General Forum

I had heard awhile ago Rookie Cards, which are parallels such as Refractors or X-Factors do not count as RC's?  Is this accurate, it's only the card which is part of the main set? 

2014 Topps US-26a Mookie Betts RC 

2014 Topps US-26b Mookie Betts RC

Are both cards considered his RC? The b version has a higher BV than the a, same as Bogaerts card. I find the variations confusing.

Any Help is Welcome, Thanks Amy

Traditionally speaking, only a base card would be considered a true RC.  In your example of Betts, some might argue that the B version is not, because it is a short print.  Others would say it is, citing it is numbered in the regular set, and as far as I can tell, RCs in sets like 1969 Topps are considered RCs regardless of which variation you have.  Inserts and parallels are generally not considered a true RC, for reasons I cannot comprehend.

I guess I'm just as confused as you are, Amy.  And I've been doing this off-and-on since 1981!

#26a would be his RC Card while #26b is a Short-printed variation of his RC card. None of the parallels of either card would be a RC Card either. His only other Topps RC Card would be in Heritage (#558). I hope this helps.

Personally, I have always find this an oddity in the card world.  Why is a card that is issued in the first year that a player has a card issued not a RC no matter what the set, parallel or otherwise?  If it is the first year a player has a card issued, then it should be a RC (my opinion).  I am not sure who proclaimed themselves "God" and made these RC rules but I find it "stupid".

David & Sandy:

Im w you 2 too on this one, crazy about WHY short-prints and parallels don't "count" as RC's, when they are worth a lot more $$!! I have an X-Factor of Okajima 07 Bowman Chrome and I think he's valued at $20, but his regular issue is something $3.

Spazmatastic: Thanks for the info but I have all his versions 26a & 26b.

Amy

It used to be the first card issued, by a major manufacturer, in the base set, was considered an RC...I asked this question the other day here and a lot of questions were answered. I asked about Mike Piazzza and his 3 "RC's"...92 Bowman, base card, RC...His Fleer Update from a boxed set...? Still considered his RC...Donruss Phenoms insert..? Yep, RC...Now, some ont he thread said the Donruss card should not be considered an RC because it was an insert. The argument for the Fleer Update is simple. Enough of those sets have been broken up and is now readily available. I don't agree, but I don't control the hobby (Although, come on, it would be easier if I did...lol)...I believe his Bowman should be the only true RC because it is the only base set card issue...This goes for all RC's...Is it part of the base set...? Yes...? Then it should be his RC and that includes the short printed variations...The SP's are part of the base set, therefore...Sooo...I hope that I have happily muddled the waters for everyone...lol...Happy collecting...

I feel like the standard "Rookie Card" definition was created in the 60s or 70s, when there was only one set (or 2 if you consider OPC, which was essentially the same card but Canadian). They didn't want the definition to include food issues and oddball. The guy had one defined RC, because the league had one set. The definition never really adapted with the times. By "the times", I mean 1981.

Don't let others dictate your views in this arena.  There are definitely some rules nazi's out there that either refuse to, or just don't know how to, adapt to the modern hobby.  It's your hobby; own it.  The old rules nazi's will eventually die off.  I may be somewhat of a hobby traditionalist, but I'm not stuck in the mud neither.

To me, there can be first card rookies, brand rookies, and an assortment of all kinds of other types of rookies.  Let's take Ken Griffey Jr., for example.  To me, his rookie card is in the 1989 Topps Traded set.  I don't collect those other Post-Topps brands and would rather see them all disappear--poof.  1990 Topps was Griffey's 2nd card as far as I'm concerned.  There are plenty of people who disagree, but who cares--to each's own.  Call it RC, XRC, 1st Card, or whatever.  

Mickey Mantle--1951 Bowman or 1952 Topps?  I would call them both a RC, and be perfectly fine with that, although I'd give an edge to the Bowman card (I collect Pre-Topps brands too). 

Sammy Sosa has a 1990 Topps Debut '89 card with him wearing a Rangers uniform, which pre-dates his 1990 Topps White Sox RC.  This could've become a really big issue if Sosa's popularity didn't plummet like it did.  

I've have a hard time with Mariano Rivera's Topps rookie being in the 1995 Topps Traded and 1997 Topps sets so I went back and acquired his 1991 Procards, 1992 Bowman, 1993 Bowman, 1994 Classic, 1995 Bowman/Stadium Club, and 1996 Stadium Club Cards. 

The same thing goes for Alex Rodriguez's 1998 Topps card, which came out during his 5th year in the majors.  I found some 2005 Topps "reprints" for what his 1994-1997 Topps cards may have looked like and included them in their respective binders.  In terms of value, of course the 1998 Topps card would be worth more; but as a collector, I had to get his "1994-1997 Topps" cards.

         

Interesting concept, excluding post Topps brands. Following that logic across all sports would certainly make my life easier.

'92-'93 Topps basketball Michael Jordan as his RC would free up a lot of very pricey cards off my wish-list. No need to worry about a Tiger Woods RC, not likely to ever be one. Nah, not gonna happen for me. Topps might be king as far how some year's sets look, there's still some very nice stuff out there by the other guys.

It really all boils down to a personally choice, there's no right or wrong way to collect. It's when you start looking at price guides, or go to sell stuff is when it complicates things to be honest. That '51 Bowman Mantle is his RC, the '52 Topps is a 2nd year card, just my opinion.

Being able to shout rookie card of course makes a card worth more. Need to see if I can find a video of that loud-mouthed guy who used to be on one of the home shopping networks that sold cards late at night in the '90s. Everything was a rookie to him.

We really need a seperate note for "RC" cards and true rookie cards. For example, Mike Trout's 2011 Topps card has the "RC" logo on it, but his 2012 card is the true rookie card. Also, Manny Machado's 2013 Topps card has the "RC" logo, but technically his rookie card should have come out in 2012. I'm not quite sure about the relevance of this post to the discussion, but I just wanted to mention it because of how the two topics relate in the RC/Rookie card topic.