Which years are Jeter's rookie card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies. My position is that the market generally considers only 1993 major league issues to be rookies. This isn't about our respective opinions o what is or isn't a rookie card, it's about how the market views things. So who's right?

[BLongley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies. My position is that the market generally considers only 1993 major league issues to be rookies. This isn't about our respective opinions o what is or isn't a rookie card, it's about how the market views things. So who's right?

I'm with you, 93 is his rookie.

[Rookiemonster]

Well I consider only 1993. But his cards say prospect or rookie through 1996. 1996 select/1996 pinnacle etc. 1995 he played 15 games idk how many days he was on the active roster. But technically he was a prospect until 1996. If he was playing today his 1996 card would be the only cards with the rookie shield. ( a lot of guys would also fall in to this ) . This is why the rookie shield was invented.

[bn2cardz]

I have only ever heard 1993 is the rookie card.

I have had a similar issue trying to figure out Votto. He has cards in 2002 - 2008. 2008 has the RC logo, but the rules were established in 2006, so 2004 cards also have the RC logo. Yet the 2002 cards were also released in major brands (Topps 206 and Bowman), but didn't include the logo.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 2002 Bowman is part of a draft picks set not a major league set, or is that not right? Like the 2009 Trout etc.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Personally, I think the whole rookie shield thing is patently absurd. Setting that aside, I've never heard anyone refer to a year other than 1993 as Jeter's rookie cards.

I think the market is translated as many different ways as the bible. You can't just say "these 1996 cards sell for more than the 1993 cards so therefore the market considers them rookie cards as well." That's false logic. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any '93 Jeter cards that are true rarities, whereas there are many low-print run parallels in '96 that will sell for a small fortune no matter what the grade. That doesn't make them rookies.

Arthur

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So I am having a friendly discussion with a well-known seller. His position is that the market generally considers all Jeter cards from 1992 to 1996 to be rookies.

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

The XRC/olympic jersey issue also happened with Nomar Garciaparra (I am sure others but he came to mind). He is in the 1992 Topps Traded set in his USA Jersey, but that is considered his RC even though he didn't play in Majors until 1996. At best the 1992 card should have been an XRC based off the rules, but that didn't stop the market from deciding otherwise.

The problem that was caused by the 2006 rules is that people that weren't in the hobby prior to then, or those that didn't stay in modern are unable to reconcile the two hobby rules. Prior to 2006 it was purely based on the majority of the hobby, even if this was primarily dictated by Beckett and SCD, and Tuff Stuff. After 2006 the rules were dictated by MLB.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Absolute nonsense.

"The market" is not "little johnny's grandma" who is sucker enough to think that a 96' with "rookie" printed on it is his rc for his Christmas stocking. The market should be knowledgeable collectors, not someone you are snowing for cash.

Your definition is right on, but in difference I like the XRC designation in most cases. I think if the player shows in his major league uni, it's a RC, games played or not. XRC would be shown in a minor league uni or other (high school, college, olympic, etc).

The McGwire was a bit of an aberration as to how that became the rookie. I don't have a clue how it broke the rules, but I think it was more so because there was not much of a previous example mainstream.

I thought for Beckett XRC was used for products not sold in packs, nothing to do with uniform.

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought for Beckett XRC was used for products not sold in packs, nothing to do with uniform.

That was always the way I saw it. XRC's are usually from sets like Topps traded or Fleer and Donruss equivalent sets. Though later they started list XRC's in sets that could be bought in packs like 2002 Upper Deck Prospect Premieres (Although I don't remember if you could buy single packs or if it was only available in blaster boxes at the time).

The only reason I know of for the 85 McGwire rookie being listed as a rookie is because it was in the basic Topps set and not the Topps Traded set.

Just looked at one of my old Becketts and saw that Topps Traded XRC's are listed as rookies starting in 1989 as well as the Donruss and Fleer sets as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Beckett XRC thing is why a third year Jordan card is widely considered his rookie.

[JustinD]

With all the minor league (and even cards of 14U) that are main stream releases, XRC is going to lean in much different direction. The manufacturers are selling to prospectors and know the market is there. Any card mainstream or not that does not show the player in a major league uni should be an XRC in my mind.

It's not always followed to the letter, but it is how I differentiate it in collecting.

If a mainstream release has the MVP of the little league world series and 8 years later he joins the bigs, that should not in any way be a RC. Mainstream set or not.