What makes a Rookie Card a True Rookie Card

[Yipper]

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.

Yup, yup ... that is exactly what I meant.

Probably around the 2000s period, there was a change in standards and between the NHL and NHLPA, they came to a consensus on what licensed manufactures can and can't do. Therefore getting rid of 90s confusion and establishing a "define set of rules/guidelines"

[jsokol1626]

At the center of the Ice debate is the packaging of the set, nothing more. Indeed it is unique and I can think of no other instance in the hobby where a similar situation exists. However, packaging has never been a criterion for determining a rookie designation. In the case of Ice, it meets every standard that is commonly applied and recognized by the hobby. SCF's decision to regard Ice cards as inserts should not be based upon opinion or a random polls but rather on actual industry practices and trends which, to date, have consistently supported rookie status.

I'm not bothered by our difference of opinion, but, rather, by the fact that SCF as decided to act on opinion.

[30ranfordfan]

I need to also state - I'm not bothered in the least by our difference of opinion. I enjoy the discussion..... and while I'm positive that neither of us are going to be able to sway the other one, that doesn't mean that it's not fun to talk about it!

I agree, that other than packaging / distribution - those Ice cards do meet all other standards that the hobby has generally attached to Rookie Cards.

The closest examples I can come up with that mirror this.... would be multiple years of McDonalds Cards, or the few years that Upper Deck was producing Ovation.

In both cases, there was no wide-spread distribution. For Ovation, you could only buy the cards at Wallmart. They were released as boxed sets, with 4 different series (I think). Becuase of the limited distribution - hobbiest (for the most part) disgraded those cards as true RCs.

With McDonalds cards, the distribution was even more limited. Not only could you only get them from McDs... but you could only get them in Canada. The few times that Rookie players appeared in these sets, most people never considered them RCs.

The exception on those McDs cards was Crosby. Despite a hobby wide standard, Beckett decided to add the 'RC' tag to it, becuase so many people insisted it should be. At first release of those cards in the price guide though, they did not. (Which, funny enough, is what happened with Ice Rookies last year. Beckett did not list them as RCs to start, but after recieving a large number of complaints, they added it).

There were more rookies to make it into McDonald's sets after that though, and they've never been counted as RCs. The Quebec-only McDonald's release this year included!




Now - I realize that Ice is very different from those two. You can get Ice packs, inside the other boxes, at any hobby shop that stocks UD Hockey Cards (rather than limiting them to exclusive store offers). I just fail to understand how anyone excepts it as its own set. Upper Deck is licensed to produce 11 sets per year. If Ice were its own set, they'd be in violation of those rules.... but since neither the league nor the PA have made a stink about it, I can only assume that what UD is doing is considered within the rules, and within their license for 11 sets.


Two questions:

- What do you think of the National Treausers Auto RCs that were inside of Zeinth last year? Are they also Rookie Cards? (SCF does not list them as such, and I would say this is correct. I don't believe that Beckett does either - but I could be wrong).

- If your 4 base + 1 RC were inside of the Black Diamond / SPx packs..... instead of being inside those 'bonus' packs..... but everything else was the same about them.... would you still consider them to be RCs ?

At the center of the Ice debate is the packaging of the set, nothing more. Indeed it is unique and I can think of no other instance in the hobby where a similar situation exists. However, packaging has never been a criterion for determining a rookie designation. In the case of Ice, it meets every standard that is commonly applied and recognized by the hobby. SCF's decision to regard Ice cards as inserts should not be based upon opinion or a random polls but rather on actual industry practices and trends which, to date, have consistently supported rookie status.

I'm not bothered by our difference of opinion, but, rather, by the fact that SCF as decided to act on opinion.

[jsokol1626]

"Two questions:

- What do you think of the National Treausers Auto RCs that were inside of Zeinth last year? Are they also Rookie Cards? (SCF does not list them as such, and I would say this is correct. I don't believe that Beckett does either - but I could be wrong).

- If your 4 base + 1 RC were inside of the Black Diamond / SPx packs..... instead of being inside those 'bonus' packs..... but everything else was the same about them.... would you still consider them to be RCs ?"

No, the National Treasures should not be regarded as anything more than inserts. Although their numbering system seems to indicate they were intended to be part of a base set, for whatever reason, that never happened. "randomly inserted" is the catch phrase that seems to apply.

However the NHLPA regards UD Ice in relation to the 11 sets agreement the important point is that the set was produced and distributed, therefore it exists. Given Ice's history as a stand alone product I think many of us would still consider it as such even cards were not longer packaged separate from SPX, BD or whatever. However, I think that would be a foolish move on UD's part and would certainly lend greater support to your insert point.

It has been suggested and may one day become a reality that combining more products might be in everyone's best interests. I can see a day where SPGU (minus the rookies) is married to SPA or SPX. So it's quite possible that the UD Ice matter is only the beginning.

[svbetts]

I'll weigh in, only because I almost exclusively collect RC's. When I decided I needed to seriously limit the scope of my collection a few years ago, I decided on rookie cards only (plus a few cool 90's insert sets). I had to make a call on rookie year inserts, and I decided not to collect them. Just too many out there for me. However, I do collect parallel rookies as though they are true RC's. If Patrick Kane has a base RC /99 and a parallel which is /50 (same #ing, no weird numbers with letters, etc.), I try just as hard to get the /50 card. After all, there are less of them, so that's gotta count for something. For me it's like the SPA /999 RC's versus the SPA /100 ARP's - I collect them both, and consider both to be rookies. However I don't collect subsets called "Rookie Materials" or Rookie Sigs" or whatever. I know that's kind of arbitrary, but that's how I do it.

Side note - I don't collect expo stamped cards as though they are RC's. No real reason; I just didn't like the idea of trying to get them when you could only obtain them from one single spot originally.

What do you think? Too arbitrary? Fair? Haha.