Beckett Message Boards

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...VvjLs3bZDx

The market decides the price and the market determines what is a RC or not.

(02-02-2023, 03:38 PM)rjcj2017 Wrote: [ -> ]Good Lord you must be fun at parties.

I know reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, but go back and read what I said again, maybe the second time around (well, it's been way more than that, but ...) hopefully it will sink in.

I said the 2019 Bowman card is what his rookie card should be ... not what it is.

Back to the ignore list you go.

For the final time everybody ... doing it one more time so that hopefully even Phoenix Risen gets it ...

I did not make the rules.

Topps, MLB and Beckett all made the rules.

I never said they couldn't or haven't changed over the years. Or shouldn't change in the future.

Or that the current rules aren't stupid.

In fact, I HAVE stated that many, many times.

But I'll go reeeeeaaaaaaalllllyyyy slow here ...

Under ...

The ...

Current ...

Guidelines ...

The ...

Only ...

Rookie ...

Cards ...

Of ...

Julio Rodriguez, Bobby Witt, Spencer Torkelson ...

And ...

Many ...

Many ...

Others ...

Are ...

In ...

2021 ...

Bowman's ...

Best

Now, I realize that in today's society, some segments of the population believe that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 if someone whines enough about it or gets their widdle feewings hurt too much, but unfortunately for those wishing, wanting and hoping that their 2022 second year cards are the same thing as 2021 rookie cards, I got two words for ya ...

They're not.

First, let me start off by saying you are absolutely incorrect. Neither Beckett, MLB, nor Topps determines what is a rookie card. This is our hobby, and collectors will make that determination. Period.

But to address the idiocy of your post, I want to point out that when Chester2002 wrote, and I quote, "At any rate, Julio's rookie for me is 2019 Bowman Chrome." You responded, and again I quote, "facts, agreed 100 percent."

So which of us is having reading comprehension trouble? 

You're a fool who either just likes to be obstinate and argue, or is a submissive who needs to have a company tell them what terms in the hobby mean. Either way, it's pathetic. 

I know it's clear your motivations are financial, however. You are holding a big bag of 2021 Bowmans Best just praying the hobby will come around and agree with you one day. I'm sorry you drank the Beckett kool-aid and are left holding that bag. Get out while you can. Next time, learn a lesson from this, that Beckett can't dictate our hobby. WE DO!

I called my 86 year old dad last night, and we had a discussion about how people cannot cope with disagreement anymore. That somehow not agreeing must lead to hate or a fight...that is absurd! But, the new woke movement makes everybody a criminal if you have a different opinion. SAD!!!!!!!!

Let's just agree to disagree and stop acting like dictators when we express our opinion, and be happy that we're not robots...yet!

(02-02-2023, 05:26 PM)kerryandbeth Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...VvjLs3bZDx

The market decides the price and the market determines what is a RC or not.

Partly correct.

The market absolutely, 100 percent, without fail dictates what cards are more desirable or valuable, whether they are technically classified as rookie cards or not ... the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle being the best all-time example of this.

And - again - I never said that wasn't the case.

Unfortunately, rookie cards are defined with specific guidelines.

Have they changed over the years?

Yep.

Will they change again someday?

I hope so, if it means getting rid of this RC logo/numbered prospect crap.

I greatly prefer the old school definition of XRCs in the Update sets and RCs in the flagship, mainstream sets available in packs.

Unfortunately, Topps and Bowman and "prospect cards numbered differently" screwed that up for everybody.

You think the 2021/2022 debate with Franco, Rodriguez and everyone else is bad?

(I mean, it is, just read this thread.)

At least those cards were released in separate calendar years with a clear divide.

Look at the confusion in 2015, for example, with Kris Bryant - or 2019 with Vladimir Guerrero.

Multiple products, same season, some designated as "prospect" cards because they were numbered differently and/or issued before Bryant or Guerrero made their MLB debuts ... and some labeled as RCs - with the "RC logo" because those sets were released later in the season.

How is anybody - especially a kid - supposed to keep track of all that?

Hypothetical - two kids are in Target back in 2015.

One kid buys a 2015 Bowman blaster, the other kid buys a 2015 Topps Update blaster.

They both pull Kris Bryant's base card ... but the Bowman is a prospect card because it's numbered differently, so that kid doesn't have a rookie card ... but the kid with the Update card does have a rookie card.

Huh? What? Yeah, sucks to be that kid that doesn't have a rookie card.

You have all been directing your frustration and delusion in the wrong direction.

Again - I didn't make the rules.

I'd love to tell those imaginary kids that they both have Kris Bryant rookie cards.

But ... technically, they don't, because Topps wants it both ways with its monopoly.

I mean, LOL, Bowman's marketing slogan for years has been "Home of the Rookie Card."

Huh? Don't you mean "Home of the Differently Numbered Prospect Card So That We Can Pretend These Other Cards In Other Sets Issued Up To Several Years Later Are Actually 'Rookie Cards' Because We Slap That Little Logo On Everything, Including Checklists, Inserts and Manufactured Relics" ... ?

So - again - whether or not people would rather own the 2022 Topps Series 2 Julio Rodriguez SP photo variation insert (RC) instead of his 2021 Bowman's Best rookie card, that's entirely up to them.

I'm all for it.

Again - never said I wasn't.

I mean, I'm an autograph collector first and foremost - I would trade almost any rookie card for an autographed card of the same player, even if it's 5 years after his rookie card is released, for example.

Collect what you want, when you want, how you want.

Share it on Beckett ... post photos ... make trades ... congratulate each other on what you pulled ... commiserate with each other when the post office loses your card ...

It's what used to make this site and this hobby really great.

But to sit here and honestly - honestly now - think we can all just pretend that Mantle's rookie card did not, in reality, come out in the 1951 Bowman set is just flat out wrong.

Is the 1951 Mantle a less desirable card than the 1952 Topps Mantle card?

Absolutely - a 10-second glance at DBay will tell you that.

Does that mean the 1952 Topps Mantle card is his rookie card?

No.

Why?

Wait for it ...

Because he has a rookie card in the 1951 Bowman set.

Anyway, you're right, we'll agree to disagree and I'll stay over here on my side of the fence in Reality World.

The rest of you can happily agree that 2 + 2 equals 7, because that's what "the market dictates."

And every time this comes up and someone continues to be misinformed about it, I'll gladly give my two thousand cents.

(02-03-2023, 10:47 AM)rjcj2017 Wrote: [ -> ]Partly correct.

The market absolutely, 100 percent, without fail dictates what cards are more desirable or valuable, whether they are technically classified as rookie cards or not ... the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle being the best all-time example of this.

And - again - I never said that wasn't the case.

Unfortunately, rookie cards are defined with specific guidelines.

Have they changed over the years?

Yep.

Will they change again someday?

I hope so, if it means getting rid of this RC logo/numbered prospect crap.

I greatly prefer the old school definition of XRCs in the Update sets and RCs in the flagship, mainstream sets available in packs.

Unfortunately, Topps and Bowman and "prospect cards numbered differently" screwed that up for everybody.

You think the 2021/2022 debate with Franco, Rodriguez and everyone else is bad?

(I mean, it is, just read this thread.)

At least those cards were released in separate calendar years with a clear divide.

Look at the confusion in 2015, for example, with Kris Bryant - or 2019 with Vladimir Guerrero.

Multiple products, same season, some designated as "prospect" cards because they were numbered differently and/or issued before Bryant or Guerrero made their MLB debuts ... and some labeled as RCs - with the "RC logo" because those sets were released later in the season.

How is anybody - especially a kid - supposed to keep track of all that?

Hypothetical - two kids are in Target back in 2015.

One kid buys a 2015 Bowman blaster, the other kid buys a 2015 Topps Update blaster.

They both pull Kris Bryant's base card ... but the Bowman is a prospect card because it's numbered differently, so that kid doesn't have a rookie card ... but the kid with the Update card does have a rookie card.

Huh? What? Yeah, sucks to be that kid that doesn't have a rookie card.

You have all been directing your frustration and delusion in the wrong direction.

Again - I didn't make the rules.

I'd love to tell those imaginary kids that they both have Kris Bryant rookie cards.

But ... technically, they don't, because Topps wants it both ways with its monopoly.

I mean, LOL, Bowman's marketing slogan for years has been "Home of the Rookie Card."

Huh? Don't you mean "Home of the Differently Numbered Prospect Card So That We Can Pretend These Other Cards In Other Sets Issued Up To Several Years Later Are Actually 'Rookie Cards' Because We Slap That Little Logo On Everything, Including Checklists, Inserts and Manufactured Relics" ... ?

So - again - whether or not people would rather own the 2022 Topps Series 2 Julio Rodriguez SP photo variation insert (RC) instead of his 2021 Bowman's Best rookie card, that's entirely up to them.

I'm all for it.

Again - never said I wasn't.

I mean, I'm an autograph collector first and foremost - I would trade almost any rookie card for an autographed card of the same player, even if it's 5 years after his rookie card is released, for example.

Collect what you want, when you want, how you want.

Share it on Beckett ... post photos ... make trades ... congratulate each other on what you pulled ... commiserate with each other when the post office loses your card ...

It's what used to make this site and this hobby really great.

But to sit here and honestly - honestly now - think we can all just pretend that Mantle's rookie card did not, in reality, come out in the 1951 Bowman set is just flat out wrong.

Is the 1951 Mantle a less desirable card than the 1952 Topps Mantle card?

Absolutely - a 10-second glance at DBay will tell you that.

Does that mean the 1952 Topps Mantle card is his rookie card?

No.

Why?

Wait for it ...

Because he has a rookie card in the 1951 Bowman set.

Anyway, you're right, we'll agree to disagree and I'll stay over here on my side of the fence in Reality World.

The rest of you can happily agree that 2 + 2 equals 7, because that's what "the market dictates."

And every time this comes up and someone continues to be misinformed about it, I'll gladly give my two thousand cents.

The fact that you are unable to see your own contradictions is alarming.

In the same post you say that the definition of rookie card can change as the collecting world changes it, and also that we have to accept what Topps says without question. It's absurd.

Either the definition of rookie can change as dictated by the collectors, or it can't. Again, you can't have it both ways. 

In this case, we have no obligation to accept what Topps (or Beckett for that matter) tells us is a rookie. If you are frustrated with the crap Topps is pulling, JUST DON'T ACCEPT IT. Why are you acting like you are bound to accept their definition of rookie card? It makes no sense.

And FYI, your Mickey Mantle argument makes no sense either. The hobby absolutely does NOT consider the 1952 Topps his rookie card. There is no dispute. Just because the 1952 is more desirable doesn't change that. Likewise, the hobby does not consider 2021 Bowmans Best to be Julio's rookie card, no matter how much you insist it is.

I love turtles and RC Logo's on my cards. LOL - I have over a hundred Alec Bohm (PC) '21 Cards with the RC logo's and don't care that his official MLB rookie year was '2020 - I collect his cards because I love the cards with logos. Cool if they are or aren't "official" RC's. Chill out, agree to disagree and have fun! I'll show my Bohm cards when my COMC shipment comes in by the end of the month.

(02-03-2023, 01:03 PM)Phillies_Joe Wrote: [ -> ]I love turtles and RC Logo's on my cards.  LOL - I have over a hundred Alec Bohm (PC) '21 Cards with the RC logo's and don't care that his official MLB rookie year was '2020 - I collect his cards because I love the cards with logos.  Cool if they are or aren't "official" RC's.  Chill out, agree to disagree and have fun!  I'll show my Bohm cards when my COMC shipment comes in by the end of the month.

Well said, my friend.

(02-03-2023, 01:17 PM)rjcj2017 Wrote: [ -> ]Well said, my friend.

Hilarious!  He said pretty much what I said, but I get an argument and he gets affirmation...lol.

That turd was not blue it was yellow

(02-03-2023, 04:02 PM)floydtown Wrote: [ -> ]That turd was not blue it was yellow

Well for the person making the deposit, I sure hope it was blue and not yellow.  Yellow could signal a malabsorption issue such as celiac disease whereas if it's blue, this is likely just due to eating/drinking a lot of blue colored foods such as blueberries.