1993 Donruss Baseball Forum

Is #723 Chipper Jones a true Rookie card?   There are pros and cons, and I would like to hear others' reasons pro and con.

I think it is because

1) I  own a copy (yes, I am biased!)

2) It is Donruss' first issue for the player's major league debut.

Thanks,

Eaglet

1991 was the year of Chipper's RCs - Bowman, OPC, Score, Topps, & Upper Deck. Just because Donruss missed the boat for 2 years doesn't make their 1993 issue a RC.

Succinctly put. I think. 

No not a RC, but in some circles would be considered FC issue by the maker.

This somewhat has me confused since there addition of so many companies and brands to the mix.  Would it not be considered his Donruss rookie?  I get that the he has other rookie cards in 1991.  I guess 1991 would be his earliest cards, but what makes a rookie card a rookie card.  Is it some metric on games played?  If Bowman releases a Draft card for some 19 year old kid and he makes it to the majors 5 years later and all the other card companies put out a rookie card, is it not a rookie card cause Bowman beat them to the punch 5 years earlier?  Is there a difference between 1st card and rookie card?  If a player plays 4 years before any card company issues him a card, then is that a rookie card, or just a 1st card.

Not trying to be thick, but I actually have wondered this a few times over the years.  Seems like a good place to ask the question.

Muskie - good questions. I'll try to cover them all.

There is no such thing as a company-specific RC. As Bob mentioned, some people will call certain cards their first card of that company like a FTC (first Topps card) or a FDC (first Donruss card). We have decided on this site that marking cards as such is not needed.

Losing Rookie status in MLB for winning ROY is based on games played, but that has nothing to do with RCs in the hobby.

Rules for what constitutes a Rookie Card changed in 2006. What we're talking about here is pre-rule change. Bowman was considered a major release, and if a player was included in Bowman, it was a RC. That is not the case any more, as Bowman now has the Prospects sets which are not considered for RCs. So before 2006 and after 2006 are different animals. Also, we now have the companies using the little RC shields on the cards that can be considerd RCs. (Although, they also include them on the parallels, and they are not RCs.)

There is now a difference between First Card and Rookie Card, mostly because of Draft/Prospect sets.

If for some strange reason a player plays for 4 years and doesn't have ANY cards, and then has a card in year 5, they would be considered the RCs. That was actually the case for several players when Bowman hit the scene in 1948.

More recent was the case of Kevin McReynolds. He was in 1984 Donruss and Fleer - both are his RCs. He also only appered in Donruss and Fleer the next TWO years (1985 and 1986). He FINALLY appears in a Topps set in the 1987 Topps Traded set. Many people back then were trying to get that card because of it being his FTC. It was all contractural, but Topps missed out on having a Kevin McReynolds RC. 

Thanks!  That is a great response that helps explain a lot.  It is a little crazy that the definition of a rookie card needs such an explanation, but it just shows the state of collecting at a point in time.  With only 1-4 major releases up through the 80's, things were much simpler.  Given the numerous sets now, something like this is needed.