`
Connect With Us!
IOS Store
Share Thread:
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I am so confused on bowman popularity
#31

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
Well I don't see any popularity with these, because I can't move these for $.20 a piece haha.
Hockey PC's: Tomas Tatar, Alexander Burmistrov, Boris Valabik, Zach Bogosian
Football PC's: Titus Young, Jimmy Smith, Ed Dickson, Michael Oher, Flacco/Rice and Manningham/Henne dual cards.
Always gone Thur-Sun
[Image: NUC-1.png]
Reply
#32

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-12-2011, 04:15 PM)uniquecards Wrote: Rookie cards have nothing to do with licensing or logos, only a player's professional status. Manufacturers should not be able to pay to magically transform minor league players into major league ones, the hobby is not for sale in that way.

Joe Blow playing for the Hagerstown Suns might have five cards produced of him in a single year. Just because one of those five cards is licensed a particular way to show him as a MLB player does not make only that card his RC and the rest of his cards non-RCs.

A MiLB player who happens to be in a MLB set is not a MLB player even if he looks like one.

The mess comes from Bowman's unnecessary MLBP license which allows someone who paid for it to photoshop players, the logo didn't create any mess.

It has everything to do with the licensing status and type of product that he is in.

Tell me, in what year is Derek Jeter's rookie card -- you know, the eight cards tagged as an RC in the Beckett database? It's in 1993 -- his first Yankees cards. There's one Bowman card in there -- but seven others from other brands. All those "other" cards from Classic and the like? Draft picks sets or MiLB issues -- not rookie cards because of the licensing, checklist limitations and types of sets. (Draft picks and MiLB sets are not RC-eligible. Inserts/parallels, etc. never receive RC tags.)

In what year did Jeter first play in MLB in New York? 1995.

Clearly the RC logo is working for some people. Doesn't for me -- and that's, once again, why I deferred to people to collect whatever/whichever way that they want.
Chris Olds
Editor, Beckett Media

colds@beckett.com
Twitter @chrisolds2009
beckett.com/news

>>>> IF YOU HAVE A SITE ISSUE, please do not DM me.Please email customerservice@beckett.com. (I don't actually handle any of that stuff.)
Reply
#33

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-12-2011, 05:08 PM)chrisolds Wrote: It has everything to do with the licensing status and type of product that he is in.

Tell me, in what year is Derek Jeter's rookie card -- you know, the eight cards tagged as an RC in the Beckett database? It's in 1993 -- his first Yankees cards. There's one Bowman card in there -- but seven others from other brands. All those "other" cards from Classic and the like? Draft picks sets or MiLB issues -- not rookie cards because of the licensing, checklist limitations and types of sets. (Draft picks and MiLB sets are not RC-eligible. Inserts/parallels, etc. never receive RC tags.)

In what year did Jeter first play in MLB in New York? 1995.

Clearly the RC logo is working for some people. Doesn't for me -- and that's, once again, why I deferred to people to collect whatever/whichever way that they want.
Its not a matter of the "'RC logo' working for people", its whether Bowman's MLBP license and photoshop does because without Bowman and its license the logo would not exist or be necessary.

This discussion comes down to being slave to the ever-changing rules, regulations and licenses telling people how to define hobby terms (and for some, how to collect) versus common sense, which tells us that only major league players can have rookie cards.

Neither the term FY (first year) or RCs is better by itself, these terms only describe a professional's status on a card. Jeter first played in 1995...thus this year is his RC. His 1993s are his First Year cards (and/or Pro Debut??) no matter what uniform he happens to be in.

The hobby has changed and become more complicated with many licensing bodies taking greater roles, it makes sense for its nomenclature to keep up with the times so that we don't have to be slave to them. This is why the FY/first year card is important.

People should collect what they want. But they should easily know all about the card in front of them without having to understand a silly myriad of rules, logos and licenses (not to mention all the photoshop) - all of which can (and does) change from year to year at the whim of some licensing body who is looking to get some money from some manufacturer. I mean really, how tough should it be to describe to someone when Jeter was a rookie?

Reply
#34

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
actually, Jeter played in 15 games in 1995. He was still considered a "rookie" by MLB in 1996. So are you now going to say his rookies are both 1995 and 1996 since he was a "rookie" in both seasons? Come on, that is nuts. Keep MLB and their rules and definitions separate from the hobby and its definitions. They are NOT the same thing.
Reply
#35

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-13-2011, 12:55 PM)_ZENAS_ Wrote: actually, Jeter played in 15 games in 1995. He was still considered a "rookie" by MLB in 1996. So are you now going to say his rookies are both 1995 and 1996 since he was a "rookie" in both seasons? Come on, that is nuts. Keep MLB and their rules and definitions separate from the hobby and its definitions. They are NOT the same thing.
Correct. The hobby definition hadn't really changed much until the Rookie Card Logo arrived in 2006.

A player's first card in a full MLB set -- not a draft picks set -- is a rookie card, regardless of when he actually played.
Chris Olds
Editor, Beckett Media

colds@beckett.com
Twitter @chrisolds2009
beckett.com/news

>>>> IF YOU HAVE A SITE ISSUE, please do not DM me.Please email customerservice@beckett.com. (I don't actually handle any of that stuff.)
Reply
#36

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-13-2011, 12:55 PM)_ZENAS_ Wrote: actually, Jeter played in 15 games in 1995. He was still considered a "rookie" by MLB in 1996. So are you now going to say his rookies are both 1995 and 1996 since he was a "rookie" in both seasons? Come on, that is nuts. Keep MLB and their rules and definitions separate from the hobby and its definitions. They are NOT the same thing.
Sure, use Dictionary.com's definition of the word:

rook·ie   [rook-ee]
–noun
1.an athlete playing his or her first season as a member of a professional sports team: The rookie replaced the injured regular at first base.

As defined, Jeter's rookie season was 1995.


Reply
#37

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-13-2011, 03:19 PM)uniquecards Wrote: Sure, use Dictionary.com's definition of the word:

rook·ie   [rook-ee]
–noun
1.an athlete playing his or her first season as a member of a professional sports team: The rookie replaced the injured regular at first base.

As defined, Jeter's rookie season was 1995.
Dictionary.com's definition? Who cares. What year was Jeter ROY? 1996.

[Image: IconmsBannerFinal3.jpg]
Reply
#38

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-13-2011, 03:24 PM)iconms Wrote: Dictionary.com's definition? Who cares. What year was Jeter ROY? 1996.
LOL as stated he was called a rookie in '95, showing him as a Yankee before then is inaccurate.
Reply
#39

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
Dictionary definitions don't dictate the price guide's RC tags. Just saying.
Chris Olds
Editor, Beckett Media

colds@beckett.com
Twitter @chrisolds2009
beckett.com/news

>>>> IF YOU HAVE A SITE ISSUE, please do not DM me.Please email customerservice@beckett.com. (I don't actually handle any of that stuff.)
Reply
#40

RE: I am so confused on bowman popularity
(06-13-2011, 03:48 PM)chrisolds Wrote: Dictionary definitions don't dictate the price guide's RC tags. Just saying.
Yeah, cards have gotten (needlessly?) complicated in some places. Perhaps things will change soon.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)