Chronicles of Cardfoolery #6: Wannabe Rookie Cards

[sanjosefuji]

What's your definition of a baseball player's rookie card? Is it the player's first appearance on a trading card? Does it have to be part of a widely distributed product? Does he have to be wearing his MLB uniform?


These are questions that I'm still pondering after thirty plus years in this hobby. But one thing is for certain. These two cards aren't rookie cards:

1995 UC3 #101 1996 Select Certified #100

Most collectors will tell you that Chipper'srookie cards are his 1991 MLB issues, while Jeter's rookie cards are his 1993 MLB issues. Others will say it's their 1990 and 1992 draft pick cards.

But I'm pretty certain, most of us will agree that these two cards are NOT their rookie cards. Yet Pinnacle clearly printed ROOKIE on them.

But enough is enough. Today... I'm declaring shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

It's bad enough that there are already too many ways to define a rookie card, but the fact that there are wannabe rookie cards floating around our hobby is just too much.

I apologize for my little hissy fit... but I'm just wondering how many people have been duped into thinking they were purchasing a rookie card, when they're really purchasing a third year issue.


Happy Sunday and sayonara!


More...

[jwgreen68]

It can be confusing for sure. The MLBPA actually has rules concerning which cards Topps can place the "RC" logo on. Prior to 2006, card companies could designate a card a rookie card, even if the player wasn't on the teams 40 man roster or still in the minor leagues. Now, in order to designate a card a "RC", the player must actually be on his MLB's teams 40 man roster.

Under this rule, if a player signed in 2007 but didn't make the 40 man roster until 2012, then only cards issued in 2012 are considered to be rookie cards. Anything issued before that....

Still, you'll find collectors that value a players first card issue higher than his "RC" issue.

I just collect who I like and don't worry about what I can't control. The bottom line is, I'll only pay for a card for what it's worth to me, no matter what's stamped on the front.

Thanks for bringing this up!

[sanjosefuji]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the "RC" logo rules.

It can be confusing for sure. The MLBPA actually has rules concerning which cards Topps can place the "RC" logo on. Prior to 2006, card companies could designate a card a rookie card, even if the player wasn't on the teams 40 man roster or still in the minor leagues. Now, in order to designate a card a "RC", the player must actually be on his MLB's teams 40 man roster.

Under this rule, if a player signed in 2007 but didn't make the 40 man roster until 2012, then only cards issued in 2012 are considered to be rookie cards. Anything issued before that....

Still, you'll find collectors that value a players first card issue higher than his "RC" issue.

I just collect who I like and don't worry about what I can't control. The bottom line is, I'll only pay for a card for what it's worth to me, no matter what's stamped on the front.

Thanks for bringing this up!