Mark Trumbo Forum

Only RC's are autograph cards from 6 years before his MLB debut?

I'm curious, how do people feel about stuff like this?

 His 2011 Bowman card is beautiful, I was a little disappointed when I saw it may not be considered an RC.

If someone could point me to a link or perhaps previous threads where the RC criteria being used on this site is discussed I'd really appreciate it.   

Thanks!

https://www.tcdb.com/FAQ.cfm?ITEM=RC

Since he had base cards in two major releases in 2004, that's his RC year. Inserts/parallels don't get RC notation.

Thanks BigEd,  

I believe that those are his RCs.  However, just to clarify, the main reason why I started this thread was I am curious about what people think of the criteria  being used in situations like this.   Agree with?  Disagree?  Wish could be different?

I really am not a fan of the whole 6 years before MLB debut thing.  Even moreso, having to hunt down an autographed serial numbered card in order to get a players RC seems a bit much.  Considering an autographed serial numbered card a "base" card in a major release also seems a bit too much. 

Anyhow, just curious of other's opinions on this matter.  

MLB did change the rules for what qualifies as a rookie card around 2005/2006. These 6 years before a debut and RCs for players who never set foot on a major league diamond during the regular season type things are no more.

That's definitely good news.  However, it seems we have a choice here.  What rule, new or old, do we apply to Trumbo?  His new rule rookie card is 2011, which is after 05/06.  But his old rule RC is 2004, before 05/06.  If the new rule is an improvement do you think we should use the new rule in cases like this where there is this ambiguity?

vrooomed wrote:

MLB did change the rules for what qualifies as a rookie card around 2005/2006. These 6 years before a debut and RCs for players who never set foot on a major league diamond during the regular season type things are no more.

chvlDm wrote:

Thanks BigEd,  

I believe that those are his RCs.  However, just to clarify, the main reason why I started this thread was I am curious about what people think of the criteria  being used in situations like this.   Agree with?  Disagree?  Wish could be different?

I really am not a fan of the whole 6 years before MLB debut thing.  Even moreso, having to hunt down an autographed serial numbered card in order to get a players RC seems a bit much.  Considering an autographed serial numbered card a "base" card in a major release also seems a bit too much. 

Anyhow, just curious of other's opinions on this matter.  

We take the rule that was in effect for the first instance of a rookie card. We don't retroactively apply the rules. If it was considered a rookie cards in 2004, it's still the RC.

The various 2011 Trumbo cards:  Topps Flagship, Topps Chrome, Bowman, Finest,

all have the Topps brand "RC" on them, based on the fact that Topps came to an agreement with MLB in 2005 to restrict inclusion of minor leaguers into the flafship brands, and use of the RC logo to actual major leaguers.

TCDb has its "rules" for what is an RC, that doesn't mean an RC collector must follow those rules for what the collector considers an RC in their PC of RC's

That 2004 Trumbo is really his "first card," [prospect card / draft pick card] IMO, and not his RC, IMO, but I don't make the TCDb rules.

and now Topps throws that RC logo on cards that aren't RCs

What is your example of them putting the RC tag on players that haven't debuted in MLB or met the official criteria?

2020 notwithstanding since it was obviously not a normal year.

Off the top of my head, they've put the logo on inserts and parallels