18,000 rookie cards for one player

[BioCRN]

Kyle Hendricks has a very rare ultra-modern RC count, one.

There's just a 2014 Topps Heritage. There's no border variations, autos variations, or other print variations...just the base card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By my definition, Aaron Judge's only true RCs are in 2016 Topps Now, with three different ones. The cards were issued after he was on a major league roster and show him in major league action. And Topps Now, in subsequent years, carried the official RC logos. I don't know what these are if not late season rookie cards. I get that they are not "base" cards but a lot of cards that carry the RC logo are not "base" cards nowadays.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By my definition, Aaron Judge's only true RCs are in 2016 Topps Now, with three different ones. The cards were issued after he was on a major league roster and show him in major league action. And Topps Now, in subsequent years, carried the official RC logos. I don't know what these are if not late season rookie cards. I get that they are not "base" cards but a lot of cards that carry the RC logo are not "base" cards nowadays.

I thought Judge's RCs were all from 2013. Aren't the Bowman draft cards considered RCs in today's parlance? Don't get me wrong, I love Topps Now. Probably spent too much pizza money on those over the years and now have small stacks of random Ohtanis and various Call Ups.

Personally, for modern players that I like to collect for fun, I just try to find his first issued card, whether it is a minor league or overseas or something like a Bowman Draft.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By my definition, Aaron Judge's only true RCs are in 2016 Topps Now, with three different ones. The cards were issued after he was on a major league roster and show him in major league action. And Topps Now, in subsequent years, carried the official RC logos. I don't know what these are if not late season rookie cards. I get that they are not "base" cards but a lot of cards that carry the RC logo are not "base" cards nowadays.

The rookie logo doesn't determine what is a rookie card. They even put it on inserts these days. All it means is that it's a card issued during the year that the player's rookie cards were issued. Not that the card is necessarily a true rookie card.

That said, with regards to Topps Now, they are generally not considered true rookie cards because they are made to order, and not pack issued cards of a widely distributed product. And even though some Topps now cards have a rookie logo, Topps is very careful not to put the logo on players' cards who won't have true rookie cards that year. Players who are playing in the majors, but were called up after the cutoff date to be included in that year's sets, don't get the rookie logo on their Topps Now cards, they get a "Call Up" logo instead. Judge's 206 Topps Now cards would be similar to someone like Roman Anthony this year. He has been called up and is playing in the majors. He has Topps Now cards this year. But they don't have the rookie logo, they have the call up logo. Whereas someone like Roki Sasaki, who is included in Topps products this year, has the rookie logo on his Topps Now cards.

[BioCRN]

"The market" seems to strongly favor the RC shield/logo card as the true RC as far as 2006+ baseball cards.

Bowman 1st vs RC sales and popularity strongly backs this up.

One can view it as stupid or arbitrary, especially since early 2000s Bowman cards of guys who won't play in MLB for years are considered RCs...but aside from some 2005-2006 straddling cards (Verlander, most obviously) the market really gravitates toward the RC shield/logo cards as true RCs.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

"The market" seems to strongly favor the RC shield/logo card as the true RC as far as 2006+ baseball cards.

Bowman 1st vs RC sales and popularity strongly backs this up.

One can view it as stupid or arbitrary, especially since early 2000s Bowman cards of guys who won't play in MLB for years are considered RCs...but aside from some 2005-2006 straddling cards (Verlander, most obviously) the market really gravitates toward the RC shield/logo cards as true RCs.

I would like to see what you are basing this on. A player's first bowman auto will invariably outsell his topps chrome rookie auto. This holds true for basically all variations. If you compare cards of similar print run, the first bowman will virtually always outsell the rookie card.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I would like to see what you are basing this on. A player's first bowman auto will invariably outsell his topps chrome rookie auto. This holds true for basically all variations. If you compare cards of similar print run, the first bowman will virtually always outsell the rookie card.

The autos def tend to favor Bowman 1st, and for more popular players the Bowman 1st can bring it big.

I probably should have drawn a line around the ultra-modern era at the very least.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The rookie logo doesn't determine what is a rookie card. They even put it on inserts these days. All it means is that it's a card issued during the year that the player's rookie cards were issued. Not that the card is necessarily a true rookie card.

That said, with regards to Topps Now, they are generally not considered true rookie cards because they are made to order, and not pack issued cards of a widely distributed product. And even though some Topps now cards have a rookie logo, Topps is very careful not to put the logo on players' cards who won't have true rookie cards that year. Players who are playing in the majors, but were called up after the cutoff date to be included in that year's sets, don't get the rookie logo on their Topps Now cards, they get a "Call Up" logo instead. Judge's 206 Topps Now cards would be similar to someone like Roman Anthony this year. He has been called up and is playing in the majors. He has Topps Now cards this year. But they don't have the rookie logo, they have the call up logo. Whereas someone like Roki Sasaki, who is included in Topps products this year, has the rookie logo on his Topps Now cards.

I understand what you're saying. I guess my minority take is that with so many cards now issued other than in the traditional packs, that has lost its importance and if it's a card from a licensed and mainstream manufacturer that is not a prospect card, because the player is in the majors and depicted as such, it should count.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand what you're saying. I guess my minority take is that with so many cards now issued other than in the traditional packs, that has lost its importance and if it's a card from a licensed and mainstream manufacturer that is not a prospect card, because the player is in the majors and depicted as such, it should count.

Yeah, it's such a mess now, I'm sort of in the camp that even prospect cards should count if they are fully licensed, just like back in the 80s and 90s. I don't care that the number on the back says it's an insert. To me, even inserts can be rookie cards. I was just explaining what supporters of the "true" rookie card say. Given the changes in the past 40 years, we are at a point where people just decide for themselves what is a rookie and collect what you like. The people who staunchly argue for a single definition that they claim hasn't changed are fooling themselves. I can think of at least 3 times since the 80s where what was a "true" rookie card changed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Yeah, it's such a mess now, I'm sort of in the camp that even prospect cards should count if they are fully licensed, just like back in the 80s and 90s. I don't care that the number on the back says it's an insert. To me, even inserts can be rookie cards. I was just explaining what supporters of the "true" rookie card say. Given the changes in the past 40 years, we are at a point where people just decide for themselves what is a rookie and collect what you like. The people who staunchly argue for a single definition that they claim hasn't changed are fooling themselves. I can think of at least 3 times since the 80s where what was a "true" rookie card changed.

It certainly has evolved over time. The XRC thing, meaning that at one point a 1985 Clemens and 1987 Bonds were considered rookies. The kiddie cards of the 90s issued when players were just out of high school and years before they played in the majors (the 1993 Jeters as just one example). The "official" designations starting in 2006 I believe it was. The prospect card/auto craze starting in the mid 2000s I think it was. I have pretty strong ideas as to each player what his RC is, but I'm not sure I could give a consistent or coherent defintion.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Yeah, it's such a mess now, I'm sort of in the camp that even prospect cards should count if they are fully licensed, just like back in the 80s and 90s. I don't care that the number on the back says it's an insert. To me, even inserts can be rookie cards. I was just explaining what supporters of the "true" rookie card say. Given the changes in the past 40 years, we are at a point where people just decide for themselves what is a rookie and collect what you like. The people who staunchly argue for a single definition that they claim hasn't changed are fooling themselves. I can think of at least 3 times since the 80s where what was a "true" rookie card changed.

I'll keep my opinions on this subject to myself as I spent nearly two decades on the "front lines" about rookie cards back in my Beckett days.

BUT, the reason for these changes, and one that made sense to the MLBPA was in simplest terms, if you have a "hot" player in his rookie season then you can sell more cards and make more $$$ if a rookie card is issued, ahem, during the players rookie year.

This was really brought to the fore in 2001 when both Ichiro and Albert Pujols (with an assist at the time from Mark Prior) were rookies and did not have any mainstream "American" cards before that season and with the way they played they drove sales of almost all 2001 products. From there, the MLBPA was ready to make sure that change took place about no rookie cards until the player is in the majors.

Hockey, is the only sport similar to Baseball in that most players spend time in the minors before they make their NHL debut and they instituted the same rule about no RC's until the player make their debut a few years before MLB

Basketball and Football by their nature have about 98 percent of rookie cards are players who are rookies that season. There is always the exception of a player who might come up from the G League or just come out of a NFL "reserve" squad

Regards
Rich

Regards
Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wasn't it 2006 that the new rules came into play? Rich are you sure the impetus was Pujols and Ichiro, that was 5 years prior?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'll keep my opinions on this subject to myself as I spent nearly two decades on the "front lines" about rookie cards back in my Beckett days.

BUT, the reason for these changes, and one that made sense to the MLBPA was in simplest terms, if you have a "hot" player in his rookie season then you can sell more cards and make more $$$ if a rookie card is issued, ahem, during the players rookie year.

This was really brought to the fore in 2001 when both Ichiro and Albert Pujols (with an assist at the time from Mark Prior) were rookies and did not have any mainstream "American" cards before that season and with the way they played they drove sales of almost all 2001 products. From there, the MLBPA was ready to make sure that change took place about no rookie cards until the player is in the majors.

Hockey, is the only sport similar to Baseball in that most players spend time in the minors before they make their NHL debut and they instituted the same rule about no RC's until the player make their debut a few years before MLB

Basketball and Football by their nature have about 98 percent of rookie cards are players who are rookies that season. There is always the exception of a player who might come up from the G League or just come out of a NFL "reserve" squad

Regards
Rich

Regards
Rich

Very enlightening, thanks for sharing this background. Explains a lot. It also makes me feel better about my strategy of simply finding the player's first properly licensed card. It's a purer way of collecting "rookies", even if the MLBPA doesn't say they are rookies.