What makes a Rookie Card a True Rookie Card

[Kessel_fan_87]

looks like I opened a big can of worms with this thread lol

[mrveggieman]

The NHL works differently than other sports. And I am most positive that most sports work different than baseball (since baseball can have "rookies" from all different years.)


NHL players can ONLY have rookies upon stepping onto the NHL ice and play a regular season NHL game. Goalies must be at least a back-up for one regular season game.

These rookies must be made by a licensed company: Panini and Upper Deck specifically for a licensed NHL product.


It is not the first card made regardless of any company but the first card made by the criteria's above.



In order to be "true" rookies, they must:

- be part of the base set with standard numbering "1 to ######"
- is usually the most available card for that player in the set (exception goes to titanium)

Yeah I get that point but some collectors still consider a players first card from high school, college, minor leauge, europe, etc as a players rookie card and will buy and sell them accordingly.

[Yipper]

Yeah I get that point but some collectors still consider a players first card from high school, college, minor leauge, europe, etc as a players rookie card and will buy and sell them accordingly.

Yeah I get that as well.

Reminds me of people purchasing the 94-95 Pinnacle Turgeon Base because Patrick Kane was a baby sitting on his dad's lap and he happen to be in the background and calling that is "rookie" card.

Haha

[RGM81]

Yeah I get that point but some collectors still consider a players first card from high school, college, minor leauge, europe, etc as a players rookie card and will buy and sell them accordingly.

In other sports, absolutely. In hockey, much less so. I do see a player's "first licensed card" going for a few bucks from time to time but that really only applies to the stars and future stars. It's a different kettle of fish with hockey, and the Players Association themselves are pretty involved in the process of defining what is what. Things got really out of hand in the late 1990's where you would get cards made of guys who were only 16-18 and never played a single NHL game. But they played for Team Canada in the World Juniors so they got a rookie card done. It became a real race between competitors to see who could produce the first cards and it ultimately hurt values for some of the guys when they made their actual NHL debuts.

[sedinfan]

The generally accepted criteria for what makes a rookie player's card an RC are the following:

• Must be the first year of eligibility for the player to have licensed cards produced*

* If a player debuts in the 2011-12 season, only cards made of the player in that product year (unless he debuted after the cutoff date and is a hold-over to the next year's products) can be considered RC's. If he had only 2 RC's in 2011-12 products, UD and Panini cannot make more RC's of him in 2012-13 products. Additionally, cards produced as redemptions from a previous year's products (think Be A Player when UD did those redemption cards for a couple years) cannot be considered RC's. The player must have played an NHL game (or, if a goalie, dressed as a back-up) in order to be eligible for an RC.

The NHL works differently than other sports. And I am most positive that most sports work different than baseball (since baseball can have "rookies" from all different years.)


NHL players can ONLY have rookies upon stepping onto the NHL ice and play a regular season NHL game. Goalies must be at least a back-up for one regular season game.

Interesting - in all my years of collecting the Sedins, I've never really come across anyone who considers their rookie cards to be anything other than those from 1997-98 Black Diamond - which were produced well before they were drafted, let alone played an NHL game. Both SCF Inventory and Beckett list only this set as being their RC. Curious if you're suggesting that Beckett / SCF Inventory are wrong here, or is there a certain timeframe (i.e. from a certain year onwards) that this rule applies, and for cards from perhaps older years that have widely been accepted as RC's for many years, does the designation stick?

[CoolHandLuke]

Interesting - in all my years of collecting the Sedins, I've never really come across anyone who considers their rookie cards to be anything other than those from 1997-98 Black Diamond - which were produced well before they were drafted, let alone played an NHL game. Both SCF Inventory and Beckett list only this set as being their RC. Curious if you're suggesting that Beckett / SCF Inventory are wrong here, or is there a certain timeframe (i.e. from a certain year onwards) that this rule applies, and for cards from perhaps older years that have widely been accepted as RC's for many years, does the designation stick?

you can't say one is right or wrong as there is not one definition of what a rookie is. Here on SCF we try to go with the biggest concensus of what a rookie is for most but there is no right or wrong. Also there always been exception for all kind of reason. Since SCF did not exist in the '90, we went with how other have set RC for past year and it's not like we investigated each one. Now if somone come and bring valid point on certain player from the past we will consider and look at the issue and maybe make a change. But SCF database does not hold the truth! we just try our best to create a database that reflect the reality and we constantly make change when member bring issue and we can agree with them.

[30ranfordfan]

That's exactly the case.

The best way to describe a hockey rookie card has little to do when when they've played their first game..... but in fact, is when they had their first card in an NHL licensed set. In the 1990s these were two different things. The Sedins you mentioned are case in point. Those are their real rookie cards.... based on a widley excepted standard. Upper Deck or Pacific writing 'Rookie' on a card two years later doesn't make those new cards rookies.

That changes in the early 00s though, when a player's first game was required before a manufacturer could put them into an NHL licensed set. I think that's what Yip Collector is getting at.... for the last 10+ years, players did have to play a first game before they could get a RC.

Interesting - in all my years of collecting the Sedins, I've never really come across anyone who considers their rookie cards to be anything other than those from 1997-98 Black Diamond - which were produced well before they were drafted, let alone played an NHL game. Both SCF Inventory and Beckett list only this set as being their RC. Curious if you're suggesting that Beckett / SCF Inventory are wrong here, or is there a certain timeframe (i.e. from a certain year onwards) that this rule applies, and for cards from perhaps older years that have widely been accepted as RC's for many years, does the designation stick?

[RGM81]

Interesting - in all my years of collecting the Sedins, I've never really come across anyone who considers their rookie cards to be anything other than those from 1997-98 Black Diamond - which were produced well before they were drafted, let alone played an NHL game. Both SCF Inventory and Beckett list only this set as being their RC. Curious if you're suggesting that Beckett / SCF Inventory are wrong here, or is there a certain timeframe (i.e. from a certain year onwards) that this rule applies, and for cards from perhaps older years that have widely been accepted as RC's for many years, does the designation stick?

Once a card is released and labelled a rookie card, that designation doesn't change. "The hobby" (in a nebulous, collective form) can't up and decide in 2012 that a 1997-98 card which has been considered an RC for 15 years...suddenly isn't. What was shall continue to be. But the rules did change in the 2000's at some point to restrict the card companies from falling all over one another to scramble and get the "exclusive" RC of a player. They got smart and realized that having a wider pool of RC's was better for the hobby, which is why a guy that has played in 2 games can have 22 RC's nowadays instead of his Quebec Pee-Wee Tournament card being considered the RC. They could conceivably change the rules in the future, but those changes wouldn't affect cards already in existence.

[jsokol1626]

But I would have to add that the brand need to be licence by the NHL and NHLPA. Need to be a stand alone release that you can buy a pack or a box. Now currently there is 22 licence in hockey so there can't be more then 22 rookie. This is how we define a RC in our database.

the first card release from a full brand release. For instance I did a survey on ICE when it stop being a standalone product. While 50% still see it as a true RC, 50% do not. SCF is not flaging them as rookie since ICE is no longer a stand alone product and we consider them as insert as you can only have them if you buy a box and can't get them from buying packs only. They are bonus cards in a box. Mainly UD could not see the brand go away, yet they still decided to drop it as a standalone brand when their licence was cut down in half.
But the cutting point is one rookie per release standalone licence brand and is define by the card part of the base set. Mainly this definition has been around for as long as I have collected cards and not something SCF invented, we just took what the card market as define in the past and applied it for a our database.

I don't think SCF should put itself in the position of defining rookie cards. The licensing agreements and industry standards remain pretty clear in their determination and acceptance of true rookies. While I agree that there was a time when designations such as "RR" or "XRC" and the word "rookie" appearing on many cards (especially in 90's) led to a great deal of confusion and debate, but that is no longer the case. This article sums it up pretty well:

http://www.hockeyheadquarters.com/ar...okie-cards.php

Regarding SCF's designation of UD Ice as an insert set that determination was reached based open opinion rather than standard industry practice, therefore, adding to the confusion. Ice packs can be sold separately despite the fact they are included in another product and Ice remains a stand alone set with an NHLPA license. Therefore, they meet the criteria of true rookies.

[30ranfordfan]

Correct me where I'm wrong, but the license that both Upper Deck and Panini hold entities them to produce 11 sets each year.

That is a fact.

After that, you're right. It's a lot of conjecture, opinion, whatever.

To me - If the manufacturers are limited to 11 sets, that tells me that there are AT MOST going to be 22 Rookie Cards of each player in a season. Each manufacturer gets to make 11 of them.

If Panini wants to insert National Treasures into another product, or Upper Deck wants to drop Ice inside another product, I don't understand how anyone considers those to be anything but an insert. A really nice looking inserts that's limited.... will be worth a lot in terms of cash or trade value.... but its still an insert in my mind.

I can accept a Victory style update, being inserted into another set, and calling those RCs.... but Upper Deck did not release Ice this year. They released Black Diamond & SPx, and inserted 'bonus' packs inside them.


That this happened with Ice though, makes for a very unique situation. Ice was the one brand of UD cards that was truley unique IMO, and a shame that they did away with it. I would have folded SPx or SPGU before dropping this one.

Anyway - you've got a long list of people who have been collecting Ice RCs for a lot of years.... and since Upper Deck has still made them available: Those collectors (and many who never had more than a casual interest in Ice too) refuse to think of them as anything other than a RC.

I have no problem with that. If you think it's a RC, good for you. Collect what you like, as that is (IMO) the most important thing.

However, I don't have to agree with you. While I understand the logic behind the "Ice are still RCs" argument, there is also sound logic on the other side. This is going to be something that people will disagree about for a long time.

I don't think SCF should put itself in the position of defining rookie cards. The licensing agreements and industry standards remain pretty clear in their determination and acceptance of true rookies. While I agree that there was a time when designations such as "RR" or "XRC" and the word "rookie" appearing on many cards (especially in 90's) led to a great deal of confusion and debate, but that is no longer the case. This article sums it up pretty well:

http://www.hockeyheadquarters.com/ar...okie-cards.php

Regarding SCF's designation of UD Ice as an insert set that determination was reached based open opinion rather than standard industry practice, therefore, adding to the confusion. Ice packs can be sold separately despite the fact they are included in another product and Ice remains a stand alone set with an NHLPA license. Therefore, they meet the criteria of true rookies.