Posted By | Message |
jasongerman9
Posts: 1,902
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Sunday, September 24, 2017 9:22 PM | |
Three of the last four cards in this base set are of football coaches (Harbaugh, Sparano, and Smith). Both our site and COMC list these as Coach cards (obviously) and as rookie cards. Just wondering why this is so? I'm guessing it's their first issued cards, but to me I would think only players would receive a rookie card. Additionally, all three of them have flagship Bowman base card from the same year that are not listed as a rookie on here. So should it be listed as one? If yes, why should it be (more for my own curiousity)!
-------------------------------
I'll never quit collecting entirely, but I am downsizing. Check out my COMC store and help me thin out what I don't want so I can buy cards that I do want. See something you like? Send me a message on here, and we can knock the price down quite a bit. I'll even take a bit of a loss if it means getting you a card you really want.
|
|
|
|
ShoTime
Posts: 318
Joined: Mar 2015
|
Sunday, September 24, 2017 9:47 PM | |
My two cents. They shouldn't be, they're coaches.
Same goes for Jim Leyland's 1987 Topps card too.
-------------------------------
CJF, from the middle of nowhere. Hiya buddies!
|
|
|
|
trauty
Posts: 228
Joined: Nov 2016
|
Sunday, September 24, 2017 10:17 PM | |
If it's their 1st mainstream card, then, yeah, rookie card is appropriate even if that is usually reserved for young players. And both the Bowman and Bowman Chrome should be RC's. My opinion anyway.
|
|
|
|
ranfordfan
Posts: 4,975
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 6:36 AM | |
Interesting question, I would say no RC designation, this is reserved for players. What if the coach was a player does he get a RC for playing and an RC for coaching. Not likely but you see my point? I say keep it for the players on the feild, diamond, ice, pitch, etc.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
jasongerman9
Posts: 1,902
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 6:37 AM | |
I mean, I could see it both ways. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be, but a first card is a first card. Funny this comes up when someone asked the same question about the trainer on the RCotD!
-------------------------------
I'll never quit collecting entirely, but I am downsizing. Check out my COMC store and help me thin out what I don't want so I can buy cards that I do want. See something you like? Send me a message on here, and we can knock the price down quite a bit. I'll even take a bit of a loss if it means getting you a card you really want.
|
|
|
|
ShoTime
Posts: 318
Joined: Mar 2015
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 7:24 AM | |
As a side note, the rookie cards in the set have the "RC" designation on them by Topps, while those coach cards do not have these. For whatever that's worth.
-------------------------------
CJF, from the middle of nowhere. Hiya buddies!
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,954
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 7:56 AM | |
I guess it depends if we are trying to reflect the hobby or redefine the hobby.
What's the TCDB's purpose?
(And yes, I'm leaving that purposely open-ended. Let's discuss.)
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|
Vvvergeer
Posts: 2,058
Joined: Jan 2014
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 8:08 AM | |
I don't feel very strongly about it, but I'm leaning against coaches getting a "rookie" designation. I echo the question of the earlier commenter: what if the coach was a player? Before I looked at the cards, when the initial poster said "Harbaugh," I thought Jim, rather than John. And I thought, "He surely has numerous cards from his years with the Bears, so how can this be a rookie card?" So, yes, the prospect of two "rookie" cards -- one for playing and one for coaching -- puts me in the no "rookie" designation for coaches and managers camp.
v3
|
|
|
|
captkirk42
Posts: 2,269
Joined: May 2011
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 8:34 AM | |
IN General I say yes the RC designation for a COACH is sort of silly since many coaches (not all) were previously players and one would think that they had a card at one time. HOWEVER it does seem appropriate for these coaches who had NOT been players. If it is truely their first card ever then make it their "Rookie" card. Now if one of those guys had had a card in a non-sport set from whatever it was they did before landing the coaching gig then NO.
-------------------------------
I collect: Baseball, Football, Hockey, Mostly Vintage pre1980, My Homie teams - Washington/Baltimore Teams Senators (Twins, Rangers), Expos/Nationals, Redskins, Capitals, Bullets/Wizards - HOFers - Non-sport (mostly TV shows and movies). My Trade List is very much a work in progress CaptKirk42s Trading Card Blog Curly W Cards Strive For '65 YouTube klandersen42
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,954
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Monday, September 25, 2017 8:44 AM | |
RC for these guys too: LINK ?
(Yes, I'm going to argue for both sides in this one to make us all think.)
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|