Which years are Jeter's rookie card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies. My position is that the market generally considers only 1993 major league issues to be rookies. This isn't about our respective opinions o what is or isn't a rookie card, it's about how the market views things. So who's right?

[BLongley]

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies. My position is that the market generally considers only 1993 major league issues to be rookies. This isn't about our respective opinions o what is or isn't a rookie card, it's about how the market views things. So who's right?

I'm with you, 93 is his rookie.

[Rookiemonster]

Well I consider only 1993. But his cards say prospect or rookie through 1996. 1996 select/1996 pinnacle etc. 1995 he played 15 games idk how many days he was on the active roster. But technically he was a prospect until 1996. If he was playing today his 1996 card would be the only cards with the rookie shield. ( a lot of guys would also fall in to this ) . This is why the rookie shield was invented.

[bn2cardz]

I have only ever heard 1993 is the rookie card.

I have had a similar issue trying to figure out Votto. He has cards in 2002 - 2008. 2008 has the RC logo, but the rules were established in 2006, so 2004 cards also have the RC logo. Yet the 2002 cards were also released in major brands (Topps 206 and Bowman), but didn't include the logo.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 2002 Bowman is part of a draft picks set not a major league set, or is that not right? Like the 2009 Trout etc.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Personally, I think the whole rookie shield thing is patently absurd. Setting that aside, I've never heard anyone refer to a year other than 1993 as Jeter's rookie cards.

I think the market is translated as many different ways as the bible. You can't just say "these 1996 cards sell for more than the 1993 cards so therefore the market considers them rookie cards as well." That's false logic. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any '93 Jeter cards that are true rarities, whereas there are many low-print run parallels in '96 that will sell for a small fortune no matter what the grade. That doesn't make them rookies.

Arthur

[Rookiemonster]

I agree for 1993 only because I grew up 10 miles away from the stadium and was attending big shows at that time. I have always been a Yankees fan so I clearly remember that the 93 sp was offered as his rookie later in 94 and 95 when I first heard of him. Later when he gain more popularity
I’ve said this before but I remember that he 1993 stadium club was not found as easy. The stadium club Murphy box set was printed in 1992 and was in the 1992 stadium club design. So I would call that his first card.

But technically you can’t have a rookie card until You played in the majors(1996). Anything before is a prospect card.

[steve B]

So 1992 little sun - Not a rookie because it's only a HS prospects set.
1993 - ROOKIE!! even though he played no games and wouldn't for a couple years.
1994 signature rookies - Not a rookie since it's just a prospects set.
1995 Not a rookie because duh, the rookie is the 1993......


That's a bit more involved than some modern players, but not by much. McGwire had the 85 which was then wasn't the rookie, or the 87s.

The whole thing is pretty much pointless for modern cards anyway, since they are saved in quantity instead of being routinely thrown out after 3-4 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, at least pre the official designation, the first appearance in a major league base set from one of the major licensed manufacturers is the rookie card. Whether or not he was playing at the time. And there can NEVER be rookie cards from more than one year.

Beckett I think basically had it right although the XRC was really stupid IMO.

[steve B]

That works in most cases, but I've always seen it as being very artificial. I tend to read it as
"Whatever card was issued closest to the players first year and in enough quantity that dealers can easily capitalize on it. "

So the XRCs are that because not every dealer bothered to buy the update sets.
It's even sillier that it holds for the year they sold the update cards in packs as well as the sets. Not like recently, whichever year the did it in the 80's I've just forgotten the year.

[JustinD]

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies.

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. :) I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

[bn2cardz]

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. :) I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

The XRC/olympic jersey issue also happened with Nomar Garciaparra (I am sure others but he came to mind). He is in the 1992 Topps Traded set in his USA Jersey, but that is considered his RC even though he didn't play in Majors until 1996. At best the 1992 card should have been an XRC based off the rules, but that didn't stop the market from deciding otherwise.

The problem that was caused by the 2006 rules is that people that weren't in the hobby prior to then, or those that didn't stay in modern are unable to reconcile the two hobby rules. Prior to 2006 it was purely based on the majority of the hobby, even if this was primarily dictated by Beckett and SCD, and Tuff Stuff. After 2006 the rules were dictated by MLB.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. :) I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

I thought for Beckett XRC was used for products not sold in packs, nothing to do with uniform.

[Bill77]

I thought for Beckett XRC was used for products not sold in packs, nothing to do with uniform.

That was always the way I saw it. XRC's are usually from sets like Topps traded or Fleer and Donruss equivalent sets. Though later they started list XRC's in sets that could be bought in packs like 2002 Upper Deck Prospect Premieres (Although I don't remember if you could buy single packs or if it was only available in blaster boxes at the time).

The only reason I know of for the 85 McGwire rookie being listed as a rookie is because it was in the basic Topps set and not the Topps Traded set.

Just looked at one of my old Becketts and saw that Topps Traded XRC's are listed as rookies starting in 1989 as well as the Donruss and Fleer sets as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Beckett XRC thing is why a third year Jordan card is widely considered his rookie.

[JustinD]

With all the minor league (and even cards of 14U) that are main stream releases, XRC is going to lean in much different direction. The manufacturers are selling to prospectors and know the market is there. Any card mainstream or not that does not show the player in a major league uni should be an XRC in my mind.

It's not always followed to the letter, but it is how I differentiate it in collecting.

If a mainstream release has the MVP of the little league world series and 8 years later he joins the bigs, that should not in any way be a RC. Mainstream set or not.

[BeanTown]

I like to have the players first card from a distributed set. So, call it a pre rookie card or rookie card, Ill take the 1992 Little Sun card all day long. I tend to gravitate to more obscure and small print runs so the Little Sun card gets my vote.

[KingFisk]

A couple of years ago when I was going after rookies of every Cy Young winner and every MVP from 1950 onward, I found the modern rookie jungle really tough to navigate. I sort of threw my hands up ultimately and tended towards first cards from base sets but also got a few prospect cards in the mix too. I wasn't sweating having a 2007 Bowman Chrome Draft vs a 2013 Topps Update Corey Kluber.

[glynparson]

No other choice really.

[Neal]

The 93 SP is his most recognized card, so I view the SP and Stadium Club as rookies

Jeter has a few others I like from 95 and 96 - the Leaf Signature is fantastic.

[drcy]

Two points. The market doesn't think that, and the market can be wrong.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'market.' Does he mean values? If so, value isn't a definer-- see '52 Topps versus '51 Bowman Mantle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Two points. The market doesn't think that, and the market can be wrong.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'market.' Does he mean values? If so, value isn't a definer-- see '52 Topps versus '51 Bowman Mantle.

No, it isn't a question of values, it's a question of what's the rookie card.

[irv]

The 93 SP is his most recognized card, so I view the SP and Stadium Club as rookies

Jeter has a few others I like from 95 and 96 - the Leaf Signature is fantastic.

Two points. The market doesn't think that, and the market can be wrong.

I'm not even sure what is meant by 'market.' Does he mean values? If so, value isn't a definer-- see '52 Topps versus '51 Bowman Mantle.

That's the trouble with "Modern" way too many RC's exist.
This is a list of his recognized RC's, but as you will see, they are categorized from least to most desirable which makes picking his "True, singular RC" practically impossible.
https://www.cardboardconnection.com/best-derek-jeter-rookie-cards

I have been looking at John Tavares RC's, and although his Young Guns RC is pretty much thought to be his "true" RC, many others from the same 09-10 season also exist.

I am not sure if Jeter has that one card like Tavares does, however?

[WillBBC]

That's the trouble with "Modern" way too many RC's exist.
This is a list of his recognized RC's, but as you will see, they are categorized from least to most desirable which makes picking his "True, singular RC" practically impossible.
https://www.cardboardconnection.com/best-derek-jeter-rookie-cards

I have been looking at John Tavares RC's, and although his Young Guns RC is pretty much thought to be his "true" RC, many others from the same 09-10 season also exist.

I am not sure if Jeter has that one card like Tavares does, however?

Modern hockey kind of has tiers for rookie cards. This is totally subjective but like you said, the Young Guns RC is basically the 'best' normal, old-school rookie card to own.

SP Authentic Future Watch Autographs are the high end rookies that command big, big premiums despite being much more readily available than some of the rarer counterparts like Ice autographs, Ultimate, Black, Trilogy, etc.

Then there's the Cup. At that point--I just don't know what to say. The prices those cards get blow my friggin' mind every single year. Some of them are down right ugly and still pull 10K easy. Set and brand history/pedigree can go a long, long way!

As for Jeter--the SP is most definitely his most iconic rookie card if you go by the 'old' Beckett RC definition. If you're looking for a card from his first full season, or even '95-there are just sooo many great options.

[Neal]

Picked this up a few days ago, and it arrived today ….

324663


Always liked this card and with a recent Griffey/Trout kick, I figured it was time to add this one to the collection


Rookie year auto - can't go wrong!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nice non-rookie Jeter!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am so confused by PSA autographs. It looks to me like you can just get the whole thing slabbed authentic in a blue label, or in the red label you can get an authentic card with an autograph grade, a graded card with an authentic autograph like the Jeter above, or two grades. Then again you can also get a graded card with no mention of the autograph at all, like mine below.

[Neal]

Nice non-rookie Jeter!!!

LOL

I have heard that PSA was "kinda confused" when it came to grading authentic card autos (direct from pack) back in the day ….

The Pedro, which is probably on the TC watch list now, is a PSA 9

[Peter_Spaeth]

So why on yours did they bother saying the auto is authentic when it is from a certified auto issue like the Pedro? Seems redundant.

Here is another one similar to Pedro.

[Neal]

So why on yours did they bother saying the auto is authentic when it is from a certified auto issue like the Pedro?

Like I said, they never had a set method … or so I hear. Nowadays, it is a standard measure. 1996 was about the time in the 90s when companies started inserting autographed cards, so it makes sense.

[Exhibitman]

I picked up the 1993 Classic Jeter at the National. Cost me a buck.

I don't really care about 'rookie' for modern players. I'd rather have 'signed'. I pulled this from a pack:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/dropins/websize/Jeter.jpg

[WillBBC]

Yeah Jeeeeeeeeeeets!

https://i.imgur.com/NDC2Ssa.jpg

[Rookiemonster]

I picked up the 1993 Classic Jeter at the National. Cost me a buck.

I don't really care about 'rookie' for modern players. I'd rather have 'signed'. I pulled this from a pack:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/dropins/websize/Jeter.jpg

HOLY SH$T ! Great hit !

[tulsaboy]

I pulled one of those too! Still have it. One of the neatest finds in a pack for me. I'm not a huge Jeter fan, but that was a neat find. What is market for those right now? I have to admit I've never looked.
kevin

[WillBBC]

200 bucks or so.

[homerunderby]

To me, at least pre the official designation, the first appearance in a major league base set from one of the major licensed manufacturers is the rookie card. Whether or not he was playing at the time. And there can NEVER be rookie cards from more than one year.

Beckett I think basically had it right although the XRC was really stupid IMO.

This. At least for me. The 1992 Classics are nice but they are "pre-rookies" to me. Does anyone else still use that term? The 1993 Topps, Bowman, Upper Deck, and SP are the rookies to me. 1996 aren't rookies and parallels to 1993 aren't rookies either, though they are very collectable.

XRC as I remember was a term before "Traded" sets were considered real rookies. Traded sets have been around almost 40 years, I think they are here to stay :)

[T205 GB]

What about the 93 Topps and Topps gold draft pick card? Just happen to find a tote full of packs.

Any guesses as to how many Jeters I will find?