General Forum

...That is the question. Back in the day, an RC was a players card from a base set.  Not a boxed set, not cards put out 3 to 4 years before said players major league debut. When and why did this change? I think it started around the time Mike Piazza's RC hit the market. His only base set RC was 1992 Bowman. His Fleer Update was only included in a box set, and his Donruss Rookie Phenom was an insert set. But all three are considered his RC when in fact his only true RC would be the 92 Bowman.  

Okay...sorry for the mini rant but dangit, it's been bugging me. Corey Seagar has 750 cards int eh date base, dating back to 2012, but only 2015 issues are considered his RC's....

WTH...?

It did used to be a bit more simple. A RC had to be a base card, pack inserted, and be licensed by whatever league that player was in.

Minor leagues were considered pre-rookie cards. Then there was the XRC, in case of an update boxed set, or the Star team sets of the '80s for the NBA. Though I'm more inclined to consider those true rookies myself, always hated that term.

Sports Illustrated For Kids has had a bunch of first cards which a lot of people consider rookie cards, and in some cases may be the only card someone may have for a long time, or their only one. I never considered them for a long time, as they were sheets, and had perfs. They grew on me over the years, but I still hate the thin stock.

The term is greatly misused. A lot of sellers love to use the tag, and the average person will most likely call any card a baseball card no mater the subject, and most will call any card a "rookie card" in an attempt to make it more desirable. A guy I work with was telling me about some cards he inherited, he was calling them all that, which I highly doubt many are.

First off Doc...I DIG YOUR SIGN OFF...Greatest baseball movie speech ever...A guy can have 200 cards before he actually gets a "RC"...For me, that just waters down the excitement of the "RC"... 1993, Jerome Bettis had 46 cards released, which, at that time was a record for Rookies (I believe, not sure, feel free to correct me)...Now a player can have 46 cards IN A SET! It makes collecting one player almost impossible...I have over 600 different Mike piazza cards, and thanks to TCDB (shameful Mick Foley plug) I'm not anywhere close to collecting all of his cards...600 cards used to be a set...I am not complaining, because this just takes collecting to a whole new level, but wow...just...wow...But I think there needs to be a designation for a true "RC"...It makes the chase that much more fun for us...and collecting is for us, not the player...And just where does the collecting community stand on the Mike Piazza RC's...Since it is a boxed set, Fleer Update, and an insert set, Donruss Phenoms, is the 1992 Bowman truely  Piazza's only true RC...? 1986 Donruss Barry Bonds is an XRC...Kinda along the same lines, yes...?

Just read your reply Bob, or I would have said something sooner. Anyhow, I would consider the '92 Fleer U-92 Piazza to be a RC, even though it does break the rule of being from a factory set. For one, enough time has passed for there to be singles floating around without having to bust up a set. Not looked in a long time for what one is worth, as I never tried to collect his cards. but I do recall there being quite a bit of buzz about him and that set back then. I'd certainly grab one if it came along at bargain price though.

The '92 Bowman makes it an even easier choice, IMO. As then it's not his "only MLB card" that year. The BC from the Donruss set is a little tricker, but if I was collecting him, would want it to go along with my collection, and probably would be looking at all the minor league cards too.

Odd he got looked over for so many sets that year. Might take a look at his stats, and maybe start getting some of his better early cards, if they are not too high.

Bonds, well I'd consider that XRC his RC too. Again there's a lot of those floating around single now.

All of this, in part, is why I've cared less about rookie cards as the years go by. There was something cool about knowing a guy became a hall of famer and finding some 20 year old card that talks about him as a solid prospect who hit a game winning double on August 19 against the Cubs. 

There is something decidedly less cool about having one of twenty cards that companies put out hoping a kid would succeed -- future star, rookie, prospect, first year, coming attractions, six grade phenoms,  whatever else. And not having any real hope of knowing which company got the card out first. 

I give up and don't much care. Now I prefer a third year card from a set that looks cool. Something that show a young slugger just beginning to show potential, a pitcher finally finding control and getting his era under 3.00, those things. 

Just another example of the hobby trying too hard and mucking it up. 

Ok, I'm done now. 

V3

This reminds me of conversations from my youth about Dale Murphy's 1978 Topps card, and if a player could technically have a rookie card in consecutive sets. Personally, I think a RC should reflect a player's first MLB season, and should not be focused so much on the year, but more on player's time in the big leagues. Mike Piazza only played a handful of games in 1992, but he was still considered a rookie in 1993. Yes, the '92 Bowman is Piazza's rookie card, but I think the '93 Upper Deck should be considered one as well. It may not be as desirable as the Bowman, but it's still his first appearance in an major set during a year he was not just a rookie, but the 1993 Rookie of the Year! I don't see how that can't be reflected in the major sets just because Bowman got him in the year before.

All very valid points. But if it's a player you really like, aren't you going to try to get ALL of their cards anyway? No small feat, even for someone who plays a very short time.

For me, I mainly look at what I consider "key" cards of a certain player, this could span their entire career, from college, minors, pros, until long after they retire. I'll have to come back to this later, getting late.

This is a really complicated subject and has been contested since the 1980's. I will chime in only about the Piazza cards. His 1992 Bowman and Fleer Update cards should both be RC's as they are his 1st card by either manufacturer. The Donruss Phenoms card is an insert card and is NOT a RC card. RC's can not be a parallel or insert card. That has long been the thinking in the hobby. I also think that any first base/update cards by a major manufacturer/brand should be a RC card (adding the 1993 UD and Ultra cards as RC's b/c he was not in the sets in 1992). MLB tried to clear this up in the late-90's, but Topps muddied that up by doing "1st Year" card designations in the Bowman sets. These days, it really doesn't matter what is a true RC card. You want the first cards released AND the cards released for their first year in MLB. I have several examples on my thinking here, but I will use only one right now. In NASCAR, the first major release was 1988 Maxx Racing. Many of the cards are considered RC's even though most of the driver's had been racing for 6+ years in the top Series. Mark Martin's RC card is in that set and he had been racing in the Cup Series since 1981! It's all subjective.

All very valid points and I do appreciate the chatter on the RC designation. Did the players association have anything to do with the RC card? Meaning, a player wasn't allowed to have a card called his RC until he was on the acive roster? Or do I have that all messed up...?

Double post...