[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

I completely don't get the new artificial Topps and MLB mandated "RC" designations. I don't understand why the hobby wanted/let/or went along with being told what is and isn't a rookie card.

Now players who have had cards produced for years, the first year cards are not considered "Rookie Cards" by some modern collectors. I just don't get it. too me no 2017 Aaron Judge card is a rookie card. Only 2013 issues are. Why people pay more for 2017's than they do his earlier base issues from 2014, 2015, 2016 etc... doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's been stamped with the RC mark. I admit that I think the RC logo is kinda cool looking and I wanted a 2017 Judge just because he's having an incredible year this year, but to me the 2013's are the RC's. Not to mention Judge debuted in 2016, and has lots of cards from 2016.

For years the first cards pictured in a major league uniform or issued in sets with major leaguers were always considered by all to be rookies.
By the new definition/rules all of Derek Jeters classic and iconic issues such as the SP, Stadium club, Topps etc... would not be Rookie cards. Should collectors really be paying more for his 1996 issues for his first full rookie season or his 1995 debut year? That's just silly. (There's tons of other players that fit into this situation too, but Jeter came to mind first).

Rant over, I just don't get it. To me the Judge cards to get are the 2013's for sure. I have nothing against the RC logo, and like the look of it and have no issue with putting it on a players rookie year card. However, this does not make it a rookie card when a player has cards from earlier years.

Rant over....curious how others view the subject.

Yeah the definitions don't seem consistent over time and that's irritating. Why for example is a young Mariano Rivera in street clothes (92 Bowman) years before he pitched for NY a rookie card? But a million Bowman prospects cards from the 2000s are not.