"BlackJet76" wrote in message
...
No, the original post said he had three "TOPPS" rookie cards, which
implies
that he wasn't talking about the accepted hobby definition of an RC,
BRBR

Why would anyone not use the accepted hobby definitions ?

Because the accepted definition of a RC is irrelevant to his comment,
and it would have defeated the purpose of his original observation. His
observation highlights (very interestingly, I might add) how Topps used
to make an assessment each year of which young players were on the verge
of becoming regulars, and were "worthy" of appearing on the limited
selection of cards that were made available to showcase rookies. It was
interesting because of Topps kept misjudging the timing of Piniella's
emergence as a regular player, but continued to feature him multiple
times. It is also interesting that he continued to qualify as a rookie
by MLB standards during all three seasons for which his card appeared,
and even more interestingly, went on to actually win the award in 1969,
though not with any of the three teams for which he was listed on the
three cards.

Let's contrast that with the hobby today, for which we have strict RC
definitions. Bowman puts out a RC for every freaking possible young
player they can think of, knowing that by shear volume, they are bound
to include some future star, and thereby shutting out all of the other
manufacturers from having any unique RC's. Thus, you end up with a set
of a hundred cards of players whose careers don't amount to jack. Mix
that in with a bunch of inserts, parallels, game-worn, signature, die
cut, one-of-one horse**** designed to make the base set totally
meaningless, and you have the current state of the hobby. So
interesting comments like the one that started this thread are replaced
with comments like "how much do you think this Jake Hardigan RC insert
pull is worth?"

-Dave C.