[011873]

my store is HEAVY....HEAVY....on prospect products. In fact, my shelves are nearly filled with prospect products. Why? Because they sell well.

So, my customers are prospect savvy, aka, they know a real rc fron what mlb tells us.

But the funny thing is that when they get a" mlb rc logo", they AUTOMATICALLY assume its not the players first card (aka real rc). That's because it rarely is. I had to tell everyone not to dump last years valencias because they are REAL rcs. That's the confusion mlb has caused.

[randall617]

Is it MLB or is it the card producers that have created the confusion? The producers don't have to put a rc logo on a players 1st MLB card. It is a semantic argument, the cardboard fans need to agree on a common language to distinguish btwn. rc cards and 1st cards ever. I have Donruss elite cards that came out before the players 1st Bowman but it's the Bowman that drives the market. Donruss EEE is a better product so I will continue to collect it and not the crappy Bowman. Bowman's 1st card be damned! I am collecting every Indians prospect, no matter the maker of the card. Call me a hypocrite.

[011873]

How ironic is this?
I bring the new beckett home & on p. 11, the question "what's a rookie card" is asked.

BECKETT's answer: the traditional definition is a players first readily available card showing him in a pro uniform in a set not just made up of draft picks.

In other words: bowman prospects qualify.

[jhyde77]

How ironic is this?
I bring the new beckett home & on p. 11, the question "what's a rookie card" is asked.

BECKETT's answer: the traditional definition is a players first readily available card showing him in a pro uniform in a set not just made up of draft picks.

In other words: bowman prospects qualify.

EDIT: I think the key word is traditional. Page 14 of the Beckett states that its the type of set that matters. Not the uniform.

The Collecting 101 issue is interesting and very informative, especially for new collectors. Its an issue kids and adults can enjoy. It reminds me of Becketts from the boom years of the late 80s/early 90s.

[hckydv7]

How ironic is this?
I bring the new beckett home & on p. 11, the question "what's a rookie card" is asked.

BECKETT's answer: the traditional definition is a players first readily available card showing him in a pro uniform in a set not just made up of draft picks.

In other words: bowman prospects qualify.

Actually, the reason why the are 3 sets in the bowman product is that MLB only wanted cards marked with the MLB rookie logo that had been in at least 1 game. The Bowman chrome prospects a Bowman prospects sets are tecnically classified as inserts sets and that is why Beckett does not classify them as RC. Blame MLB for that one. If they included them in the regular set MLB would put an end to the product same as if Beckett classified them as RC.

[_ZENAS_]

thank you beckett

[chrisolds]

Bowman prospects don't qualify. The prospects set is an insert set -- separate numbering from the set with veterans and RC logo cards -- since 2006. Insert cards have never been RCs.

The Beckett tagging routine of an RC tag on a player's first MLB card never changed. In 2006, Bowman Prospects cards all were made into inserts. THAT is why they are not tagged as RCs -- and now the RC tag goes on those cards with the RC logo that don't have a card from 2005 or earlier to trump them.

[spazmatastic]

I was wondering how long before ZENAS was banned. Chris, thank you for that final clarification. If that had been posted days ago, it would have allowed this thread to die. (MAYBE)
Like I said earlier, I stopped buying Bowman after the 2004 release, so I didn't know the prospects are now inserts.