Set Naming Conventions

Featured Cards: 2005 Sweet Spot Sweet Spot Signatures Autographed Baseball Leather #SS-GF; 2005 Sweet Spot #102, Chris Roberson; 1996 Fleer Ultra #526, Kevin Sefcik; 1993 Finest #23, Dave Hollins

I reached a rather important landmark in the evolution of the Phillies Baseball Card Database, the newest version of which is now online: it finally contains all the cards and items in my collection. Every single card, coin, sticker, team-issued Phan Photo set — it’s all in there now. A 2005 Sweet Spot Signatures Gavin Floyd card was the last item in my collection to make it, and although there’s still a lot of work that needs to go into the database, one of the primary reasons for my embarking on this project is now completed. It feels good to have reach this point; really good.

This Sweet Spot signature card of Gavin Floyd coincidentally allows me to write a little bit about one aspect of the database that I feel is unique to it: the naming convention. Anyone who has spent lots of time pouring over the Beckett and SCD annual baseball card catalogs know that the two of them occasionally differ in how they refer to various sets. In fact, I’ve referenced such differences in the past when I’ve posted checklists for various sets. Although both companies included statements regarding the identification of sets in their respective catalogs, I personally found these explanations somewhat vague and rather unhelpful in regards to modern issues, of all things. The reason for this is simple: frequently the way they name a set is inconsistent with the set name as shown on the card.

Take another look at the Gavin Floyd card above. According to Beckett, this is a 2005 Sweet Spot Signatures Red Stitch Blue Ink #GF. SCD, on the other hand, lists it as a 2005 Upper Deck Sweet Spot Signatures Red Stitch Blue Ink #GF. However, based on the information given on the card, and the way that the set was marketed by Upper Deck, I list the card in the database as 2005 Sweet Spot Sweet Spot Signatures Autographed Baseball Leather Red Stitch, Blue Ink #SS-GF.

Here’s the rationale behind the name. First, and most importantly, the primary set name, the set with which Upper Deck issued this card, should be “2005 Sweet Spot.” Although the Upper Deck logo appears on all their products, it’s not actually included in the name of all their products, and that’s an important distinction. In the case of 2005 Sweet Spot, Upper Deck incorporated neither their logo nor name into the Sweet Spot logo or name. This is true on the front of the cards, the packs, and the boxes. Therefore, in my opinion, it shouldn’t be part of the name. However, the knowledgeable reader will note that the back of all the cards in the base set all say “2005 Upper Deck Sweet Spot Baseball” on the bottom. This actually highlights a small issue with my methodology — sometimes the card manufacturer is inconsistent with the name of their own product. When this occurs, I choose the name that most accurately reflects how the set was marketed. I’d like to believe that my decisions reflect some sort of consistency in situations such as this, but given that this database is over three years in the making (so far) it’s possible that I’ve inadvertently allowed a few inconsistencies. Therefore, I find SCD’s use of “Upper Deck” in the set name understandable, even though I didn’t use with it.

The second part of my methodology regards the naming of insert sets. Basically, all inserts are named with the primary set name listed first. Therefore, given that “Sweet Spot Signatures” appears to be the name of this particular insert set (the set title on the card is not listed simply as “Signatures”), by my methodology the full name of this particular set is 2005 Sweet Spot Sweet Spot Signatures. However, I didn’t stop there because of additional language on the card. Upper Deck issued versions of this card that used manufactured bat barrels and glove leather, and, very importantly, Upper Deck altered the text on the front of each version of the card accordingly. Rather than resort to shorthand, as Beckett and SCD did, I included all the pertinent naming information. Thus, “Autographed Baseball Leather” is included in the set name for this particular Floyd card. Finally, even within the baseball leather version of the card, Upper Deck introduced parallels that differed in the stitching and type of ink used. Those descriptions make up the final portion of the set name; hence, “2005 Sweet Spot Sweet Spot Signatures Autographed Baseball Leather Red Stitch, Blue Ink.” My previous post on the matter of card numbering explains the final difference between Beckett’s, SCD’s, and my designations for this card.

Unlike this particular example, most naming decisions are much easier to make — especially in regards to the primary sets. In the case of nearly every Fleer Ultra set, the Fleer name is incorporated in both the Ultra name and logo. Furthermore, until 1998, Fleer did it in a manner that did not reflect the way that they normally displayed the Fleer name and logo. Therefore, it should be part of the set name. In fact, there is only one Ultra set which did not incorprate the Fleer name or logo, and that was the 1998 set. You’ll note that the ’98 set is the only one listed in the database simply as “Ultra.” Topps’s Stadium Club sets harbor a very similar issue. For the first half of the brand’s life, the Topps name was incorporated into the name of the set, and Topps frequently did so in a manner that was different from its typical use of the Topps name by itself — this was really notable in its 1995 and 1996 Topps Stadium Club sets. Topps didn’t market the set as simply “Stadium Club” until 1998.

As I noted before, not all decisions were easy to make, and there are always exceptions to the rules. The 1993 Finest set is a perfect example. Taking a look a the boxes, packs, and even the cards themselves, the set should actually be listed as “Baseball’s Finest.” However, for a variety of reasons that I won’t actually get into at this time, I decided that the prudent decision for this particular set was to follow typical naming conventions within the hobby. Truthfully, I’m still not 100% certain I was right in doing so, and I reserve the right to change my mind at a future date, though it is highly unlikely I will actually do so.

Even though it now contains my full collection, I will continue to expand upon the database and post periodic updates. Furthermore, I’ve incorporated a system that allows me, moving forward, to post both a complete updated file and a file containing just corrections and additions for those who are already using the file. You will note that the newest version includes a new tab in which I give credit to those who have provided corrections and additions — even though the database itself is still a work in progress, I welcome both of them.

The Sad Joke That Is the “Rookie Card Logo”

Featured Cards: 2006 Bowman Heritage #225, Cole Hamels; 2002 Bowman Heritage #330, Michael Floyd; 2005 Topps Cracker Jack #209, Chris Roberson; 2006 Upper Deck #958, Chris Roberson; 2006 Topps 1952 Rookies #203, Chris Coste; 2009 Topps Updates & Highlights Chrome Rookie Refractors #CHR18, John Mayberry, Jr.; 2008 Bowman Chrome Prospects #BCP199, Domonic Brown; 2010 Bowman Platinum #6, Domonic Brown; 2011 Finest #67, Domonic Brown; 2011 Gypsy Queen #336, Domonic Brown; 2010 Bowman Draft Picks #BDP28, Vance Worley; 2011 Topps Heritage #249, Vance Worley; 2011 Gypsy Queen Minis #336, Domonic Brown; 2011 Topps Update Series #117, Michael Stutes

In 2006, MLB and the MLBPA announced new industry-wide standards regarding rookie cards and the introduction of a new industry-wide stand “Rookie Card Logo”:

The centerpiece of these guidelines is a new “Rookie Card” logo which incorporates the MLB silhouetted batter logo. Under these new guidelines, licensees Topps and Upper Deck are allowed to produce Rookie Cards only after a player has been officially placed on a Club’s active 25-man roster. These new rules are designed to remove any uncertainty as to what constitutes a player’s Rookie Card, while the new distinctive logo will help fans and collectors easily identify an official “Rookie Card.”

Five years later, I think it’s safe to say that the new guidelines and Rookie Card Logo are an absolute and utterly abysmal failure.

It helps to remember that roughly 10 years ago, the industry-wide quest to produce the first Major League card of a player started spiraling out of control. In the overwhelming majority of sets, you could find players who would never appear in Spring Training game with the Major League club, let alone in an actual Major League game. For Phillies collectors, this meant oodles of cards featuring the likes of Mark Outlaw, Elio Serrano, Josue Perez, Josh Cisneros, Mark Outlaw and Michael Floyd (to be fair to the Phillies, they did draft him as a favor to his younger brother, Gavin, whom they made their #1 pick — at also allowed them to finally avoid the jinx of only employing the brother with lesser talent — but that doesn’t excuse Topps’s decision to put him on a Phillies card). The worst part was that these weren’t inserts — they were cards in the main set, and if you were a team collector, you had to collect these cards as well. While I like the idea of rookie cards in the abstract, what I don’t want to see in my collection are cards of a bunch of players who never actually appeared in a game with the Phillies. When the new guidelines were announced, I held out quite a bit of hope that such madness would come to a grinding halt.

Unfortunately, the new guidelines and rules had a grandfathering period, which portended the failure of the Rookie Card Logo, even though it is still used today. That grandfathering period meant that players such as Cole Hamels received Rookie Card Logos on all of his 2006 cards, which meet those guidelines, even though he appeared on plenty of cards issued before 2006 that didn’t match them. I’m pretty certain that to this day, most collectors still feel Hamels’s 2002 Bowman Draft Picks and Bowman Draft Picks Chrome cards are his rookie cards, despite the logos on 2006 cards. Chris Roberson, however, provided a more amusing example of the capriciousness of ignoring all previously issued rookie cards. On his 2005 Topps Cracker Jack card, Topps placed the words “topps 1st year” on the bottom of the card. I don’t know if this was in anticipation of the forthcoming guidelines and Rookie Card Logo, but it offers a peak at part of the strategy Topps would ultimately employ to work its way around the guidelines and render the new logo utterly meaningless — but more of that anon. Amazingly, despite the rookie mania that occurred over the previous few years, there were some players in 2006 who actually did receive rookie cards that accurately bore the Rookie Card Logo. The most notable (from the perspective of a Phillies collector) of these was Chris Coste. Amazingly, despite his long minor league career and the industry’s best efforts, he never appeared in a major league set before 2006.

Unfortunately, just as the overlap for players such as Roberson and Hamels began to wane and the Rookie Card Logo started developing some real meaning — although, it should be noted that as late as 2009 there were players receiving a Rookie Card Logo even though they had a card issued before 2006 — Topps figured out a workaround that resulted in the primary blow against allowing the logo to have any real meaning. They realized that the guidelines only applied to cards that appeared in the base/primary set, and by 2008 they started issuing cards of prospects as inserts to their Bowman brands (a logical step seeing as that’s where Topps historically overloaded its rookie offerings). Furthermore, Topps took the extra step of inserting the words “First Bowman Card” on all the first cards the prospects received. Suddenly, it was possible to purchase many different cards of players such as Carlos Monasterios, Chance Chapman, Matt Rizzotti and Anthony Hewitt.

Initially, I don’t think I cared all that much because Topps found a way to cater to the rather vocal rookie card collector segment of the hobby without upsetting the team collector contingent (which, truth be told, Topps hasn’t really given proper respect to us since… well… since it released the Topps Total sets). However, while this was keeping to the letter of the rookie card guidelines set by MLB and the MLBPA, it was also breaking the spirit of those guidelines. Despite what was intended with the Rookie Card Logo, Topps managed to muddy the waters once again as to what was a rookie card. There’s no better example of this than the mess it has made while issuing Domonic Brown cards.

I posted these four cards in chronological order to highlight a very important point: his first card depicting him in a Phillies uniform and stating he is a member of the Phillies came out in 2008. Do you think it matters to hard core collectors that there isn’t a Rookie Card Logo? No. However, Phillies team collectors are now forced to decide whether or not to add that 2008 Bowman Chrome Brown card to their collections. What do you think their decision will be as whether it’s his rookie card or not? If most of them are like me, and I believe that is true, then the fact that I have that card should answer the question for you.

The moment Topps first did this, the MLBPA and MLB should have swiftly rebuked Topps by threatening to take away or restructure their license. Instead, they did nothing (or, if they did, they certainly didn’t make any noise publicly about it) and we’re now right back where we started. Actually, it’s worse than where we were in 2006. Take another look at those cards again, and you will notice that the 2010 Bowman Platinum and the 2011 Finest both carry a Rookie Card Logo. This shouldn’t happen. I don’t care what season is a player’s actual rookie season, the year his cards first carry the Rookie Card Logo should be the only year in which it is used. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but it’s not. Take a look at the following two Vance Worley cards:

Topps issued the Bowman Draft Picks card last year, and the Topps Heritage card is from this season. Anyone want to try to logically explain how someone can have a rookie card — as it’s understood within the hobby — in two different years? We can at least take some small comfort in knowing that the 2010 card is actually his rookie card.

To add further insult to injury, Topps cannot even bother to get the Rookie Card Logo consistently applied in the same set. Brown’s regular Gypsy Queen card doesn’t bear a Rookie Card Logo, but the mini does. Was anybody at Topps actually comparing the mini parallels to the cards in the base set to check for consistency? I’ve written quite a bit over this past year about how Topps obviously doesn’t care about proper quality control, but this particular lack of attention to detail manages to further depress their already low standards.

Clearly, the Rookie Card Logo is an utter joke. The unofficially clearly-sanctioned runaround by Topps and the company’s inconsistency in applying it has destroyed any helpful meaning that MLB and the MLBPA tried to imbue into the Rookie Card Logo. Serious collectors ignore it (anyone care to argue that Michael Stutes’s 2011 Topps Update card is his rookie card and not his 2009 Bowman Chrome Prospects card or that Joe Savery or Justin De Fratus haven’t had an official rookie card yet) and casual collectors will very likely find themselves very annoyed when they discover the card bearing a Rookie Card Logo is considered by very few to be an actual rookie card. It’s a meaningless construct. So long as MLB and the MLBPA continue to allow Topps to use it in the ridiculously capricious manner that it has demonstrated over the past few years, they are proving that they never really cared about addressing the problem the Rookie Card Logo was supposed to resolve. I, for one, wish it would go away, but like so many of the other problems not deeply ingrained into the hobby and industry, I just don’t see this issue getting resolved anytime soon.