The Natural RC Discussion: 58th Edition

[gfel2795]

You're right, by changing the numbering (removing them from the "main set") it turned them into XRCs, rather than RCs. And it absolutely devalued those cards.

Why did they did they do it? They had no choice.

With the lockout at the start of the season, Upper Deck released Artifacts as they normally would. One RC redemption per box. Panini couldn't get the RCs into Certified (they hadn't played a game yet) but in anticipation of the season starting at some point, they put redemptions in instead.

When the lockout finally ended, the PA told them "No Rookie Cards this year" (other than the hold overs that were already in sets). That's why the dual RC class happened this year.

So UD and Panini were stuck. They created these redemption cards for players like Yakupov, but they were no longer allowed to make cards of Yakupov as part of that season. What do you do?

They likely could have filled all those redemptions with holdovers (yeah, the same ones that were in the main set). Just make them fancier, jazzed up versions. Hand out more Phillipe Cornettes instead of Nail Yakupovs.

They could have just scrapped the whole thing, and told people their redemptions would be replaced with something comparable

Or they could do what they did, and release those cards the following season - but change them up so they become XRC.... otherwise there would be no way to make RCs of them this year: If the 2012-13 Artifacts Yakupov is a Rookie Card, then nothing made for 2013-14 would be.

I get the whole 2012-13 Yakupov fiasco but what about the 2013-14 Rookie Class?

Guys like MacKinnon and Hertl are NOT true rooks in the 2013-14 product where they are redemptions? Is this erroneous or is it because they are marked as "RED"s? It worked every other year for Artifacts and their redemptions, why would they be stupid enough to mark them as "RED"s this year which would void them according to your earlier post in this thread.

I must be missing something.

[30ranfordfan]

Or I am :)

Let me look at things again, and see if I'm actually understanding things correctly.


This is exactly my problem though. It would be nice to have a "Rookie Cards" and if they are or not, it's really obvious. Okay... so parallels can't be RCs ?? Whatever. I still think collect what you like should apply.

My beef is that UD (and Panini) continue to try and muddy the waters, cram as much stuff of these guys into products as possible, and it makes it harder and harder to tell the difference.

I get the whole 2012-13 Yakupov fiasco but what about the 2013-14 Rookie Class?

Guys like MacKinnon and Hertl are NOT true rooks in the 2013-14 product where they are redemptions? Is this erroneous or is it because they are marked as "RED"s? It worked every other year for Artifacts and their redemptions, why would they be stupid enough to mark them as "RED"s this year which would void them according to your earlier post in this thread.

I must be missing something.

[gfel2795]

Or I am :)

Let me look at things again, and see if I'm actually understanding things correctly.


This is exactly my problem though. It would be nice to have a "Rookie Cards" and if they are or not, it's really obvious. Okay... so parallels can't be RCs ?? Whatever. I still think collect what you like should apply.

My beef is that UD (and Panini) continue to try and muddy the waters, cram as much stuff of these guys into products as possible, and it makes it harder and harder to tell the difference.

Some of the RC guidelines are outdated in my opinion...I LOVE Titanium RCs that are jersey numbered even though these are not "true".

I just can't stand when they are putting "RC" on everything this year: patches, inserts, parallels you name it.

It also irks me what Panini Rookie Anthology started doing last year by inserting cards and calling them "rookie cards". The "collect what you like" is why I like to have an assortment of RCs but I feel that they all should be true RCs. Otherwise it's weird, I feel like these are sneaking their way in. I can't for example get myself to PC 2012-13 Elite Rookies that were put into Rookie Anthology and are not a standalone product. I know they look nice and I feel there's something wrong w it. It bothered me to see the 2012-13 Titanium jersey-numbereds inserted this way as well. Same deal.

[30ranfordfan]

I looked at three sets:

11-12, 12-13, 13-14

The RCs that were redemptions from 11-12 (i.e. Hopkins) are numbered 201, 202, 2013, etc. Not sure what was written on the redemptions cards (RED201, RED202 ??) but the cards follow the main set numbering, as I expected they would be.

12-13 (Yak, etc) are the first time that the cards actually say 'RED-201' on the back (changing the numbering, therefor taking them out of the 'main set')

Except you're right, this year's redemptions follow the same pattern... with 'RED' at the beginning. Therefore: If adding the RED to 12-13 cards kept them as XRCs, does it not have the same effect on 13-14 cards?? I would suggest 'yes, it should' but in practice 'no, I guess not'.

Knowing how nitpicky collectors can be, I would assume UD went out of their way to add the RED prefix to the 12-13s, and forgot to remove it when they started making the 13-14s.

It's like the topic of Ice back at the beginning of the thread. Is it a "real RC" ?? I would say no (it's an insert in BD or SPx or whatever) since I can not buy a box of Ice. Enough other collectors disagree with me (that's their prerogative) so they generally get labeled RCs.


I think it does (and should) come back to "collect what you like" and while I very much enjoy the conversation, I do feel like I'm one of those dudes arguing with something that happened in Episode 7 of Season 4 of Star Trek shouldn't have been possible based on the events of Episode 3 of Season 2.

[KingKuba]

If it don't say rc in the beckett it ain't a rookie card.

[30ranfordfan]

Some of the RC guidelines are outdated in my opinion...I LOVE Titanium RCs that are jersey numbered even though these are not "true".

I just can't stand when they are putting "RC" on everything this year: patches, inserts, parallels you name it.

It also irks me what Panini Rookie Anthology started doing last year by inserting cards and calling them "rookie cards". The "collect what you like" is why I like to have an assortment of RCs but I feel that they all should be true RCs. Otherwise it's weird, I feel like these are sneaking their way in. I can't for example get myself to PC 2012-13 Elite Rookies that were put into Rookie Anthology and are not a standalone product. I know they look nice and I feel there's something wrong w it. It bothered me to see the 2012-13 Titanium jersey-numbereds inserted this way as well. Same deal.

Taking a look at it just now (I went to Beckett's site for the first time in a LONG time, lol) they now list those Titanium RCs as RCs! I'm guessing last year (or the year before?) they were finally shown the light. Maybe it was UD following suit and numbering them to jersey #s in SPGU that did it?? So that isn't really much of an issue anymore (I guess?)

I agree with you on Rookie Anthology. While there are some very nice cards in it... and (looks like?) usually a decent return on the boxes, I hate the idea of the product, and have always refused to touch it. I have no interest in owning anything that comes out of those boxes... to me, they represent a lot of what I don't like about where the hobby is headed:

Rookie Anthology works, because (for the most part) Panini gets their other products out quicker than they could if they were waiting to figure out full checklists, and get everything back. Then they take a bunch of cards they made later than the original release, or got back from players later than the original release, and mash them together in another product that (I don't believe) even counts as one of their 11 releases for the year.

There's only two reasons a product like this is necessary: To squeeze more money out of collectors (by creating an extra release that people will feel that "have to buy") and because it would be a crying shame if Luke Gadzic didn't have a RC in every single set.

I realize the first point is a matter of opinion. If people are buying it, it means people like it... so really, I shouldn't be sounding so harsh. They're not getting squeezed when it's a product they like (I guess?) nobody is forcing anyone to buy it.

I also use Gadzic as an example, without knowing exactly what checklists he's on (or not). But that's it. All the RCs we didn't make during the regular releases.... cram them in here, because if someone only got 3 or 5 RCs instead of 11 or 14 or whatever it ends up being, that would really be a shame (just ask anyone still holding onto Jonathan Quick RCs).

As for the RC symbol on everything from Panini this year.... I concur. I think they've made a lot of fantastic looking cards, but I the idea that 'Dual RC Class' needed to be stamped on every single card of a player that was a rookie in 12-13 or 13-14 bothered the heck out of me at the beginning of the season.... and while I've backed down on my personal pledge to not touch any Panini wax that featured that logo, I haven't kept any RCs from their sets this year (yet) because of it. I didn't like the idea that this mashed together RC class (caused by a lockout) was something that should be stamped on each card, and then when I saw they were putting it on every card of every rookie (and not just the RCs) it annoyed me even more.

If it don't say rc in the beckett it ain't a rookie card.

That's true, but only to a point. 2010-11 Upper Deck Ice (1 pack of ice inserted into Black Diamond boxes) was the last example of this.... and I think the Crosby McDonalds RC debate the one before that: If a card doesn't fit the parameters of a Rookie, as Beckett sees fit, they won't list it as one. As such.... Taylor Hall Ice /99 (etc) and the 2005 Crosby McDonald's card #51 were NOT listed a RCs when they were first published. Then collector's complained, and insisted they should be. Beckett went with popular opinion and changed their listings.

I don't mean this as a negative at all. That's exactly what Beckett should do: Report on what's collectible, not try and define it.

[RGM81]

If it don't say rc in the beckett it ain't a rookie card.

In all seriousness...

Both UD and Panini have done a fantastic job of muddying the waters with innumerable inserts, parallels, and even multiple sequentially numbered "base" RC's in their products this year.

To wit:

Trilogy was the first offender - /699, /399, and /49 in the main set...and even more screwy numbers for the update cards found in SPx.
SPx....what on earth were they thinking here? Put in unnumbered sequentially numbered "foil RC's" of everybody and THEN do the standard SPx auto jersey "rookie card" that we've all come to know and love.
Select / Totally Certified have the same issue - there's so many versions: auto /399, auto jersey /199, auto jersey prime /50, refractor auto /99, refractor auto jersey /99....who knows what's what????

This used to be a pretty easy thing to do, collecting rookie cards and such. Now you almost need a flow chart.

[KingKuba]

Spx is just .....think ud think

[hang time]

I still consider the rookie auto jersey in spx to be the rookie card from the set, like every other year of the product. The rest is just silly but that's not what Beckett listings would suggest.

Edit.....

I was just looking through someone's traders on Beckett. They had 6 spx auto jerseys, 2 of them said RC and the rest said nothing...

[KingKuba]

If going by ice premieres.

Fleer ultra base sets rookies should be real rookies but they are not. Same with a few others in showcase/anthology.