[chrisa19978]

Didn't I see a post like the other day. How Beckett explained the whole RC thing. Maybe I read it wrong. But parallels aren't considered RC's either.

Taken right from the listing in Beckett.

1996 Circa #65 Derek Jeter
1993 Topps #98 Derek Jeter RC

Well beckett and and other collectors like myself as well as 10 other Derek Jeter collectors I know see it differently. All his cards from 1992 to 1996 to me are considered to me as Rookies. If you would please explain to me how a guy can have a rookie card 3 years before his rookie season and not consider his actual rookie year as his rookie card? 1996 was his first year in the Majors so if you wanna really be techinal 1992 to 1995 are considered Minor League cards then and 1996 is his true rookie card. We can debate this however you want just because a card comes out before a player hits the majors dose not mean that is his true rookie card. The actual true rookie card would be the year he plays in the Major League for most of the year. Please let me know who wrote that artical as I will debate that with him as well.

---

Didn't I see a post like the other day. How Beckett explained the whole RC thing. Maybe I read it wrong. But parallels aren't considered RC's either.

Taken right from the listing in Beckett.

1996 Circa #65 Derek Jeter
1993 Topps #98 Derek Jeter RC

One more point to add so 1951 Bowman is Mickey Mantles only rookie card is what you and the beckett guy is saying. Since 1952 Topps is his 2nd year card. It was alot simpler back in the day pre 1990's. As most players only had 1 rookie year.

[arod1973]

The rookie card issue is one that is still heavily debated by alot of people and has more recently been debated because of Bowman prospect releases and the whole Rookie Card Logo instituted by MLB.

Personally I feel the 1990s were an easy time as far as Rookie cards as Bowman wasn't around clouding the issue...

As far as I'm concerned 1993 cards are Jeter's rookies as they were the first liscensed cards produced by a major card company and prices would reflect that as a 1993 Jeter sells for more than a 1994 and so on.

[chrisa19978]

The rookie card issue is one that is still heavily debated by alot of people and has more recently been debated because of Bowman prospect releases and the whole Rookie Card Logo instituted by MLB.

Personally I feel the 1990s were an easy time as far as Rookie cards as Bowman wasn't around clouding the issue...

As far as I'm concerned 1993 cards are Jeter's rookies as they were the first liscensed cards produced by a major card company and prices would reflect that as a 1993 Jeter sells for more than a 1994 and so on.

But he was not in the majors so how can you not count any of the other years. The debate is not over his 1st MLB licenced card, its over what is considered to be his rookie year. Let use a few examples. Kirby Puckett 1985 is considered his Rookie year but he had a 1984 MLB licenced card. Cal Ripken 1983 is considered his Rookie year but he had a 1982 card so if you wanna be techinal the 1983 Cal Ripken and 1985 Kirb Puckett are not there rookie cards as that was not the first year they were in a MLB Licenced product. The 90's are the same as recent years as Heyward first card is 2007 and his rookie year was 2010.

[jacobystealshome]

no, with cal and kirby, their 1982 and 1984 cards are XRC's, their 1983 and 1985 cards are RC's.

jeter's rookies are 1993, with minor league issued cards in 1992.

[iconms]

The rookie card issue is one that is still heavily debated by alot of people and has more recently been debated because of Bowman prospect releases and the whole Rookie Card Logo instituted by MLB.

Personally I feel the 1990s were an easy time as far as Rookie cards as Bowman wasn't around clouding the issue...

As far as I'm concerned 1993 cards are Jeter's rookies as they were the first liscensed cards produced by a major card company and prices would reflect that as a 1993 Jeter sells for more than a 1994 and so on.

Agreed

if the OP wants to view 1992 thru 1996 as RCs, he is free to collect/view his collection however he wants. He should acknowledge the fact that this is an alternative viewpoint though, and not state he's 100% right so matter-of-factly.

[chrisa19978]

So you wanna say this 1994 Topps is not considered a rookie card? Show prospects as he was not in the majors yet.


Wiat lets got with 1995 Ultra Golden Prospects to me if it says prospect it can be considered a rookie card.


1996 Leaf I am guessing since Leaf neve made a card of his till the year he actually started playing in the MLB would not be considered a rookie


1996 Select says Rookie on it as well even know they had one in 1993. My guess they used that again as this was his first MLB year card.


1996 Summit also has him listed as a rookie.



So what your saying is that Topps, Bowman, Fleer, and Donruss can make any year a rookie card. I believe any card that was made before to the year enters the MLB and that year should all be considered rookie cards. If you really wanna be techinial 1992 to 1995 can be considered pre rookie cards or Minor league cards maybe even 1st year rookie, 2nd year rookie and 3rd year rookie since the cards were made before he played in the MLB. Any Super collector to me would agree. Baseball cards are the worst when it comes to things like this as basketball, football, and hockey only have one rookie year and thats when he is actually filling a roster spot for a professional team. Baseball dose it this way because of a players hype and to sell more cards. I can relate to what your saying as 1993 is his first MLB year card and they will hold a higher value as to his 2nd card of the same brand. But I don't think your understanding me as I say I am looking to get all his cards before he entered the Major League which I consider his rookie cards.

[_ZENAS_]

rookie year =/= rookie card.

they are two different terms and concepts.

my question is how can you consider several years of cards rookie cards? your own definition contradicts itself. If you listen to your reasoning, then 1996 are his ONLY rookie cards, not 1992-1995. Yet you still call all the cards 1992-1996 rookie cards.

A rookie card, for hobby purposes, is very different than a "rookie year card" referring to their major league playing status. You are confusing the two.

With that said, I fully agree with those who say collect what you want and call them whatever you want. But as was mentioned, you (and Uniquecards who also tends to think everyone should accept his veiwpoint) are in the minority.

[011873]

Rookie card: first year mlb card issued (1993)

Rookie YEAR card: card issued during mlb rookie season (1996)

that's how I break it down in my store.

[ricelynnevans75]

Just go with what you like. It's your collection. Nothing personal to you, but I could care less what you label your cards or mine or if you "follow MLB/Beckett/Trading card companies like lemmings" or go with the "overall viewpoint of the collecting population". I'm not going to tell you that you should believe what you want but at the same time in so many words say you are wrong and that my definition is the only one as it's the "easiest", even when I've already said a million times that there should be no definition. If someone really doesn't care what someone labels their collection, they aren't going to continue posting in these topics saying that you're wrong/in the minority/confused/etc.

I have my collection, you have your collection, everybody else has their collection. We should all just be happy with our collection and quit worrying about what some other internet clown tries to shove down our throats to believe. If they are so worried about your labeling of your collection, they must have some sort of an inferiority complex. Nothing wrong with giving opinions or viewpoints, but a couple of people on here really seem to care just a tad* too much about what others think about their own cards.

In any event, nice pickup! It's too bad people lose track of the main point of the thread (to show off a nice card) and have to yet again go into this ridiculous topic in which nobody is going to change anyone else's mind anyway. I'm thinking of going back to my Nomar PC I started about 13 years ago. I just came across it again the other night and went ahead and picked up a few recently. They did go for a little more than expected!

*: The word was used in a sarcastic manner.

[Shortprintcards]

Would you be willing to sell the card? Shortprintcards