Gum damaged back PSA 10?

[Rich Klein]

That's why I posted on the Heritage thread -- I preferred the early days when they kept the sets mucho simpler. This is too confusing/

Also, according to my LCS -- the 2017 wax boxes are over $125 wholesale if I recall correctly. It was some number which floored me.

Rich

[swarmee]

Current wax prices is all because of Aaron Judge cards blowing up.

http://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1127517
ALLRISE is a reference to prices increasing because of Judge RC cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I still think his 2016 topps now, issued after he was playing in the majors, should be a rookie card. I thought all the xrc crap from the 80 s was rejected.

[Rich Klein]

The problem with Topps Now as a RC is that everyone is clued into Topps Now and not in a pack or a set. Perhaps we'll evolve on that someday but for now, the 2017 are rookie cards

I know, and if this situation was 25 years ago and this came up, we'd be having very serious discussions at Beckett about a possible RC definition change.

There is no right answer as in 20 years your belief might be the accepted one so if you believe the 2016 Topps Now is the RC, an investment in that card would be a good gamble

Rich

[CW]

Originally Posted by Shoebox

I believe it is the card collecting equivalent of when people would by new jeans with pre-torn holes.

Topps wants to help you relive that nostalgia of pulling a star card and finding gum stains on the back so in Topps Heritage you have.....factory generated faux gum stains!

Doesn't it make you feel like a kid again? Enjoy!

I thought this post was tongue-in-cheek or facetious, but no, this is a real thing.

I guess you learn something new every day....

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...+back&_sacat=0

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

The problem with Topps Now as a RC is that everyone is clued into Topps Now and not in a pack or a set. Perhaps we'll evolve on that someday but for now, the 2017 are rookie cards

I know, and if this situation was 25 years ago and this came up, we'd be having very serious discussions at Beckett about a possible RC definition change.

There is no right answer as in 20 years your belief might be the accepted one so if you believe the 2016 Topps Now is the RC, an investment in that card would be a good gamble

Rich

Yet 2017 topps now of benedetti has the rc. Others too no doubt.

[yanksfan09]

I completely don't get the new artificial Topps and MLB mandated "RC" designations. I don't understand why the hobby wanted/let/or went along with being told what is and isn't a rookie card.

Now players who have had cards produced for years, the first year cards are not considered "Rookie Cards" by some modern collectors. I just don't get it. To me no 2017 Aaron Judge card is a rookie card. Only 2013 issues are. Why people pay more for 2017's than they do his earlier base issues from 2014, 2015, 2016 etc... doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's been stamped with the RC mark. I admit that I think the RC logo is kinda cool looking and I wanted a 2017 Judge just because he's having an incredible year this year, but to me the 2013's are the RC's. Not to mention Judge debuted in 2016, and has lots of cards from 2016.

For years the first cards pictured in a major league uniform or issued in sets with major leaguers were always considered by all to be rookies.
By the new definition/rules all of Derek Jeters classic and iconic issues such as the SP, Stadium club, Topps etc... would not be Rookie cards. Should collectors really be paying more for his 1996 issues for his first full rookie season or his 1995 debut year? That's just silly. (There's tons of other players that fit into this situation too, but Jeter came to mind first).

Rant over, I just don't get it. To me the Judge cards to get are the 2013's for sure. I have nothing against the RC logo, and like the look of it and have no issue with putting it on a players rookie year card. However, this does not make it a rookie card when a player has cards from earlier years.

Rant over....curious how others view the subject.

[yanksfan09]

Rant continued (sorry)...

One more point:

I actually think it's strictly a marketing ploy by Topps and MLB to generate more revenue and interest in cards. Now collectors can buy products to chase not only first year issue "RC"s but then one or several years later they can chase that players hot new issue with the official RC stamp on it!

Genius!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

I completely don't get the new artificial Topps and MLB mandated "RC" designations. I don't understand why the hobby wanted/let/or went along with being told what is and isn't a rookie card.

Now players who have had cards produced for years, the first year cards are not considered "Rookie Cards" by some modern collectors. I just don't get it. too me no 2017 Aaron Judge card is a rookie card. Only 2013 issues are. Why people pay more for 2017's than they do his earlier base issues from 2014, 2015, 2016 etc... doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's been stamped with the RC mark. I admit that I think the RC logo is kinda cool looking and I wanted a 2017 Judge just because he's having an incredible year this year, but to me the 2013's are the RC's. Not to mention Judge debuted in 2016, and has lots of cards from 2016.

For years the first cards pictured in a major league uniform or issued in sets with major leaguers were always considered by all to be rookies.
By the new definition/rules all of Derek Jeters classic and iconic issues such as the SP, Stadium club, Topps etc... would not be Rookie cards. Should collectors really be paying more for his 1996 issues for his first full rookie season or his 1995 debut year? That's just silly. (There's tons of other players that fit into this situation too, but Jeter came to mind first).

Rant over, I just don't get it. To me the Judge cards to get are the 2013's for sure. I have nothing against the RC logo, and like the look of it and have no issue with putting it on a players rookie year card. However, this does not make it a rookie card when a player has cards from earlier years.

Rant over....curious how others view the subject.

Yeah the definitions don't seem consistent over time and that's irritating. Why for example is a young Mariano Rivera in street clothes (92 Bowman) years before he pitched for NY a rookie card? But a million Bowman prospects cards from the 2000s are not.