Comments on: Bryce Harper Rookie Card set for 2012 Topps Series 2

By: chrisolds

chrisolds — Fri, 11 May 2012 17:30:41 +0000

All previous sets are insert cards based on how the products are configured. Insert cards do not get RC tags.

By: JEREMY

JEREMY — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:50:57 +0000

How would this even be considered a RC? His first card after becoming a pro was 2011. He also has a 2010 Bowman Chrome card, and a 2008 Upper Deck card. Although, I will say this is his best looking card for sure.

By: john

john — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:35:31 +0000

I doubt that anyone posting here played in the major leagues let alone made a debut at 19yrs old. Getting a hit off a major league pitcher and getting a run home, almost threw a guy out from 300ft when the runner has to run 90ft is impressive to anybody, even more at age 19. That is a fact, not an opinion.

By: charles faires

charles faires — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:16:57 +0000

Mr. Chase, slow down, this is just talk, we all know the rules for RC. doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. thats why this is a forum. i do understand your passion, i too am guilty of having a strong apinion at times.just saying

By: Michael Chase

Michael Chase — Tue, 01 May 2012 01:15:39 +0000

Man I love how people who have never worked for Beckett a day in their lives seem to know an awfully lot about the company. Do Beckett employees go on your website, bash you and then tell you how your company is run?

….I didn’t think so.

To me, and I speak for solely myself. The card posted above is Bryce Harpers first rookie card. Prospect cards are not rookie cards. The RC logo is a good thing. This card looks great.

By: charles faires

charles faires — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:29:55 +0000

i not sure what to make of all this, i look at a bowman chrome first card and i see a player in a yankees uniform, with a yankees log somewhere on the card, and its states first card bowman, i know by definition because theres no RC. this is not an offical RC. but i think that the only reason this became a issue was because card companys were trying to get the leg up on hot rookies that came up late in the fall. this RC thing seems like its not needed anymore because of limted liecensing know.

By: Cincyscott

Cincyscott — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:21:09 +0000

I think if Topps could they would put the RC logo on every card they make.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:07:48 +0000

I still remember when we had FTC, FSC, FDC
First Topps Card, First Score Card, First Donruss card, etc.

I can live with the logo, if only it were properly applied every time. (As you noted.)
Consumers should not have to deal with (RC) vs RC issue. The stupid logo was supposed
to ensure that.

Personally, I like the USA cards that come in the packs vs the box sets.
And the auto’d AFLAC cards are also pretty awesome, provided care is made to ensure
that you can tell the ones from packs vs what was given to players vs unscrupulously
signed cards from the game that happen to look the same damn way.

At times I think the card makers are very naive at best, lazy at worst.
Autographed cards should always have an immediate obvious difference between
themselves and their non-auto’d cousins. An embossed stamp is sadly too easily faked
and thus not enough. This lesson should have been learned back in 1992, let alone 2012.

My personal rules for RC’s are quite simple.

1) Authorized by the player and any logos displayed must be likewise authorized.

2) Signed to a contract in the sport and active in the sport.
Retired guys can’t get rookie cards especially decades after they have played.

3) Available to the general public. This means its not a stadium only issue or family only
issue, or likewise exclusive issue.

4) Comes in a pack or issued in the same year as ones that come in a pack.
So your card in a factory set is a RC only if there was an opportunity to get it in a pack.

5) No RC fitting the above standards issued in a prior Season/Year. Sports that cross years
can have it as long as the issue reflects the same season. I.E. If one came out in 2011 and
the season is a 2011/12 product its still a RC.

By: chrisolds

chrisolds — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:05 +0000

Matthew: Not every card with a RC logo slapped on it is a Rookie Card, either. It is what it is — the hobby/tagging definition and even the practices of the card companies are not the same.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:32:17 +0000

Ed, thank you for illustrating my point. I accidentally buried my point in a rhetorical question I shouldn’t have bothered to ask. So, to rephrase: why are we acting like the fact that Harper’s first “official” RC hasn’t been issued yet is a huge deal? Insert cards are ubiquitous and plentiful, and carry a Major League logos and team designations on them. Once that has taken place, they are for all practical purposes MLB cards. At that point, the idea that the Rookie Card Logo has any meaning is just a poorly designed artificial construct that carries very little actual meaning. As a Phillies collector, am I eagerly awaiting Freddy Galvis’s official RC — no, because I already have his 2008 Bowman Prospects card.