Gum damaged back PSA 10?

[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.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Yea makes no sense and wasn't that way until MLB and Topps created this RC logo, I believe. Which again, to me shows it's just a marketing tool. I feel that collectors should recognize their first cards as RC's as has been done forever. The 1992 Rivera, the 1993 Jeters, the 1985 Olympic McGwire, 1991 Chipper Jones, 1995 Vladimir Guerreros, 1999 Josh Hamiltons (debut 2007!) etc... There is a long and widely accepted view as those players first cards constituting their rookie cards.

Why do collectors now discount cards issued years before to a players RC logo card, which often doesn't even coincide with their MLB debut year. Makes no sense at all.

Arron Judge has tons of issues from 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Four full years of cards produced by major card producers with major leaguers in the sets. Now everyone has to flock to the 2017 (5th year!) issues to get a "Rookie" because it's been stamped with the logo?

Successful marketing for sure I guess!

Again, it's his 5th year of having major baseball card releases...that's half a decade of cards already!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I could understand saying anything issued before his ML Debut is now considered a prerookie. That would at least be a new, consistent rule. But that isn't the case.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I could understand saying anything issued before his ML Debut is now considered a prerookie. That would at least be a new, consistent rule. But that isn't the case.

Exactly!

And to complicate this mess a little more... check this out... ( think this could be a sleeper card, btw, I already bought a few so I'm good. I'd rather the N54 community buy up a couple first if I'm right.) The only 2016 Judge issued by Topps Stadium Club with the fabled and sought after RC Logo! I'm not sure how many people even realize this card exists. It was part of a limited 3 card Yankee team set as a prize for Yankees Legacy Club members. I think only certain season ticket holders could get it. There's also a Gary Sanchez and the other card is Ellsbury.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Too bad his face is obscured though.

[yanksfan09]

And it bring this back into the original point of the thread, the RC Logo is as much of an artificial manufactured marketing ploy as the "Faux gum damaged back".

I think over time collectors will hopefully sort out the true genuinely significant cards more as opposed to all the manufactured and contrived silliness that permeates the current hobby.