6 HOF RCs in one year

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, 1984 has Kirby Puckett. I don't buy that XRC nonsense Jim Beckett came up with. IMO, his only RC is 1984 Fleer Update.

Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're right, no 1986 either, although I suspect McGriff and/or Bonds eventually will make it.

I just don't see how you can call a 1985 Puckett a rookie when he has a nationally distributed card from a top three brand in 1984, but whatever.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're right, no 1986 either, although I suspect McGriff and/or Bonds eventually will make it.

I just don't see how you can call a 1985 Puckett a rookie when he has a nationally distributed card from a top three brand in 1984, but whatever.

Calling a set that most card shops didn't order and was never available at retail a "national" distribution is a stretch. Michael Jordan's RC is universally recognized as the 1986 Fleer and not the Star issues that had similar distribution problems and were the only NBA license at the time.

1986 Topps Traded was the first set of its kind to have any type of wide spread distribution. That would be differentiating point to me. Sets that are restricted from the collecting public intentionally by manufacturers don't meet the RC definition. A RC should be widely available to the hobby, not just to a select few.

[ALR-bishop]

I collected all Topps, Fleer and original Bowman sets. A lot of folks do not think you need the Traded/Update sets to be complete. I do but have no idea how many set collectors have the 84 Fleer Traded set. I would bet however that every Kirby Puckett master collector has his 84 Fleer card

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Calling a set that most card shops didn't order and was never available at retail a "national" distribution is a stretch. Michael Jordan's RC is universally recognized as the 1986 Fleer and not the Star issues that had similar distribution problems and were the only NBA license at the time.

1986 Topps Traded was the first set of its kind to have any type of wide spread distribution. That would be differentiating point to me. Sets that are restricted from the collecting public intentionally by manufacturers don't meet the RC definition. A RC should be widely available to the hobby, not just to a select few.

It won't come as any surprise that I view the 101 as Jordan's true rookie.

I'll go with first officially licensed card in a major league set. I think that works across the board for me but maybe there are exceptions. Qualities such as "readily available" are too subjective for me.

How do you feel btw about cards in Topps Tiffany and Fleer Glossy sets? Those were intentionally restricted, yes?

[shagrotn77]

It’s pretty simple: rookie card = first card. That’s the whole draw of rookie cards, to have the player’s first card. And, of course, I’m not including minor league issues since they’re a whole different ballgame. The whole XRC thing is and always was nonsense. If you really think 1985 is the year for rookie cards for Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, etc., then you just don’t get it.

[wdwfan]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

It’s pretty simple: rookie card = first card. That’s the whole draw of rookie cards, to have the player’s first card. And, of course, I’m not including minor league issues since they’re a whole different ballgame. The whole XRC thing is and always was nonsense. If you really think 1985 is the year for rookie cards for Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, etc., then you just don’t get it.

So with that mindset, is the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout considered his RC? Or is it 2011? I've always though of 2011 as his rookie year and not 2009. Same way I think 1985 is Puckett's rookie year and not 1984.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

So with that mindset, is the 2009 Bowman Chrome Trout considered his RC? Or is it 2011? I've always though of 2011 as his rookie year and not 2009. Same way I think 1985 is Puckett's rookie year and not 1984.

The 2011 cards are his RC, first year in the majors. The Bowman 1st cards have become popular, but those players are in the minors, and those sets are correctly labeled as Draft Pick, etc, and should be viewed as a minor league card. But, first cards have been and remain popular. Derek Jeter in 1992, Joey Votto in 2002, and Mike Trout in 2009.

And then there was MLB and Topps decision to create the official RC stamp that creates further confusion about 1990 RCs.

Because Topps Traded in the 1980s are generally recognized as RC, I consider any 1980s Traded set to be a RC. I disagree with XRC labels.

Note: this argument is meant solely for modern 1980 - present.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.

So why is 1992 Topps Traded Garciaparra indisputably his rookie card? And 1991 Topps Traded Bagwell and I Rod? And the 1989 Griffey traded and update cards? And the 1988 Alomar and Biggio traded and update cards? The only difference I see is that Beckett dropped the XRC after 1987.

[frankbmd]

All disputes in this thread may be attributed to rookie mistakes.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

Who is your rookie in 1986? Agree to disagree on Puckett. It was the hobby and collectors not Beckett who decided that rookie cards had to be available to the majority of collectors and not regionals or limited releases like 1984 Fleer Update.

Unless Beckett asked every collector, then it is Beckett who made the final determination.

That premise established by Beckett is slowly being chipped away. 1984 Fleer Update Roger Clemens and Kirby Puckett are their rookie cards and are far more desirable cards than any of their 1985 cards. The fact they were harder to obtain makes it even appealing...not worse. As long as they are baseball cards, and not photos or something, how they were distributed (widespread or not) is meaning less and less in the eyes of many collectors. At this point, I prefer the regional and/or tougher issued cards. The 'traditional' counterparts get a little boring since there are so many of them in circulation.

The 'true rookie card' has always been a moving target and viewed differently by everyone and is a contrived notion much like the Holiday of Sweetest Day is...so it doesn't really matter at that point.

What it comes down to is if the 1984 Fleer Update is a better card than any of the 1985 issues. I say 100% yes they are. The fact they are more rare is a far more appealing factor than what Beckett says is a rookie card or not...but to each their own. Nobody will convince anyone who already has their mind made up on that topic anyway.