View Full Version : rookies not considered rookies?

06-07-2012, 04:04 PM
ive found several cards that are rookies but not considered rookies in the invetory

2006 topps prince fielder,papelbon,hanley
2008 upperdeck buchholz
2008 ginter buchholz
2008 topps,topps gold buchholz


06-07-2012, 09:54 PM
2006 is tricky since most of the "rookies" in 2006 had already had "rookie" cards in previous sets before the RC logo went into effect. Ditto for Buchholz, his "rookies" were in 2005.

06-07-2012, 10:04 PM
ah yes, please please do not continue with the stupid (RC) ie Josh Hamilton has no 2007 RC's only 1999

06-08-2012, 01:36 AM

i know about hamilton,wasnt sure for buchholz tho i have his fy bowman i also had a couple 2008 (RC's)

Ledd Raubstur
07-11-2012, 01:34 AM
Yea I have a bowman 2007 card of Clayton Kershaw that I thought was a rookie when I bought it, but it's not. '06 is the year for his rookie. It's ok though, I just got a '06 Tri-Star AU of Kershaw.

Sometimes the reverse happens. I have a Matt Kemp 2005 Topps Update that I thought wasn't a rookie, then I looked it up and found out it was a rookie.

And while we're on the subject, first ever cards of players, no matter what brand, are considered rookie cards. But minor league cards are rookie cards too, aren't they? So isn't a players first ever minor league card (if they have one) considered a players first year 'true' rookie card?