Results 1 to 10 of 15
01-09-2013, 08:59 AM #1
Question: Are 1990 Bowman/Topps Tiffany rookies true RCs?
Building my want list of best Canadian Player's RCs and looking at Ed Belfour I found that Beckett and SCF Inventory both list his Bowman Tiffany with a RC Attribute. I always thought that the Tiffany's were parallels only and not true RCs.
Does anyone have anymore thoughts or insight on this?
01-09-2013, 10:46 AM #2
The Tiffany sets were standalone products available as complete sets. There is some inconsistency with the RC definition when it comes to complete sets. 2010-11 Score Update cards, for example Ryan McDonagh, are considered RCs, whereas 2003-04 BAP Memorabilia Updates, for example, Phil Osaer, are considered XRCs. I am inclined to think that the Tiffany cards are RCs because they are a separate product available as a complete set and not inserted in packs of a different product as parallels. However, knowing that there were many Tiffany sets in baseball before 1990, I looked at 1987 Topps Tiffany Baseball and none of those cards are considered RCs, so I am at a loss as to how these cards should be classified.
01-09-2013, 03:22 PM #3
About 10 years ago the belief that a parallel wasn't a true rookie has kinda died out versus the people who believe it to be a rookie card. Technically it isn't a "true" rookie card but it is a rookie card for most people and that's probably why it is designated as such now. Most people care now about getting the best rookie card aka most expensive so they really don't care about this issue anymore yet it was a huge issue in the 90s.Trade Bucket: Hidden Content
01-09-2013, 03:29 PM #4
I'm still not cool with Ice Rookies being true as they are not standalone products and won't add them to this collection even though they're beautiful cards and Beckett calls them. I won't collect the Pinnacle and Crown RCs that have been inserted into Rookie Anthology. It's getting difficult to diversify. The best (and only) real Crown RC I have is Sauve VAN. I am Orthodox lol. Therefore Tiffany would be no-go, parallel RC.
01-10-2013, 01:26 PM #5
I am an old Tiffany Collector.
They are stand-alone and treated as such by all Tiffany collectors. New 2005-06 collectors seem to think they have all the say in what happens to cards when they cannot be bothered by cards before 2005 - nonsense. If you've never owned one of these, why even comment?
There are only 400 cases made of Bowman and Topps Tiffany - Stand Alone and fantastic. One of the greatest Short Printed Sets in History.
The reason that they are a true Set? You could actually but the entire set and still can. They are out there, but not in quantity.
I have 100 of these 1990-91 Bowman Tiffany Checklists. Someday my Son, or his children will have gobs of money because of them.
Last edited by centrehice; 01-10-2013 at 01:35 PM.
01-10-2013, 02:36 PM #6
01-10-2013, 07:26 PM #7
01-10-2013, 07:48 PM #8
So just curious, by old school ideals, my Artifacts Jaden Schwartz emerald/99 and saphire/85 are parallels and in theory not as valuable as the true rc # out of 999? I say theory as today's market seems to say otherwise as pwaldo mentions. It would be cool to have a rare Belfour or Sakic rc etc...
01-10-2013, 09:48 PM #9
01-11-2013, 01:52 AM #10
2000 might be a lot but think of it in this terms. How many are still out there after 20 plus years? Would like to know what score chrome as I only remember topps chrome. There werevso many parallels out there would love if you have a scan for a history lesson of sorts. There are som cools sets out here but are now hard to put together if you try.