What's your definition of a baseball player's rookie card? Is it the player's first appearance on a trading card? Does it have to be part of a widely distributed product? Does he have to be wearing his MLB uniform?
These are questions that I'm still pondering after thirty plus years in this hobby. But one thing is for certain. These two cards aren't rookie cards:
1995 UC3 #101 1996 Select Certified #100
But I'm pretty certain, most of us will agree that these two cards are NOT their rookie cards. Yet Pinnacle clearly printed ROOKIE on them.
But enough is enough. Today... I'm declaring shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!
It's bad enough that there are already too many ways to define a rookie card, but the fact that there are wannabe rookie cards floating around our hobby is just too much.
I apologize for my little hissy fit... but I'm just wondering how many people have been duped into thinking they were purchasing a rookie card, when they're really purchasing a third year issue.
Happy Sunday and sayonara!
8 comments:
I look at it as a player's first appearance in a mainstream set...Topps, UD, etc. I don't consider unlicensed brands true RCs. That's just me though.
There's a South Park reference for just about everything, which is fantastic.
I am with The Lost Collector, the first time that a player appears on a main set is their rookie card. Baseball makes it so difficult due to the length a player can be in the minors before hit the big leagues and getting their first cards. It does not help with multiple minor league sets being released, a player can have a handful of minor league cards before they ever play for the parent club.
That's the definition I grew up using and still use.
You make a great point... rookie cards definitely have lost their luster to an extent... which I think is sort of sad. I grew up in an era where rookie cards dominated, so if collectors dropped the term Rookie Card, I'd be devastated.
Lol. Very true. Shenanigans is definitely my "go to". I've used it a couple of times now.
It's the same definition I use as well. But since you brought up the minor league issue... do you think a player should be pictured in his MLB uniform on his rookie card? Or will any appearance (ex. minor league) in a mainstream set work?
You mean a 2010 Michael Young in a top loader marked ROOKIE isn't really a rookie card? Kidding, as my oldest son recycled a bunch of my old top loaders and stucka bunch of Rangers in them. He doesen't care...so I guess I don't either!
Post a Comment