Advice on Modern Rookie Cards 2000-2019

[Peter_Spaeth]

Topps Update would be my choice, the Trout is the most iconic card of the past decade or longer and they are extremely popular every year. Not quite sure what year they started.

[Mike D.]

Many "true" rookie cards are in Bowman sets, I believe...as they tend to appear from 1 to several years before other RC's.

BTW, I feel you on the post 2000 RC's. I share your affinity for RC's, and Pretty sure I could rattle off every major RC from 1970-1995 or so without much effort.

After that, though, it gets....muddy. Maybe we can compile a "key rookie card from each year" chart somewhere with some crowd-sourcing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Many "true" rookie cards are in Bowman sets, I believe...as they tend to appear from 1 to several years before other RC's.

BTW, I feel you on the post 2000 RC's. I share your affinity for RC's, and Pretty sure I could rattle off every major RC from 1970-1995 or so without much effort.

After that, though, it gets....muddy. Maybe we can compile a "key rookie card from each year" chart somewhere with some crowd-sourcing?

The Bowman cards are not considered rookie cards by the current market, because they don't have the official RC logo. That logo now can only be put on a card after a player has appeared in a ML game, I believe. Or maybe it has something to do with being on the opening day roster. I forget. But in any event the same Bowman cards in the 90s would have been considered rookie cards. It's confusing.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Bowman cards are not considered rookie cards by the current market, because they don't have the official RC logo. That logo now can only be put on a card after a player has appeared in a ML game, I believe. Or maybe it has something to do with being on the opening day roster. I forget. But in any event the same Bowman cards in the 90s would have been considered rookie cards. It's confusing.

Interesting. I haven't followed 2000's rookies closely in, oh, about 19 years.

What do they call the Bowman's that appear before other RCs? The example I often see is Joey Votto, who's Bowman card pre-dates his next RC by something absurd like 5-6 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Interesting. I haven't followed 2000's rookies closely in, oh, about 19 years.

What do they call the Bowman's that appear before other RCs? The example I often see is Joey Votto, who's Bowman card pre-dates his next RC by something absurd like 5-6 years.

Prospect cards I think.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I appreciate all of the input so far, guys. I have to agree that probably the most confusing thing these days is that Beckett designates each player’s rookie card year, I think, based on their appearing in a major league uniform/roster. Thus, many players have “prospect” or “team USA” cards one or more years prior to the official rookie year designation. The same holds true for inserts, refractors, subsets, autos, etc. which do not get the rookie card designation either unless in a major league uniform by that point. So I guess the biggest question is, which is more desirable to own, the “rookie card” or the “earliest card” of the player. They used to be the same but now the waters seem to be very muddy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I appreciate all of the input so far, guys. I have to agree that probably the most confusing thing these days is that Beckett designates each player’s rookie card year, I think, based on their appearing in a major league uniform/roster. Thus, many players have “prospect” or “team USA” cards one or more years prior to the official rookie year designation. The same holds true for inserts, refractors, subsets, autos, etc. which do not get the rookie card designation either unless in a major league uniform by that point. So I guess the biggest question is, which is more desirable to own, the “rookie card” or the “earliest card” of the player. They used to be the same but now the waters seem to be very muddy.

I would stick to official rookie cards. I consider the prospect cards to be the equivalent of minor league cards even though they are from a major manufacturer. To me they're the same as, say, the 1992 Upper Deck Minor League Jeter for example.

The real confusion is the absolutely endless variety of cards even within the same sets. There are 10 or more, I think, variations of the Acuna Topps Update alone.

[RCMcKenzie]

Say you want to know what the rookie for Jose Altuve is...type "Jose Altuve RC" into the search box on ebay and sort by highest price first in sold/completed items. 2011 Bowman Sterling is the most expensive, followed by 2010 Bowman Chrome and 2011 Topps Update.


For Alex Bregman it's 2016 Bowman Chrome and down the line something called Topps Heritage.

I only follow the Houston players and have not bought a new card since 1998 Bowman Chrome or something like that. The cards are expensive unless you are talking about an unknown like Framber Valdez or someone like that. Happy collecting. Rob

[td_cardz]

I would try to start a collection of 1st Bowman Card (base, Chrome, parallels, autographs if possible) as a way to cover the bases/hedge the bet.

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Interesting. I haven't followed 2000's rookies closely in, oh, about 19 years.

What do they call the Bowman's that appear before other RCs? The example I often see is Joey Votto, who's Bowman card pre-dates his next RC by something absurd like 5-6 years.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Interesting. I haven't followed 2000's rookies closely in, oh, about 19 years.

What do they call the Bowman's that appear before other RCs? The example I often see is Joey Votto, who's Bowman card pre-dates his next RC by something absurd like 5-6 years.

His 2002/2003 Topps T-206 card doesn't count?

Votto Topps T-206.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

...

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Pat R

His 2002/2003 Topps T-206 card doesn't count?

Not sure how I missed that one...but yes, I'd say that counts. Odd that he then doesn't have another major league card until 2006.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Bowman cards are not considered rookie cards by the current market, because they don't have the official RC logo. That logo now can only be put on a card after a player has appeared in a ML game, I believe. Or maybe it has something to do with being on the opening day roster. I forget. But in any event the same Bowman cards in the 90s would have been considered rookie cards. It's confusing.

Nowadays Topps usually uses Bowman Sterling to introduce rookies with the RC logo after they have appeared in Major League games... Kind of a pricy box this year with Alonso's first RC card and several others....