Crosby Rookie Cards... Which is better?

[Phoenix]

The /199 is the RC, the /23 is a parallel. Whether you agree with it or not, it's listed as an RC and is considered an RC by the general public.

I could give two farts if it's "listed" as a RC, Beckett is just overpriced toilet paper.

And while the general consensus may be that it's a true RC, I could care less, I not losing sleep over it, just expressing my view.

I'm curious, would this be considered a RC:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ryan-Nugent-...item48431294f3

and if not, why not, it seems to meet all the criteria.

[notoriousrob101]

If it doesn't say RC in Beckett is OBVIOUSLY not a RC. Lol

[mr ozzie]

I could give two farts if it's "listed" as a RC, Beckett is just overpriced toilet paper.

And while the general consensus may be that it's a true RC, I could care less, I not losing sleep over it, just expressing my view.

I'm curious, would this be considered a RC:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ryan-Nugent-Hopkins-Landeskog-Larsson-2011-12-Upper-Deck-Young-Guns-Checklist-/310362936563?pt=US_Hockey_Trading_Cards&hash=item4 8431294f3

and if not, why not, it seems to meet all the criteria.

You're referencing a checklist card which is not part of the base set. As for the Crosby, I'm just merely making it clear that the /199 is the real RC, not the /23. You seem to think it's the other way around, and that's your view. Not trying to argue with you, just making sure that the OP gets the straight goods before possibly making a mistake purchase in the future.

[wild4life]

I...uh...just have a Crosby Victory RC...so anything else is an upgrade for me. lol

[Phoenix]

You're referencing a checklist card which is not part of the base set. As for the Crosby, I'm just merely making it clear that the /199 is the real RC, not the /23. You seem to think it's the other way around, and that's your view. Not trying to argue with you, just making sure that the OP gets the straight goods before possibly making a mistake purchase in the future.

The checklist is card #250, it is part of the base set. I realize Beckett lists the Crosby /199 as a true RC and that the /23 is a parallel of said card. My argument (opinion) is that NO dual player card should be considered a true RC. I know that's just my opinion and that the hobby has specific guidelines in place as to what constitutes a true rookie card. I don't dispute that, just saying that those guidelines could be tweaked. To each there own though.

Anyway, my apologies to the OP for hi-jacking this this thread. Upgrade to the Ultimate RC.

[JayT_59]

The checklist is card #250, it is part of the base set. I realize Beckett lists the Crosby /199 as a true RC and that the /23 is a parallel of said card. My argument (opinion) is that NO dual player card should be considered a true RC. I know that's just my opinion and that the hobby has specific guidelines in place as to what constitutes a true rookie card. I don't dispute that, just saying that those guidelines could be tweaked. To each there own though.

Anyway, my apologies to the OP for hi-jacking this this thread.

No worries... I appreciate your perspective and thank you for your opinion.

I sort of agree with you though... I think it was a poor decision to make the RCs in set set as duals, however they must still be considered RCs as they meet all the criteria..... and actually the Crosby RC I respect the most out of this set as his is the only one that is him alone.

Upgrade to the Ultimate RC.

That may be the route I take. Thanks.

[andrewconnors9]

yeah thats my final words as well man, upgrade and grab the Ultimate :), its /299 so ull have a higher end set auto'd RC of the same player in which one a 1/3 are made compared to SPA. Go for it man!!