minor league card?

 

[hofautos]

It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

I couldnt disagree with this more, and i believe the mega-shiny-shat is what has smothered this "hobby" of ours.

Prior to 1993, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-glossy 1992 Bowman.
Prior to 1981, the "nicest" RC one could have was the mega-ordinary Topps/Bowman/Tobacco/Etc. card.

Well, for the most part I agree, but I can't 100% agree with that, as I collect Tiffany's

But Tiffany's weren't ever pack inserted.

I know, they were a "LIMITED PRINT" sets sold for purposes of investment or the "elite collector". To me, I don't care what color, how they are packaged, how they were distributed (ie mail-ins)...I just like first limited print cards, at least in past years, but now I have to broaden my goals where the 1st year is not always limited or key.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

There wasn't confusion pre-BC - and there were still plenty of cards of minor league players (first year cards) way back then.

The logo is necessary because the average collector you've described can't tell whether the card he/she holds is a major league or minor league player when that person holds a BC card. Its also fair because minor league players haven't achieved major league status yet.

Common rhetoric, Bowman Chrome caused this particular confusion because of Topps' exemption.

No one really knows what a rookie is, thats why we need the MLBPA to tell us

No, clearly the average collector was puzzled so thats why we needed someone to step in.

 

[hofautos]

There wasn't confusion pre-BC - and there were still plenty of cards of minor league players (first year cards) way back then.

The logo is necessary because the average collector you've described can't tell whether the card he/she holds is a major league or minor league player when that person holds a BC card. Its also fair because minor league players haven't achieved major league status yet.

Common rhetoric, Bowman Chrome caused this particular confusion because of Topps' exemption.

No one really knows what a rookie is, thats why we need the MLBPA to tell us

No, clearly the average collector was puzzled so thats why we needed someone to step in.

Rudzud was being sarcastic, they just made things more confusing, because most of what the MLBPA considers rookies the collectors do not.

 

[hofautos]

Boy...there was nothing in that post that hasn't been well-known for the past five years.

Yea, I know, but I guess I am kind of upset at buying a 2005 Hawpe #/10 auto because it is probably one of his more expensive rookies, but he actually has a 2003 rookie auto and "his true" rc is a lonely $2.50 2001 bowman draft with no rare versions.

Should I be content calling this one of his nicest "rookies"
It's a bummer when a good player doesn't have a true "NICE" 1st year rookie

do you have hawpe's minor league card?

I don't think minor league cards will return as popular as they once were. I used to be big on minor league cards for the 80s and 90s guys, but got out of it in time before they went bust. I still have an alomar (which i plan on selling hof time), and a trevor hoffman college card (which I got as a gift)...don't think i will return to minors ever again. If I was a player collector, I am sure I would, but not as a rookie collector.