2013-14 Upper Deck Trilogy Rookies serial numbered to /699, /399 and /49

[chocolate799]

Hello,

which of those cards are considered as TRUE RCs by Beckett?

PLMK, thanks in advance for your help.

[RGM81]

All three.

[chocolate799]

are you sure?

I have just checked the Beckett population report of graded cards and only the cards serial numbered to /699 appear to be considered as TRUE RCs

[canucksfan007]

The true rookies are all 3. All 3 are part of the base set.

For example, I have all 3 of Jack Campbell. They are numbers 179, 180 and 181 in the base set

[CoolHandLuke]

Hello,

which of those cards are considered as TRUE RCs by Beckett?

PLMK, thanks in advance for your help.

The true rookies are all 3. All 3 are part of the base set.

For example, I have all 3 of Jack Campbell. They are numbers 179, 180 and 181 in the base set

Wrong, only the 699 is the true Rookie. Mainly there can only be one rookie per release no matter if UD listed what always used to be rookie parallel part of the base set. The other two are more parallel rookie but because they numbered the cards in the sequence of the base set, we had no choice but to list them under the base set. Other wise, we would have created two parallel set like we do for all other product.

101 Nail Yakupov AU, RC, S# /699
102 Nail Yakupov AU, S# /399
103 Nail Yakupov AU, S# /49
104 Vladimir Tarasenko AU, RC, S# /699
105 Vladimir Tarasenko AU, S# /399
106 Vladimir Tarasenko AU, S# /49
107 Alex Galchenyuk AU, RC, S# /699
108 Alex Galchenyuk AU, S# /399
109 Alex Galchenyuk AU, S# /49

Beckett did the same as we did listing the set in SCF inventory

[cygnusx1]

Yeah, wasn't that a precedent set by 03-04 Topps Pristine? Only the first RC in numerical order for each player is technically considered an RC?

Regardless, I think the "true RC" designation is silly, but that's an entirely different discussion.

[CoolHandLuke]

Yeah, wasn't that a precedent set by 03-04 Topps Pristine? Only the first RC in numerical order for each player is technically considered an RC?

Regardless, I think the "true RC" designation is silly, but that's an entirely different discussion.

people can have different opinion. Yet the rookie and I insist on Rookie definition and not TRUE rookie, as been around for more then half a century. This is also something that come from NHL and NHLPA. So it's not something just coming out of the blues, collector have valued rookie cards since 1951 and still are.

Now the fact they make parallel is a other story and more recent. For instance in other sports parallels of RC have for the most part always fetch more. Not as much in hockey but the tendencies seem to have been changing in the past years. Now you often see parallel worth more. All in all, often the value is what collectors are looking for. The fact a card as a rookie designation or not will not change the perceive value collector give to a card. Like in Prizm parallels book for more. So who is loosing on the fact they have the RC designation or not. Yet the definition of RC as never change and I don't see why it should. It will not change perceived value as these are created by what collector are willing to pay.

[cygnusx1]

people can have different opinion. Yet the rookie and I insist on Rookie definition and not TRUE rookie, as been around for more then half a century. This is also something that come from NHL and NHLPA. So it's not something just coming out of the blues, collector have valued rookie cards since 1951 and still are.

Now the fact they make parallel is a other story and more recent. For instance in other sports parallels of RC have for the most part always fetch more. Not as much in hockey but the tendencies seem to have been changing in the past years. Now you often see parallel worth more. All in all, often the value is what collectors are looking for. The fact a card as a rookie designation or not will not change the perceive value collector give to a card. Like in Prizm parallels book for more. So who is loosing on the fact they have the RC designation or not. Yet the definition of RC as never change and I don't see why it should. It will not change perceived value as these are created by what collector are willing to pay.

My bad, after re-reading my post, it was not at all what I meant to say. I fully understand why the true RC designation exists.

What I meant to say is that I don't see why collectors (at least in hockey) give so much more importance to the true RC. But as you said, that does seem to be changing lately.

[Gallinator]

My bad, after re-reading my post, it was not at all what I meant to say. I fully understand why the true RC designation exists.

What I meant to say is that I don't see why collectors (at least in hockey) give so much more importance to the true RC. But as you said, that does seem to be changing lately.

With Trilogy in particular, I as a collector think that each of these players has 1147 copies of his RC, with some numbered out of 699, some out of 399 and some out of 49. All feature an autograph. If someone asked what they needed to do to own a RC from Trilogy of Yakupov, it appears self-evident that they could buy any one of these 1147 copies to satisfy their desire.

To defend this POV, let us flip it over: If only one of these versions is to be considered a "true" RC, then the other two versions MUST be considered a "variation" or "parallel". Who decides that the /699 version is the "true" RC version and not the /399 or /49? Certainly not Upper Deck, which designates them merely to be Level 1, 2 and 3. I don't believe you will find a ready consensus across collectors to call one version the "true" RC, so for the sake of simplicity, all should be.

More importantly, different collectors will feel differently about this and really should just go by what they understand or feel to be correct, as well as recognize that others may feel another way. For issues like Trilogy, in my opinion, how to designate the card is moot. It was issued as part of a regular set in the year that all other RC's of that player were issued; for me, that means 1147 RC of each of the rookies.

[CoolHandLuke]

With Trilogy in particular, I as a collector think that each of these players has 1147 copies of his RC, with some numbered out of 699, some out of 399 and some out of 49. All feature an autograph. If someone asked what they needed to do to own a RC from Trilogy of Yakupov, it appears self-evident that they could buy any one of these 1147 copies to satisfy their desire.

To defend this POV, let us flip it over: If only one of these versions is to be considered a "true" RC, then the other two versions MUST be considered a "variation" or "parallel". Who decides that the /699 version is the "true" RC version and not the /399 or /49? Certainly not Upper Deck, which designates them merely to be Level 1, 2 and 3. I don't believe you will find a ready consensus across collectors to call one version the "true" RC, so for the sake of simplicity, all should be.

More importantly, different collectors will feel differently about this and really should just go by what they understand or feel to be correct, as well as recognize that others may feel another way. For issues like Trilogy, in my opinion, how to designate the card is moot. It was issued as part of a regular set in the year that all other RC's of that player were issued; for me, that means 1147 RC of each of the rookies.

I see your point, yet and I speak for SCF card database, we work with this definition:
There can only be one rookie card, per player and per brand release and the card is part of the base set. This will not change no matter if some agree and other don't. This is how it has been done for more then 60 Year. The other two arte really XRC not RC.

I did not make this definition. It's the definition that was there even before I collected. Just continuing the tradition as it always was.

if there was no definition, how would we know what is the rookie. Rookie jersey, rookie parallel and what about the insert showing a rookie? Then the RC appellation would make no more sense, if you ask me.

Like 2009-10 Be a Player release a card from P.K. Subban with rookie printed on the card.
2009-10 Be A Player #360 P.K. Subban Attributes: S# /99
et neither us or Beckett have flag the card.

If this card have been allowed to be a rookie card then all the other would not been available. yet the card did not meet the rookie definition. So it's not a rookie card. That does not stop it to sell very well among collectors. Now technically this player was eligible to have a RC card made in 2009-10 since he played 2 match but UD was the only manufacturer and did not make any card. The Subban ended up being a redemption and was issued only when the 2010-11 season started. This is why being from a 2009 set it never got the RC since it was really printed when the new season started. This made Subban eligible to RC in 2010.

There are always exception but usually they are rare. One good example was the Score RC card. All other did not issue Martin Brodeur card and only Score ended up with a rookie card of Brodeur. Now I am sure UD acted this way to be sure they would have Subban eligible to RC in 2010 and since BAP was done and not produce in 2010 they still decided to make the card and got away with it this way. But now since there is two manufacturer, they have to issue the good RC card as they can't afford to miss it to the competition.

While I do understand that everyone can agree or not, it will not change how we flag a RC in the SCF card database because it's simply how this is done not only in hockey but also in baseball and other sports. So we did not create the definition. Mainly MHL issue 22 licenses and there can be only 22 RC, one per player and brand release.

Now why the 699. Mainly have you ever seen a parallel with a print run bigger then the RC? This is why when I imported the set I flag the 699 and assume Beckett did the same under the same logic.

But I ask you, what does it really change. The 399 book more then the 699 and the /49 book more then the 399. So no one loose because one is a rookie and the other are extended RC or RC parallel. Before it was affecting value but collector are changing and now seem to want to pay more. So no one really loose. Yet a RC as always been this for the past 60+ years.