HOFers/stars with only one RC in the junk era of multiple brands

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Mariano Rivera.

Is 92 Bowman the only Trevor Hoffman?

[packs]

Not in the same time period but does Miggy have another true rookie other than the Topps traded and chrome version of it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Not in the same time period but does Miggy have another true rookie other than the Topps traded and chrome version of it?

Well, there is this, but probably technically an insert.

[Rad_Hazard]

Carlos Delgado and Paul Konerko

[Peter_Spaeth]

Andy Pettitte.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by packs

Not in the same time period but does Miggy have another true rookie other than the Topps traded and chrome version of it?

I consider the 2000 royal rookies a true RC as well, but others may disagree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I consider the 2000 royal rookies a true RC as well, but others may disagree.

As I recall he signed an astonishing number of those, like 5000. And with a legible sig and individually numbered too.

[D. Bergin]

A little earlier then you were asking, but for some reason the 1984 Donruss Joe Carter, is the first one that popped into my head.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I consider the 2000 royal rookies a true RC as well, but others may disagree.

I think these are discounted now for being minor league cards (a rule I find silly as so many rookies and 1st Bowmans now are photoshopped into an MLB uniform, inconsistent, and only instituted fairly recently), but this was a great era for minor league photo sets and autographs. Royal Rookies, Signature Rookies, Just Minors all produced fun sets in this vein. Large print runs, decent photos, and tons of authentic rookie signatures that nobody wants because they aren't name brands and so are available for much cheaper. I'm building the 1999 Just autographed set and picked up a lot of the other similar cards lately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They should have photoshopped this one. One of the worst major RCs ever.

[G1911]

When I think terrible and ugly rookies, these jump to mind:


Joe Jackson

Warren Spahn's 1948 Bowman (I would not call it a rookie, but everyone else does). Like the set, but what a horrible photo choice.

Pete Rose, Willie Stargell, and the other floating heads of 62 and 63.

Reggie Jackson's 1969 Milton Bradley

Mariano Rivera

Carlos Beltran

It is concerning to the artistic taste of collectors that a number of these are highly revered marquee cards in the hobby

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't mind the Spahn, agree on the others. The WWG DiMaggio with the deadpan look is bad too IMO although people like it. The Eddie Mathews is not very flattering either.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think these are discounted now for being minor league cards (a rule I find silly as so many rookies and 1st Bowmans now are photoshopped into an MLB uniform, inconsistent, and only instituted fairly recently), but this was a great era for minor league photo sets and autographs. Royal Rookies, Signature Rookies, Just Minors all produced fun sets in this vein. Large print runs, decent photos, and tons of authentic rookie signatures that nobody wants because they aren't name brands and so are available for much cheaper. I'm building the 1999 Just autographed set and picked up a lot of the other similar cards lately.

I would consider the Just Minors auto cards minor league, but the Royal Rookies are in his Marlins uniform and from the dirt stains on his uni, the exact same at bat as the Topps Update just a frame later. I don’t see a reason not to count it personally but again others may disagree. The Just Minors auto is just an auto on basically a blank card with an outline of a generic player to try to skirt the jersey rules, I would totally consider that a minor league issue.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I would consider the Just Minors auto cards minor league, but the Royal Rookies are in his Marlins uniform and from the dirt stains on his uni, the exact same at bat as the Topps Update just a frame later. I don’t see a reason not to count it personally but again others may disagree. The Just Minors auto is just an auto on basically a blank card with an outline of a generic player to try to skirt the jersey rules, I would totally consider that a minor league issue.

I didn't look up Cabrera's picture as I'm just saying I like the sets, but most of the Royal Rookies are minor league cards and uniforms (And Cabrera wouldn't reach the majors for several more years, he was 17 and in rookie ball). The Just cards are not blank outlines of generic players? Maybe they did this at some point but I have a ton of their sets and auto cards and they are excellent photographs of the players in unedited uniforms. We must be speaking of 2 different things.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

I didn't look up Cabrera's picture as I'm just saying I like the sets, but most of the Royal Rookies are minor league cards and uniforms (And Cabrera wouldn't reach the majors for several more years, he was 17 and in rookie ball). The Just cards are not blank outlines of generic players? Maybe they did this at some point but I have a ton of their sets and auto cards and they are excellent photographs of the players in unedited uniforms. We must be speaking of 2 different things.

No worries Greg!

The Just card auto looks like this that some (not me) also consider an auto but I would say its xrc. They created no real photo card of Cabrera in 2000 other than this Mystery card I know of.



The Royal Rookies is the same at bat as the Topps and comes in auto #0/4950 or unsigned versions. I would consider this an RC due to the pro uni. However, I understand that many do not as other players are in minor unis and the card text could be read as minor referring.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is 92 Bowman the only Trevor Hoffman?

Yes, forgot both of them are only in that set. Best set for reliever rookies