General Forum

Okay, so I am sure this topic has probably been discussed in great length, but I am fairly new to being back in the hobby.  I am curious as to what people's thoughts are when it relates to certain aspects of rookie cards.  Now, I am well familiar with the rules of what a true rookie card is, but some things still seem a little strange to me as far as the logic.

Example 1: Parallel Cards

I know that a parallel card can't be an actual rookie card, but how do most collector's classify these cards?  I would think that people still consider these rookies, even though they may not have the actual designation.  Wouldn't this silver parallel be more sought after by collectors as a rookie card than the base version considering it should be harder to find?

Example 2: Autos and Mem

On this same note, a card with a piece of jersey or autograph is also not considered a rookie card.  Again, wouldn't most collector's be more interested in having one of these cards as a rookie card vs just a base card from a checklist?  

Example 3:  Insert Sets

Here are two cards of a couple stars from their rookie year of cards.  Of course, neither of these cards are rookie cards but wouldn't you think that these cards would be more highly regarded than just the standard base card considering they are harder to pull?  I think even the sale values of these cards are less than the actual RC.  I am pretty sure Panini even puts the RC badge on their insert cards now

Example 4:  Topps can't make up their mind

Okay this one really gets me.  You would think by now that a company like Topps would know the deal with what is considered a RC in the hobby.  Yet they continue to use the RC badge on cards that the hobby does not consider rookie cards.  Because Topps does this, it makes me question the validity of the whole system.  The card above of Michael Fulmer, is not his actual RC.  However, this card has the official RC badge on it.  The other card of Aledmys Diaz is also a card from his rookie year, but Topps has no RC badge on this one.  I assume this is because it is an All Star Game type card?  

Basically I am just curious as to what people's thoughts are on "rookie" cards and the whole system that determines what is and what is not actually a rookie.

on the 2016 diaz card, there are two in this set, one from all star game and one 'regular' rc

fyi

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/128930/cid/9142507/2016-Topps-Update-US44-Aledmys-Diaz

I see where it can be very confusing sometimes...

mark 

The RC Note is one of the more confusing ones in the hobby imho and I'd prefer that it not be such a big deal to so many collectors, but you play the cards you're dealt. The TCBD addresses rookie cards to some degree in Rule VII of the site's Rules and Guidelines for Note and Glossary Entries, but the details on what cards qualify for the RC Note are sport-specific and not covered in detail:

 http://www.tradingcarddb.com/Docs/Revised%20Rules%20and%20Guidelines%20Final%20Draft.pdf

Topps went crazy with the RC logos this past season, they put a RC logo on almost every single Judge and Bellinger card. With me, I consider the first card of a young player in a set to be their true rookie card as well as any parallels of that first card.

I've always been curious why there has to be only one true rookie card. Or even a standard definition for a rookie card. Take, for instance, Lou Piniella. He has three rookie cards. 1964 Topps (Senators), 1968 Topps (Indians), and 1969 (Pilots) I consider each one a rookie card, simply because it says "Rookie" on the card. It wasn't until 1970 Topps that he got a card of his own with the rookie trophy.

My definition of a "Rookie" card is if the card says "Rookie" on it. If it is the players first Topps card (and doesn't say rookie on it), then I call it their "First Topps Card". Their first Panini card is their "First Panini Card". You get the idea.

Bottom line, there is no standard definition for a rookie card. Each collector sets their own definition - especially if they collect rookie cards.

Personally I collect complete sets. What is the definition of a complete set? It's quite different today than it was in 1964, 1968, or 1969. But that's a discussion for another day.

Jay

The Kawhi and Klay you show aren't even rookie season cards. Panini decided not to bother issuing rookie cards in 2011-12, even though with a 66 game season, they had plenty of time to get photos and create the cards once the lockout ended. 

I'm not sure why/how it got to be base only being RC. I have been in the hobby since players didn't get cards until their second season, and inserts were rare and limited to superstars. But I don't remember how the rule came to be. 

I suspect part of it may be that not every parallel or insert includes every player, and back in those days set collecting was king, so it was possibly the only way to get all the rookies in one set. 

I, personally, only consider it a rookie card if it was issued during the first pro season and is a single card of the player- multiplayer cards, team cards, etc don't count. That means many players before 1989 don't have any actual rookie cards, but I also consider it minutiae and don't really care. In my Excel chart for my collection I have the player's first NBA season listed, and it has nothing to do with when they first got a card. 

Topps just goes hog wild with that logo lately. Even Topps Now cards get it.  I'm with Billy though. Really isn't relevant to me.  This site is really useful to let you know when a guy's first card was printed.  The RC designation was necessary in a magazine, where you couldn't click on a printed word to see if a guy had older cards.  If a guy gets a RC-logo card in 2018, but I know he had bowman cards in 2015, I'm more inclined to want the older ones.

They did the same thing with Mancini. I do agree that the parallel versions and any variations of a RC would be and are more valuable/sought after than the normal RC.

I think the "RC" madness began back in the '90s.  With the dawn of parallels (Topps Gold) & the glut of "fake" first-card appearances (broder cards), people in the hobby felt the need to define one card as the "true" rookie card.

It's ridiculous now to emblazon every first-year issue card of a player with the "RC" tag.  When a draft-day bust gets over 200 different cards produced of them in their first year - complete with on-sticker autographs, "event-used" clothing, etc. - it certainly cheapens the prestige of being a rookie card.

As for value... beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  A no-frills base card "rookie" has the nostalgic appeal, while the rarer variants - with all their bells & whistles - certainly command a higher price tag on the open market.

Funny to read this thread as all I see is Baseball and Basketball and Topps mentioned. Let us move on to the important one now eh? =D In hockey it all about UD, the Young Guns cards are the most "obvious" of the RCs every year. I myself use them as my standard RCs. Each set has RCs of course but the standard is the UD YG. As for auto and mem cards, the rule in hockey is if the card is part of the regular run of the set, meaning one of the lets say 250 cards it counts as a RC. Even cards with a SN count. So in sets such as SP Authentic, SPx, Game Used and so on, the SP cards at the back end of the set still get the RC designation. Parallels do not get a RC designation but are still hot commodities on the open market. Just go take a peek at a few Crosby or McDavid cards from their rookie years and then tell me parallels don't bring dollars!