[zeprock]

Wow.
Doesn't anybody just collect for fun anymore?

[kerryandbeth]

Zeprock, I am with you on this one...they just need to "take it outside" or something. At the end of the day it is still a hobby, and I will sleep tonight whether a prospect or RC or pre-rookie or Donald Trump sells high or low!

[DrMitchJ]

Needless to say, some consistency amongst the companies would be nice, right?
I know a guy that only collects Rookie Cards of players, and he had this age-old problem waaaaay back when you didn't know if the Donruss, Fleer or Topps card was the 'true' RC.
Matter of fact, I remember pulling a Mattingly Topps RC only to have his Donruss card deemed his 'true' rookie card. Sure I was happy to get a cool RC card of my favorite player, but I still had another card to chase down for the collection if I wanted to, but I never did. I guess I was satisfied

[rjcj2017]

You're right that it's all a joke...the joke is on us. Topps can only sell so many MLB cards WHEN the player is IN the MLB, so they artificially extend the MLB-license to BEFORE the player is in the MLB to try to sell more. Doing so wreaks all sorts of havoc...and it should because it's not natural to have MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards...because pre-rookies aren't in the MLB and never were! There will never be consistency with MLB-licensed pre-rookies being issued.

The joke is having MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards to begin with and Topps having people buy BOTH MLB-licensed pre-rookies AND MLB-licensed rookies.

The only way to fix the hobby is to remove MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards. This has nothing to do with Beckett, but everything to do with the MLB & MLBPA which allow MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards.

Make all licensed pre-rookie cards look like Pro Debut. Stop dishonoring the minor leagues...doing so makes prospects less confusing. Yeah, Judge had cards back in 2013, but nobody knows what team roster he was on then.

MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards diminish the MLB, obviously the MLBPA hates MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards.

But it comes down to common sense: players just don't deserve MLB logos before playing a single MLB game. This is why RCs outsell pre-rookie cards. Autos are different because there are fewer of them, which makes it easier for investors to hoarde, diminish supply and make more expensive before anyone else knows about them.

From you:
"Go ahead and log onto eBay and tell me the selling prices for the 2013 Bowman
paper Aaron Judge card versus the 2017 Bowman paper Judge "rookie card."

Same player, same product ... but the 2013 Judge is selling for substantially more
than the 2017 Judge with the little RC logo on it.
Why?
Because the 2013 Judge came out when he was drafted and is considered his
rookie card, despite the lack of the little RC logo ... the 2017 is a fifth-year card!"

No, what you're saying is completely irrelevant, comparing apples to oranges. Obviously 2013 Bowman Judge outsells 2017 Bowman Judge because Bowman is bought for pre-rookies, not rookies. Specifically Bowman is bought for pre-rookie autos, people light matches to most anything Bowman without an auto. You say it yourself a bunch of times: you don't like "little logos"... ironic when you think about it since you rely on MLB logos on pre-rookie cards.

The question *should* be: how much would 2017 Bowman Judge sell for if there were no previously issued MLB pre-rookie Judge cards?? This is an ideal situation in an ideal, non-artificial world.

It's pretty well-established on major message boards that non-auto RCs from non prospect brands regularly outsell non-auto pre-rookies, even 1st bowman cards. I can send you links to threads if you want, not sure if the mods here allow links to other forums.

So...how do your several points work out when zero MLB-licensed pre-rookie cards are produced?

"No, what you're saying is completely irrelevant, comparing apples to oranges. Obviously 2013 Bowman Judge outsells 2017 Bowman Judge because Bowman is bought for pre-rookies, not rookies. Specifically Bowman is bought for pre-rookie autos, people light matches to most anything Bowman without an auto. You say it yourself a bunch of times: you don't like "little logos"... ironic when you think about it since you rely on MLB logos on pre-rookie cards."

Oh boy.

Since you're contradicting yourself, let's just concentrate on facts.

Non-auto Judge Bowman paper cards from 2013 far and away outsell non-auto Judge Bowman paper cards from 2017.

I would be happy to post a screen shot of all the completed sales on eBay for those cards.

When I'm talking about "little RC logos," I mean the irrelevant - to use your word - little red white and blue, home-plate shaped "RC" designation on Manny Machado's fourth-year cards in 2013 and Gary Sanchez and Miguel Sano's seventh-year cards in 2016.

Just because Topps tells me to believe that a fourth or seventh-year card is a RC because it has the little RC logo on it doesn't mean I do.

So to expand on your point, then we really shouldn't allow Panini to release, say, a Lonzo Ball Lakers basketball card in 2017-18 because he technically hasn't played a game for them yet.

Obviously he will play for them this year, so that one is fine.

But what about all the rookies who don't play a minute for the team that drafted them and play instead in the G-League?

What about all the late round NFL draft picks that they send to the rookie photo shoot as set fillers that either get cut before the season starts or spend the season on the practice squad?

You consider those RCs, right?

Even though they don't play for that team that season?

So are those pre-rookie cards? Or are they rookie cards?

---

Wow.
Doesn't anybody just collect for fun anymore?

Yes, Mark.

That's why it irritates me when someone takes time out of their day to rip one particular brand - over and over and over and over and over and over again - often "irrelevantly" to the topic at hand.

If you don't like a product ... wait for it ... don't buy it!

But please don't filibuster literally almost every rookie-oriented thread on this forum with the same tired analysis of the "pre-rookie" Bowman products.

If I want to buy minor league cards with minor league logos and really bad team names, I will.

But I don't, so I won't.

If I'm a Tigers fan and want Matt Manning's first cards in his Tigers uniform, then I will buy 2017 Bowman products and put all of his cards in rookie card toploaders.

Which I have.

If I pull a Manning "rookie card" three years from now, I will not put that fourth-year card in a "rookie card" toploader just because the Topps company or haters of Bowman products think I should.

I do, however, enjoy the hobby immensely ... that's why I was thrilled to add an oil-stained Steve Hendrickson rookie card to my collection from our last trade.

(Was it oil? I'm just guessing.)

That card wouldn't sell for a dime and it is one of my favorite cards in my collection.

So yes, I do collect for fun, always.

---

Needless to say, some consistency amongst the companies would be nice, right?
I know a guy that only collects Rookie Cards of players, and he had this age-old problem waaaaay back when you didn't know if the Donruss, Fleer or Topps card was the 'true' RC.
Matter of fact, I remember pulling a Mattingly Topps RC only to have his Donruss card deemed his 'true' rookie card. Sure I was happy to get a cool RC card of my favorite player, but I still had another card to chase down for the collection if I wanted to, but I never did. I guess I was satisfied

Wow, Doc.

The "true rookie card" is an even dumber discussion than this pre-rookie thing, which I didn't think was possible.

I double checked those Harpers and I have two of the base, one WalMart blue and one gold numbered out of 2012.

Crazy prices!

I'm thinking of selling them so I can buy some even better pre-rookie cards!

---

Zeprock, I am with you on this one...they just need to "take it outside" or something. At the end of the day it is still a hobby, and I will sleep tonight whether a prospect or RC or pre-rookie or Donald Trump sells high or low!

And you're welcome for someone finally saying something about it.

Whenever I've seen post after post after post after post after post after post about the pre-rookie thing, I quit looking at and reading that particular thread.

Not good for the boards for people to quit reading and looking at threads.

But I've said way more than enough, and honestly have no problem with any other members, despite how it may sound, and I pre-emptively apologize if I've been too strong on this.

I agree 100 percent with the idea that the joke is on us.

Topps slaps that stupid RC logo on cards to try to make people forget that a guy like Judge has had cards out for five years now.

Some people buy into it, some don't.

[DrMitchJ]

Hey RJ, Re: Aaron Judge ... I have his 2014 Inception card, his 2015 Inception card and his 2016 Inception card. I thought Bowman Inception was their 'High End" prospect product? Do they Really need to 'introduce' him as a prospect 3 years in a row? The industry needs some rules and regulations to follow in order to standardize 1) what is a prospect 2) what parameters determines Rookie status as it pertains to cards.
Sure, playing devils advocate, its hard to predict 3 months before a card release who is going to make it through spring training and onto the team ... but ... that's why there were 'series' releases throughout the year and an update after the season concluded.

So, a true RC designation should not be on a card until after they've played in the Majors
I have no problem calling US183 a Harper RC, but that being said, his ASG card (US299?) released at the same time in the same set, should also be a RC. IMO

[rjcj2017]

Hey RJ, Re: Aaron Judge ... I have his 2014 Inception card, his 2015 Inception card and his 2016 Inception card. I thought Bowman Inception was their 'High End" prospect product? Do they Really need to 'introduce' him as a prospect 3 years in a row? The industry needs some rules and regulations to follow in order to standardize 1) what is a prospect 2) what parameters determines Rookie status as it pertains to cards.
Sure, playing devils advocate, its hard to predict 3 months before a card release who is going to make it through spring training and onto the team ... but ... that's why there were 'series' releases throughout the year and an update after the season concluded.

So, a true RC designation should not be on a card until after they've played in the Majors
I have no problem calling US183 a Harper RC, but that being said, his ASG card (US299?) released at the same time in the same set, should also be a RC. IMO

Agreed.

The easiest solution would be - as it is in all other sports - that a RC is a player's first (and only) base card in a licensed and nationally distributed set.

So if there are Series 2 or Update cards of the same player, they are not considered RCs.

(I.e., Harper 2012 Update cards, cough, cough. So don't do any more stupid crap like short printing his actual RC in a different series. So if it's a timing issue and you don't want to wait for the update series or whatever, insert a PUC code/wrapper redemption/instruction/coupon card into every blaster or box or whatever so that everybody has the same and legitimate chance to add one to their collection.)

Topps, if it still wants to, can slap that little RC logo on that one card ... so can Bowman, so can Panini if it ever gets the full license, etc.

Or, hey, just go back to what they used to do ... give the guy his first card the year after his debut ... problem solved!

[pjrussell529]

Anyone else really want that LC(last card) designation?

But then I guess we would have 10 Brett Favre LC cards and we don't need that.

Collect what you want, call it what you want but JUST HAVE FUN!