So, it was always my understanding that the Rookie Debut cards in Chrome update were not the ones to get the RC tag. Yet, it seems many of the Rookie Debut cards in the checklist are getting the RC tag, while the non-rookie debut are not....and the pricing seems to be consistent with this change, where the ones tagged RC are higher? is this correct and when did we start tagging RD's with the RC?
Julio Rodriguez #150 RC tagged, #165 RD not tagged.
What am I missing from your comment?
None of Julio's 2022 cards should be tagged as RCs unless they have the special [(*)] designation or whatever it is.
That's because his actual rookie card is in 2021 Bowman's Best ... Topps screwed up by making a ton of players such as Julio, Wander Franco, Torkelson, Bobby Witt and basically the entire 2021 draft class (Henry Davis, Marcelo Mayer, etc.) numbered as part of the base set, and not numbered as prospects.
Caused quite a stir on these boards, actually, but ... those are the facts.
Never go by whether a card has that logo on it or not ... Topps slaps that logo on anything ... they'll do it for checklists, inserts, subsets, manufactured relics, etc.
Personally, I go by the common sense rule ... I started pulling Julio cards in his Mariners uniform in what, 2019 Bowman?
Aaron Judge in 2013 Bowman?
(Not four years later in 2017 Topps, LOL)
To me those are the actual rookie cards ... but again, if we're talking pure facts, then 2021 Bowman's Best is where you'll find a ton of current players' rookie cards.
RJ, that whole "RC to be or not to be" discussion was one of the most heated, yet boring, forums ever on Beckett. It should only matter to collectors whose focus is rookie cards. To everyone else, collect what you like and sell what you don't, and let the value be determined by the market. If a RC goes for higher price, be happy to have 'fake rookie cards' for several years of one player!!
(01-30-2023, 02:21 PM)kerryandbeth Wrote: [ -> ]RJ, that whole "RC to be or not to be" discussion was one of the most heated, yet boring, forums ever on Beckett. It should only matter to collectors whose focus is rookie cards. To everyone else, collect what you like and sell what you don't, and let the value be determined by the market. If a RC goes for higher price, be happy to have 'fake rookie cards' for several years of one player!!
Oh boy, let's not go into "most boring discussions ever" - most of the stuff posted on the baseball boards would qualify these days.
I mean, it's the only one of the four forums that spends an inordinate amount of time whining and wondering about pricing, and there are multiple "boring" threads on the same topic.
(Would be great to meld them all into one so I would know to skip it.)
Like, does anybody (other than jraps) actually buy cards and post photos of them anymore?
As for this particular topic, yes, it got heated, and very stupidly so ... people wanted their 2022 second year cards to identify as rookie cards.
Spoiler - they don't.
Topps, MLB and Beckett all made the rules about what qualifies as rookie card and when - I didn't.
I mean, I would love for my $10 bill in my wallet to identify as a $100 bill and have a store accept it as such, but ... that's not gonna happen.
The original poster asked a question - I answered it truthfully.
Topps/Bowman has made a mess of the "rookie card" designation with its shenanigans about numbering "prospect" cards differently and then simultaneously slapping the irrelevant RC logo on everything else.
That's just a fact.
I gotta be honest, the "high horse" factor on this particular forum has been pretty nauseating the last couple of years.
Like, how dare I mention a card or a break from a sport other than baseball on the precious baseball forum?
Give me a break.
If you all want to sit around and whine about Beckett's delay in pricing cards and talk about nothing else, be my guest, but don't come at me about what qualifies as boring around here.
Wow, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. The post was boring from the standpoint of the topic, not the contributors.
Why would you not want multiple RCs of the same player when they are more highly valued by collectors than subsequent veteran year cards? What was most boring about that discussion was the constant "this is how it is no matter what others say"...like everybody on that Forum was an expert.
And, whining about delayed pricing is a legitimate complaint because the only reason many of us pay a subscription is to get pricing for maintaining our collection, and not to read arrogant posts or high horse comments.
No matter what anybody says about my posts, I never use the word 'fact'...ever...because that comes across as arrogant in itself.
Okay, back on track .....
The very first card tagged RC in the whole set is Heliot Ramos #USC2 , it is his Rookie Debut.....they tagged it as RC. He has the non-rookie debut #USC194 not tagged as RC. Usually its the other way around and pricing fallas in line with the RD being less typically. there are many other examples, but yes, some of them show the non-Rookie Debut as the RC, some show the Rookie Debut.
What I am wondering is becuase the rookie debut is first up in the set, is it the RC technically?
and yes, for those of us who collected prior to 2006 this entire conversation is infuriating, but....alas, here we are
Since I am not smart enough to figure this out..seems worse each year..when I sell a card with a RC on the card and I do not think it is a RC..then I list the card as XXXX player with RC LOGO.
And I let the buyer figure it out..
Okay, I did notice that Topps Chrome Update is inconsistent on which card is labeled RC...
I guess I am in the minority that it doesn't matter to me, but I can understand if you collect rookies.
(01-31-2023, 11:23 AM)bonds20001 Wrote: [ -> ]Since I am not smart enough to figure this out..seems worse each year..when I sell a card with a RC on the card and I do not think it is a RC..then I list the card as XXXX player with RC LOGO.
And I let the buyer figure it out..
Smart...since it is the buyer who determines whether it matters or not! Not Beckett members or employees.