[pjrussell529]

I don't believe the worst part is the rookie designation as it is actually accurate. The BIG problem is the stupid airbrushing of MLB uniforms on players that may never wear that uniform. Dansby Swanson will possibly never wear a Dbacks uniform. I used to buy Bowman but I decided I would much rather buy Heritage Minors or Pro Debut because they have actually had those uniforms on. No more Bowman products for me.

It really depends on how you look at it. There is no right or wrong to it. Personally I don't consider his Oakland A's Bowman cards his "RC" because his MLB debut or rookie year was with Chicago. But hey that's just me, make a rookie whatever you want(first MiLB or MLB card), it's your card.

And to OP's suggestion certain cards aren't worth anything, if someone bought a card for $100 then it is worth $100 to you. And the Mattingly/ Sano comparison is not even close to accurate because Mattingly had actually taken AB's for the Yankees while Sano had not.

I think the way they define RC is fine just stop with stupid airbrushing and it will work itself out.

[scottbdoug]

I wrote this a while ago in another forum...

I never figured out why anyone cared about a player's rookie card. Do you?

Let me explain what I mean...

From my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the rookie card was just an artificial distinction created to tell people what card was the player's first card once baseball cards became more set and yearly oriented (after WWII).

The RC designation and the FC (first card) designation were synonymous. When you found a player's FC is invariably was also his RC. In fact, if you collected a player's cards the RC designation was not very important at all. All the pre-war cards had no RC designation yet we still looked for the player's first card. What everyone was looking for was a player's card that came out first.If it got an RC designation so be it, it didn't change the fact that you were looking for the player's first card.

Now jump ahead and it seemed there was some kind of importance to know whether a player's FC was also his RC. With extended sets, Traded, Rookie, etc. in the 80s the RC designation became blurry. Was a player's card put out the year before in a Topps Traded, or Fleer Update set considered the player's RC? Then years later, with Topps using the Bowman brand to put out cards of A,AA,AAA players before they even had an AB in the majors and Fleer and Upper Deck putting out their Minor league sets (Excel and UD Minors), the clarity of what an RC is became even cloudier.

But who cares? Why all the fuss? I think, as well as many other collectors, couldn't give two shits on whether a card is considered the player's RC or not. What I care about is whether is is his FC.

A card, that is not a minor league card, A card that is put out by one of the major card manufacturers, The card that came out first in a given year. That is the card I want. So i don't care if McGwire's team USA card is considered his RC or not, it is his first card, and that is why I want it. I don't care if Puckett's '84 Fleer Update card is his RC or XRC, it is his first card, so I want it. The list goes on and on. If Topps put out a player's card in one of its 10 million mainstream sets it puts out each year, and one of them has a player who doesn't reach the majors until 5 years later, well I want that card not the 5 years later card.

How about you?

So who cares about whether a card is considered an RC. It's the first card that most collectors want. All the discussion, argument, rules for placing an RC logo on a card etc etc etc... pointless. Give me a guys first card and leave it at that.

[oneofakindcards]

The term 'first card' does not imply anything about a license, it makes sense that MiLB and MLB cards equally apply here. 'Pre-rookie' also applies here.

"Rookie card" naturally correlates with a player's rookie season, of course this means major league first season. Given the MLB correlation, this term always implies having a MLB license.

The reason why nobody thought of using the term 'rookie card' before WWII is because there were more unaffiliated leagues back then. Further, it's not like everyone knew if a card of player X had been released previously in another set 100 years ago - it's not like there was an internet back then to look things up!

[randall44]

I collect RC's of HOFer's, so I have done a good bit of looking for some of the more obscure HOF players. I find it interesting that George High Pockets Kelly played from 1915-1932, and his designated RC is 1940 Playball. I also wish they would designate RC's for managers so that for Joe Torre for example who was elected to the HOF as a manger I could get a manager RC, not his 1962 Topps. Also, of the 319 members of the HOF, 220 former major league players, only 170 have a designated RC. Why can't the other players have designated RC's? Most have cards present in well known sets (Old Judge, Allen and Ginter, T206) why not designate these as RC's?

[rmpaq5]

I don't believe the worst part is the rookie designation as it is actually accurate. The BIG problem is the stupid airbrushing of MLB uniforms on players that may never wear that uniform.

I think the way they define RC is fine just stop with stupid airbrushing and it will work itself out.

Aren't most cases of Bowman Draft/Prospects etc...pics from Spring Training Workouts, not airbrushing?

I know off topic from the whole RC thing (which by the way my 2 cents, I don't care. That is not to put anyone down who does, but my collecting focus is team based, and I want it if it is a Tiger and I don't have it. Be it a RC, colour parallel, insert, printing plate, or food issue junk from 1992.
The whole Rookie Card mess, IMO, began in the 90s. It seems that they would plaster the word Rookie Card on everything of a players for the first few years of his career. Head shots before he took an at bat, a year in the minors, sure just use a Spring Training Picture, and then finally the year he plays in the majors his rookie card!!! And then of course the next year he gets "All-star Rookie" written all over his cards. Or "Future Rookie Great." It all comes from the overproduced greed of the 90s.

[oneofakindcards]

Aren't most cases of Bowman Draft/Prospects etc...pics from Spring Training Workouts, not airbrushing?

My favorite Bowman photoshop/airbrush card, LOL:

[pjrussell529]

Aren't most cases of Bowman Draft/Prospects etc...pics from Spring Training Workouts, not airbrushing?

I know off topic from the whole RC thing (which by the way my 2 cents, I don't care. That is not to put anyone down who does, but my collecting focus is team based, and I want it if it is a Tiger and I don't have it. Be it a RC, colour parallel, insert, printing plate, or food issue junk from 1992.
The whole Rookie Card mess, IMO, began in the 90s. It seems that they would plaster the word Rookie Card on everything of a players for the first few years of his career. Head shots before he took an at bat, a year in the minors, sure just use a Spring Training Picture, and then finally the year he plays in the majors his rookie card!!! And then of course the next year he gets "All-star Rookie" written all over his cards. Or "Future Rookie Great." It all comes from the overproduced greed of the 90s.

Many of the Bowman are most likely from spring training. I'm talking more about Bowman Draft Draft picks released in December. Most certainly those are photoshoped.

Either way I collect similar to you with my focus on Red Sox but only MLB Sox. I'll pick up or move into my PC a Bowman card once they get an AB for the Sox. Honestly I could not care less if it's a "RC" or not. I personally enjoy Xander Bogaerts Portland(AA) cards more than any Bowman prospect cards. But what do I know I think superfractors are tacky looking lol.

[scottbdoug]

I collect RC's of HOFer's, so I have done a good bit of looking for some of the more obscure HOF players. I find it interesting that George High Pockets Kelly played from 1915-1932, and his designated RC is 1940 Playball. I also wish they would designate RC's for managers so that for Joe Torre for example who was elected to the HOF as a manger I could get a manager RC, not his 1962 Topps. Also, of the 319 members of the HOF, 220 former major league players, only 170 have a designated RC. Why can't the other players have designated RC's? Most have cards present in well known sets (Old Judge, Allen and Ginter, T206) why not designate these as RC's?

Rookie card had no meaning previous to the Bowman releases in the 40s. They did as u are implying, put the rookie card designation on cards after the fact. Because no one had any concept of a "Rookie Card".

When people spoke about rookie cards back in the post WWII time period, they actually meant the player's first card. That is because the player was only featured on a card in his rookie season. So when a person said, "Man I really want Yogi Berra's rookie card, they were really saying they wanted his first card. That is why when people search for, say, a Roger Clemens card, they always choose his 1984 Fleer Update card, over his 1985 rookie cards. Same with Bonds, Puckett, and McGwire, all who had cards issued previous to their rookie cards. That's why the RC designation is mostly an irrelevant designation. Most collectors want a player's first card, they say rookie card, because they, out of habit, or assumption, think that when they say rookie card they are meaning the player's first card.

[oneofakindcards]

Rookie card had no meaning previous to the Bowman releases in the 40s. They did as u are implying, put the rookie card designation on cards after the fact. Because no one had any concept of a "Rookie Card".

When people spoke about rookie cards back in the post WWII time period, they actually meant the player's first card. That is because the player was only featured on a card in his rookie season. So when a person said, "Man I really want Yogi Berra's rookie card, they were really saying they wanted his first card. That is why when people search for, say, a Roger Clemens card, they always choose his 1984 Fleer Update card, over his 1985 rookie cards. Same with Bonds, Puckett, and McGwire, all who had cards issued previous to their rookie cards. That's why the RC designation is mostly an irrelevant designation. Most collectors want a player's first card, they say rookie card, because they, out of habit, or assumption, think that when they say rookie card they are meaning the player's first card.

If the bolded part were true then then Topps Debut, Razor Prospects, Heritage Minor League and Elite would all be in as much or in greater demand than any of the MLB-licensed cards of any player yet to make the majors, but they're not.

[scottbdoug]

If the bolded part were true then then Topps Debut, Razor Prospects, Heritage Minor League and Elite would all be in as much or in greater demand than any of the MLB-licensed cards of any player yet to make the majors, but they're not.

a first card is not a minor league card