2007-08 Sweet Shot Rookies

[RGM81]

I've always been a bit curious trying to understand why it is that the autographed versions of the Sweet Shot rookies from 07-08 aren't considered RC's. As I understand it, of the 599 cards made of each player, 001-100 are all signed, and 101-599 are unsigned. Correct me if I am wrong on that, but I don't recall ever seeing an unsigned Sweet Shot rookie with a serial number under 100.

With that in mind, shouldn't they all be considered rookie cards? Or does the fact that they have separate numbering on the cards (autos show xxx/100 and not xxx/599) truly make the auto'd versions a "parallel"?

Discuss.

[canucksfan007]

I always thought they were 2 different print runs .... the parallels xx/100, and the rookie had a full xx/599.

If the cards numbered 1 - 100, were auto rookies, and 101 - 599 were jerseys I would assume they would both be considered true rookie

[Wickabee]

I think this is a case of, "The individual collector decides what is a RC or not regardless of what some company says."

[Yipper]

I think more often than not the cards with the highest print run or what one would imagine as the standard card would be considered the true rookie.

Personally I don't think it should be a true rookie since it is numbered differently and simply because there is a card (which are the jerseys /599) with a higher print run in the set as well thus supporting my theory above.

The whole "the individual collector decides what is a RC or not regardless of what some company says" wouldn't apply here.

I would say that applies to the new Ice / OPC / MVP inserted in other products to fall under that category. They are completely different sets and products and not parallels of a card. They are inserted to other products since the company can't make more products but were once rookies.

In all honesty, there has to standard as to which is a rookie card or not. I understand the nature of collectors deciding yes or no, but in some cases it's kinda outrageous. It is one thing to like a card a lot and pay more for that card than what the true rookie is worth, but another to start saying I think this is a true rookie, therefore it is.

People who call sets like the Ice Auto Patch /10 from UD Ice a rookie and etc. are in my opinion just trying to justify how much they paid for a card (or why there is a trend of the particular set selling for more). In fact a lot of collectors do that. Just because something is worth more it doesn't mean it is the RC. If this was the case people will start calling other desired cards or low-print cards the "rookie" just to make an extra buck.

[Wickabee]

So is it that 1-100 are autoed and 101-599 aren't?
Or is it 2 seperate sets, 1 #/100 and another #/599?

If it's the former, then there's no reason for it not to be a true RC.
If it's the latter, than Yip, you are right.

However, at the end of the day, the collector will decide. For example, in putting together my Canucks RC, I'm including all cards made of that player in their RC year. Which means I put a Shirokov Rookie Headliners in my "Canucks RC" collection.

I guess it's the difference between a "Rookie Card" and a "RC"