[roussy35]

Hello all,

I'm mostly a hockey card guy and there is really no mistake when it comes to RC's for that sport. I've recently got back in to baseball cards and was doing a little research. I've noticed that there can be 2 different years considered RC's for a player.

How is that possible?

Example:

Andrew McCutchen has RC's in 2005 AND 2009!

Which ones are considered true RC's? Are they all considered true RC's? If not how do you differentiate?

Also, what brands would you prefer a RC in if you had to choose?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Again, like the title says please excuse my ignorance. LOL

[crossada]

The 2005 McCutchen's are the true RC and the 2009 are (RC) meaning that is the first year he played for the Pirates I believe.

In 2006 MLB stated that a player can't have a RC until he is on the 25 man roster. Topps has not complied to my reasoning and still puts cards out for players years before they are in the majors and just call them Prospects. Beckett does not recognize these much older cards as RC because they don't meet the criteria set by MLB.

So 2005 and earlier the RC is pretty standard and 2006-2015 is a crap shoot trying to decipher a RC, and perhaps more importantly the older Prospect cards seem to be much more valuable than the actual RC card. Look at any of the big ebay sales for popular players and you can see how much increase in price the Prospect cards demand.

[schootay]

I always considered a RC being the players first card in that set. I collect Kris Bryant's and do not consider his 2015 Bowman card as a RC because he has other Bowman's from previous years. But his 2015 Topps Finest I consider an actual RC because that's his first Topps Finest card. There's so many branches of sets from Topps that it's hard to keep track of it all. Sure is a lot of fun collecting them all though!

[djohn]

The confusion is really just for anyone that had a card prior to 2006, as that is when MLB got involved for some reason and redefined the term "rookie card". Now you have prospect cards and minor league cards for a few years prior to getting a players "rookie card" when they are on the active MLB roster. For players that had cards before 2006 that were labeled as "RC", Beckett uses the "(RC)" designation to indicate there MLB rookie card. For everyone after 2006, their cards aren't labeled as rookie cards until they reach the majors and than they get the RC designation that year. It can definitely get confusing.

[rjcj2017]

As much as I love Bowman products in general, they eff up the whole RC scene.

I was pulling Manny Machados out of packs back in 2010, so when his "rookie cards" began showing up in 2013 - even though he had cards in various products in 2011 and 2012 as well - I was like, OK, whatevs.

Bowman gets away with it by numbering their prospect cards like they would inserts.

Basically, my belief is, the first year you can pull a guy's card in a pack, that's his RC.

If it's a guy like Bryant that I collect that has both Bowman "prospect" cards (in 2013 and 2014) and 2015 RCs, I'll go for both.

If it's someone I don't collect (like Machado), I'll call it good after the 2010s.

And, for what it's worth, I'm jealous of the hockey guys with their "Young Guns" - I'd love to have a similar line in baseball where everyone universally agrees what is the card to chase.

[Nintari]

Back in the day (80's and early 90's) , a RC was the whichever card the player was on first whether they were in the majors or not. Now, a RC is the first card released where he is on an actual major league team. Cards that are released while in the minors are NOT rookie cards anymore.

And really, I couldn't be happier because that's how it should be. You can't be a major league rookie without having, you know, actually played in the majors.

[norcalcollectibles]

As much as I love Bowman products in general, they eff up the whole RC scene.

I was pulling Manny Machados out of packs back in 2010, so when his "rookie cards" began showing up in 2013 - even though he had cards in various products in 2011 and 2012 as well - I was like, OK, whatevs.

Bowman gets away with it by numbering their prospect cards like they would inserts.

Basically, my belief is, the first year you can pull a guy's card in a pack, that's his RC.

If it's a guy like Bryant that I collect that has both Bowman "prospect" cards (in 2013 and 2014) and 2015 RCs, I'll go for both.

If it's someone I don't collect (like Machado), I'll call it good after the 2010s.

And, for what it's worth, I'm jealous of the hockey guys with their "Young Guns" - I'd love to have a similar line in baseball where everyone universally agrees what is the card to chase.

Your belief is right. I am old school so I believe that the first card that a player appears in a Major League uniform should be considered a
ROOKIE CARD

[GoStros]

Your belief is right. I am old school so I believe that the first card that a player appears in a Major League uniform should be considered a
ROOKIE CARD

Ahhhh, but here's the rub. These days they are not in the major leagues when these cards are put out. Yes, the were in some spring training games, but never on a big league roster until until their debut 1,2,3, heck some 5 or more years AFTER they first appeared as a PRSPECT on a Bowman card. Back in the day we rarely heard about these kids in the minors. We had no idea who they were until they got called up. Before Bowman came along with the 1992 set that is. This is when it all started for the "prospect" craze. Manny Machado was not a big league rookie until 2013. Therefore his "rookie cards" could not be before 2013. It is not rocket science. I a old school as well, but love the prospect card. I like the attention these guys are getting BEFORE they don a MLB uni and take the field for the first time. As an Astros fan, our team has sucked for many years, but just 2 years ago the talk was how good they were gonna be because of their prospects. Guess what? Two years later, they were right, and I have already been collecting these prospects for 2 to 4 years.

Things evolve. The world changes. The card companies try to give us what we want. This is what a majority of us wanted according t their research. They sell a ton of product, so I guess they were not too far off. Now with topps getting exclusive Autograph contracts like the one they just signed with Correa, they should be banking even more for the next few years.

[Nintari]

I know personally, regardless of market value, I don't want minor league cards. They just don't hold value for me because they're in the minors. How impressive is it to play in A ball? AA ball?

When a player makes The Show, that's when he's truly arrived at the apex of accomplishment. I want the card that represents said accomplishment.

[jonathani]

At least this isn't football. Topps will print up a bunch of cards for football players and label them RCs before anyone hits the turf. Then a large percentage of them got cut. Beckett will still say the RC of a guy that never played a down is "worth" as much as some of the rookies that did play, but no one would actually pay the same...I hope.