[chrisolds]

The tagging of RC's ultimately hasn't changed since 2005. The 2006 and later first prospect cards in Bowman are all insert cards. Inserts are never RCs.

That leaves the RC logo cards as RC's unless a player had a standard MLB card before 2006.

[011873]

Beckett REALLY dropped the ball w this.

It was ALWAYS that a players first card, be it bowman, topps, donruss, whatever, was his rc.
In fact, wasnt it beckett who termed the phrase "rookie card " and made it popular?

Then mlb came along and "told" beckett and every single collector they have to change their stance on what a rc is and beckett folded like a cheap tent.

[uniquecards]

Beckett REALLY dropped the ball w this.

It was ALWAYS that a players first card, be it bowman, topps, donruss, whatever, was his rc.
In fact, wasnt it beckett who termed the phrase "rookie card " and made it popular?

Then mlb came along and "told" beckett and every single collector they have to change their stance on what a rc is and beckett folded like a cheap tent.

From your definition you consider this 1981 issue Ripken's RC:

Perhaps a minor league rookie or FY are better terms for this card?

A player can only have a RC issued of him in his first MLB season, shown as a (legitimate) MLB player. Any other interpretation means 'special interests' are making everything too complicated and lining their pockets.

[011873]

so my offer to you is this: I'll trade u my 1996 jeter "rookie" cards for your 1993 jeter "non rookie" cards.

I also have a 2006 auto "rookie card" of hanley. I feel like I'm taking advantage, but ill trade it for your "worthless" 03 prospect bow chr auto.

I can go on

[uniquecards]

so my offer to you is this: I'll trade u my 1996 jeter "rookie" cards for your 1993 jeter "non rookie" cards.

I also have a 2006 auto "rookie card" of hanley. I feel like I'm taking advantage, but ill trade it for your "worthless" 03 prospect bow chr auto.

I can go on

You're hung up on value which has absolutely zero to do with what a rookie card is.

What you're proving here is that even if licensing bodies and manufacturers are removed from determining what a rookie card is, there are prospectors and investors desperate to fill their wake by claiming whatever card is most expensive is a rookie card... which is almost a bigger joke. The most expensive or specially licensed cards do not a rookie card make. Only a player's first card as a true major league rookie is.

I'll take all your '52 Mantles from you for all my '51 Mantles all day. I'll also take all your T206 Wagners for all my Sporting News Supplements all day. I'll also take about 1,000 other Jeter cards over any 1993 or 1996 Jeter card all day long too.

[bustin 5 knots]

so my offer to you is this: I'll trade u my 1996 jeter "rookie" cards for your 1993 jeter "non rookie" cards.

I also have a 2006 auto "rookie card" of hanley. I feel like I'm taking advantage, but ill trade it for your "worthless" 03 prospect bow chr auto.

I can go on

Just because it's a rookie card or not doesn't mean it's not worth more. You aren't a rookie if you haven't been to the majors, so why call it a rookie card?

[srruss]

So what makes Bowman cards so popular? I busted a couple rack packs and got some of the first year cards. Are these popular? If they aren't worth anything now, should I hold onto them just in case? I mean they seem so common that the price would never go up.. or do they? I'd love to know everything about Bowman and it's love/popularity. And how people "Prospect"

You have stirred up the 2006 MLB created hornets nest, but I love it. Opinions are like ankles, most people have two.

Myself, I started dabbling in Bowman when they were first resurrected in '89 and was then sold on the product in'92. I have collected every year since from Bowman, Bowman's Best and Bowman Chrome including Draft Picks and Prospects. I set build and prospect. I don't care who calls what a 'RC' or 'First Year Card', I call them what I want to call them and sell them at the going rate for what the market will bear. I collect, trade, sell and give away cards. I rip packs, break boxes and do a couple Bowman cases each year. Some years are better than others just from the draft class available. The Auto's are a huge plus and most times help allow for getting close to breaking even while the prospects ripen in the penny sleeves. Bottom line is you have to do what you want and that should mostly be dictated by what you like in a product and not the value. In my opinion there is not much in Bowman to not like with the exception of the price of Bowman Sterling.

If Bowman wasn't popular you wouldn't see the strings of 'Rainbows' in sigs here on the forum. The 'Rainbows' if you notice are primarily prospects as the #1/1 star cards usually command a stiff penalty to own or are lost in a PC somewhere rarely to be seen again. I have also found that many who prospect and lose make two mistakes, they either don't do the proper research and buy based on up arrows in Beckett Price Guides (or similar) or they simply wait too long on a new product and buy high. My advice is to study and pre-buy from your LCS.

[011873]

Look in beckett, ebay and compare what people pay for real rcs (that is, first card issued) and "your" rcs.

there's a reason why 2006 sterling longoria sells for twice the price of his 2008 sterling "mlb rc" and thats because tge vast amount of collectors consider a payers first card his true rc.

[demondukk]

Aaahhh the RC argument. Always a good time. I simply say the first card that a player has in a "major" brand is their RC. Jeter showed up on cards in 93 but didn't play til 95, his first cards were still 93. That's just me.

[011873]

Always a good debate although nothing new. Its been this way for 25 yrs.

Back then the debates were:
Is 85t mcgwire or 87 cards his rc
Why is 87 bonds tagged rc and 86 xrc
85 and 86 tartabull both are rated rookies , so both are rc

It will never end