defining a rookie card

[jetsman]

Okay, I'm surely not the only one here getting annoyed by this.

and no, it isn't every member who does this, and no, it doesn't just happen on this board.

In fact, it happens in card shops, ebay auctions and even the card guides.

I'm talking about the mislabelling of RCs.

Let's make a copule things clear.

- draft pick sets not licensed by a league or players' association is not an RC. That includes In The Game, Press Pass, Sage, Just Minors.

- inserts are not RCs. RCs, as have been defined for ages, can only be in base sets.

- parallels are not RCs. a parallel set, while numbered similarly to a base, is not the primary part of the product. all they are are a different type of insert.

- redemptions not numbered as part of a base set are not RCs.

- food issues (eg. McDonald's), team cards and other reginals are not RCs. an RC must be widely available to anyone via a hobby or retail outlet. a restaurant does not count (no matter what certain magazines will claim).

Please feel free to debate me on this. I'm throwing down the debate gauntlet. anyone who wishes to pick it up feel free to do so.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Beckett's guides can be counted on for RC tags.

A thornier issue not mentioned, and not sure if Beckett even follows a rule on it - that is, do base sets which have two card versions of a 'rookie' player always have the first one listed as the 'true' RC? A lot of mid-'90s sets still were produced in series one, series two, etc., and also had subsets within the base set sometimes which often included rookie players. (Subsets are NOT insert sets, by the way - another common confusion; they are themed cards within the base set that look different from the majority of the bases)

I think some of the Freshly Forged subsets in 96-97 Metal basketball, for instance, are labelled RCs because that subset came earlier in the set than some of the regular base cards of rookies (i.e., player A might have a Freshly Forged subset numbered 130 in the 220 card set, but also has a regular base card numbered 218).

[jetsman]

To start, Beckett cannot be counted on for RC tags. They arbitrarily tagged a Crosby McD's card an RC this year with very little rhyme or reason. To the best of my knoledge, they have not gone backward and declared other McD's first-years like Matt Stajan to be "RCs". There were a lot of collectors on the beckett board fuming over that the card was given the tag simply because it's Crosby.

Now in the case of series 1 and 2, I haven't seen any guide list a series 2 card as an RC where there has been a card of that player in Series 1. That was the case in 01-02 with Ilya Kovalchuk.

The only time I've seen two RCs in one set was in hockey, when Ziggy Palffy had both a draft pick and Canada Cup card in Upper Deck 91-92 Series One.

What really has to happen is for an independent body to firmly ratify a definition. Beckett, for all their dominance in the hobby, is but one price guide. There are also Sports Collectors Digest/Tuff Stuff and Canadian Sports Collector, along with several online-only media sources.

[jetsman]

in terms of the subset issue, this arose during the bill barilko RC debate in 03-04. Ther was argument that the Original 6 card from the TML set was the RC, others said the Parkhurst RC, others said the 91-92 HOF subset card.