Topps just does not like Pedro Alvarez
I’ve been thinking recently about Pedro Alvarez.
Prior to this season, Alvarez had not appeared on many cards. Sure, he had a few Upper Deck cards from when he was on the USA National Team. And of course he had some Razor brand releases. But before 2011, The Pirates third baseman really did’t have a rookie card … or even a prospect card for that matter.
So why is it that when Pedro Alvarez appears on his first cards this year, NONE of them carry the super-duper “Rookie Card” Logo.
Basic Topps? No.
Bowman? Nope.
Bowman Platinum? Nada.
Topps Heritage? Nuh-ugh.
This irritates the crap out of me!
The whole point of the Rookie Card Logo was to properly inform collectors when a player’s “true” rookie card enters the market. Yet here we have Topps blatantly disregarding Alvarez’s rookie card status probably because he was a Razor Entertainment exclusive player prior to getting to the Big Leagues.
Am I wrong?
Was this an oversight?
I might be inclined to call it a mistake if it happened once, but there is no way it happens in every product. Especially in Bowman, which is dubbed “Home of the Rookie Card,” and prides itself on having the first cards of damn near every player to dawn even a rookie-league uniform.
This is flat-out unacceptable.
At least Beckett is labeling the cards properly.
October 26, 2011 at 10:58 am
Pedro Alvarez was not a rookie in 2011 under MLB qualifications since he had more than 130 at bats in 2010, hence his 2011 cards cannot be labeled with “RC”. THis rule is also the reason why some players have cards that are labeled “RC” in both 2010 and 2011 sets (i.e Aroldis Chapman), as they did not hit the games played/at bat limits in 2010 and were still considered rookies in 2011. This rule is in place to determine who is eligible for the ROokie of the year award for any given season.
That’s why Pedro Alvarez’s true 2011 Bowman Chrome RC (in hobby terms) is a red veteran base card. Alvarez DID have one MLB issue card in 2010: his Etopps card, which can be considered an XRC I suppose.