[mjmj1966]

With the "RC" changing from a player's 1st card to the player having to play with the big club, I was wondering which is the better card to have? I'm going through all my cards trying to figure out what to hold on to, the prospect card, the "RC" designated card, or both. Any thoughts or opinions?

[rjcj2017]

To me, a player's RC is the first one I pulled from a pack, whether Beckett or who the h-ll else designates it that way or not.

For example, I've been pulling Machados out of packs since 2010, so to call his cards "rookie cards" from 2013 is beyond a joke to me.

They should just do away with the whole thing.

If Bowman has guys in MLB uniforms and they're considered RCs two years before they make the majors, so be it.

Topps has the MLB exclusive anyway, so I always thought it was redundant and pointless to number the Bowman prospects as "inserts," especially when they come 3-4 per pack.

[krykslr]

To me, a player's RC is the first one I pulled from a pack, whether Beckett or who the h-ll else designates it that way or not.

For example, I've been pulling Machados out of packs since 2010, so to call his cards "rookie cards" from 2013 is beyond a joke to me.

They should just do away with the whole thing.

If Bowman has guys in MLB uniforms and they're considered RCs two years before they make the majors, so be it.

Topps has the MLB exclusive anyway, so I always thought it was redundant and pointless to number the Bowman prospects as "inserts," especially when they come 3-4 per pack.

I would disagree. I like the RC being the player's card during his rookie season. A player isn't considered a "rookie" until he plays his first season in the majors, so I think anything that comes out before that should be a "prospect" card, since it's not a card fro the rookie season.

Sure, Machado has been around for a few years, but he wasn't a rookie until 2013. He was a prospect up until that point. The cards before then are worth a bit more, especially the first year he hit Bowman, but those aren't rookies.

[rybowski97]

I would disagree. I like the RC being the player's card during his rookie season. A player isn't considered a "rookie" until he plays his first season in the majors, so I think anything that comes out before that should be a "prospect" card, since it's not a card fro the rookie season.

Sure, Machado has been around for a few years, but he wasn't a rookie until 2013. He was a prospect up until that point. The cards before then are worth a bit more, especially the first year he hit Bowman, but those aren't rookies.

i agree that is very well said. its almost the equivalent of getting a minor league card of griffey etc back in the late 80s. the prospect cards are worth alot more money but i dont consider it a rookie until it has rc logo on card for that year. machados rookie is 2013, the problem is they are overproducing this stuff and he has had cards for 3 years prior to playing in the majors...that is stupid imo. is a machado from 2012 a xps --extended prospect instead of xrc?

[JRMdawg311]

I think it's all a matter of your own personal preference. It seems that "prospect cards" hold a better value than "rookie cards." Specifically Bowman cards since that is the players first card in his parent clubs major league jersey.The best way to see this is to compare any stars Bowman Chrome auto to his Topps Chrome auto. Topps Chrome just takes a back seat to Bowman in my opinion.
Baseball is the only sport where highly touted prospects don't go straight to the professional level but have to build and prove their skills in the minors in order to have a chance to compete at the elite level (which to me makes me respect the sport even more).
Basically a player can't have a "rookie card" until he has played in a major league baseball game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookie_card ) which I agree with. Personally I like to collect both. I do agree that Topps is producing too many prospect cards for one player but the market is there and Topps wants to make its buck.

[mjmj1966]

Thanks everyone for the insight. Looks like I'll be holding on to the players prospect card through rookie card and let everything else go. Is it safe to assume that most prospects won't have a rookie card?

[rjcj2017]

Thanks everyone for the insight. Looks like I'll be holding on to the players prospect card through rookie card and let everything else go. Is it safe to assume that most prospects won't have a rookie card?

Yep ... still waiting for Tony Torcato (2001 Bowman) to bust through with the Giants!

[Gtbrian23]

Thanks everyone for the insight. Looks like I'll be holding on to the players prospect card through rookie card and let everything else go. Is it safe to assume that most prospects won't have a rookie card?

Prospects still have a rookie card, just not until they make it to the majors

[clarkzac]

Thanks everyone for the insight. Looks like I'll be holding on to the players prospect card through rookie card and let everything else go. Is it safe to assume that most prospects won't have a rookie card?

I'm confused by your question. If a prospect makes it to the big leagues, he will have a rookie card. Everything before that is considered a prospect card. Of course there are a lot of prospects that never make it to the big leagues, thus meaning that he will never have a rookie card, but he may have a prospect card made at some point

[chevy man 22]

For me I'm a Rc logo guy. That said I still put together the Bowman BP, BCP, BDPP sets just because they are neat and as others have stated some consider the early prospect cards of a potential superstar more valuable/desirable than their actual RC Logo card.

It's all in the preference of the collector. Most flippers prefer the prospect cards because they can easily flip them for a nice profit while hype is still driving prices. By the time a player reaches the big leagues their hype has pretty much peaked thus meaning top price has usually been reached and only drops from their unless they have a Mike Trout Rc season which 99% don't.