Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1




    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    17
    SCF Rewards
    338
    Country

    UD Black Diamond - Exquisite Collection (True?) Rookie cards

    Alright, so I suppose the title presents the question. We are talking about extremely rare collection of cards and just like in the SP game used authentic collection, the top rookies are numbered based on their jersery #.

    For example Matthews has #/34 cards and Laine #/29. However, since the Exquisite is sort of a sub-card set like O-Pee-Chee is to UD series 2 do they count in as true rookie cards or does authentic series hold this title alone?

    There are some indication pointing out that they are seen as extremely valuable due to rarity alone (and perhaps even the price). Here's one article:

    http://www.upperdeck.com/Collectors-...rd-values.aspx

    "Today, the most valuable cards are typically tied to an athlete’s rookie year and /or are from super-premium releases like Exquisite Collection, The Cup and Ultimate Collection. When it comes to which players command the most dollars for their trading cards, they usually come directly from Upper Deck’s exclusive spokesmen stable. Upper Deck has"


    Also Beckett's reviews about early Laine and Matthews rookie cards seem to point out that they are sought after. The cards are paralleled and being paralleled is one of the requirements to be considered as a rookie card. When looking at these cards from Ebay, I haven't seen even one Laine card emerge. Matthews is being sold between $500-1500.

    What's the consensus opinion in the matter? Also personal opinions are welcomed also. What if you had to pick one card of Matthews or Laine, would you rather take the triple/quad Diamond one of one or Exquisite Collection rookies spectrum?



  2. #2
    Hockey Advisor






    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    19,852
    SCF Rewards
    70,525
    Country
    Edmonton Oilers Toronto Blue Jays Hamilton Tiger Cats
    See 30Ranfordfan's Items on eBay COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    It's a good discussion.

    One thing I will say: I do not believe that being paralleled is a requirement to be a rookie card (I have never read that anywhere, I wouldn't personally care if there are parallels or not).


    On this topic - I would say "no" they are not rookie cards. The reason is that Exquisite is not a set.... at least not one I can go buy a pack or box of. It's UD's highest end set in other sports... so it makes sense that they'd bring the brand over to hockey.... but if they made Exquisite its own release, they'd tank The Cup - so they don't.

    To me - There is only one rookie card of a player available in a release. Doesn't matter if you serial number that card /1000, /1, or don't serial number it at all. The Black Diamond card is the Rookie Card, the Exquisite is an awesome, low #ed, insert.


    As for which one I'd rather own: I'd rather own the Exquisite than the Black Diamond. It's a nicer card, it should be worth more. Just because it doesn't have the RC tag doesn't mean it's not a nice card.

  3. #3




    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    17
    SCF Rewards
    338
    Country

    It's a good discussion.

    One thing I will say: I do not believe that being paralleled is a requirement to be a rookie card (I have never read that anywhere, I wouldn't personally care if there are parallels or not).


    On this topic - I would say "no" they are not rookie cards. The reason is that Exquisite is not a set.... at least not one I can go buy a pack or box of. It's UD's highest end set in other sports... so it makes sense that they'd bring the brand over to hockey.... but if they made Exquisite its own release, they'd tank The Cup - so they don't.

    To me - There is only one rookie card of a player available in a release. Doesn't matter if you serial number that card /1000, /1, or don't serial number it at all. The Black Diamond card is the Rookie Card, the Exquisite is an awesome, low #ed, insert.


    As for which one I'd rather own: I'd rather own the Exquisite than the Black Diamond. It's a nicer card, it should be worth more. Just because it doesn't have the RC tag doesn't mean it's not a nice card.

    I appreciate the fast and thoughtful answer. I was actually trying to google some kind of a rule book regarding the terms required for a card to be considered as a true rookie card, but didn't really find anything concrete cause I didn't have the time for it. It seems that there are different takes on the matter. Also I asked directly from the Upper Deck and they disagreed with you (not that it necessarily means anything). Here's the response:

    "Parallel Spectrum cards from that set are numbered1/1, the base set is #’d29. The link here http://www.cardboardconnection.com/2...diamond-hockey is the card check list for that specific product. We use cardboard connection as a source for all of our checklists. The one of one cards are not considered true rookie cards the card numbered out of 29 is."

    Either way, kind of funny that the paralleled card isn't considered to be one, though I do get it. I disagree with the notion of Exquisite itself being an insert. It is not, it's a sub card set, or whatever you'd like to call it. While it has it's own rookie card base set, it does indeed has inserts along with it. However, Exquisite Collection Rookies aren't inserts. They are rookie cards, whether they are "true" rookie cards or not can be argued and I understand that not everyone considers them as such.

    What I find extremely odd is the rarity. The Black Diamond set was released ages ago, while none of these base cards of Laine has emerged yet. If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation, I'd be all ears.

  4. #4




    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    765
    SCF Rewards
    4,696
    Country
    Ottawa Senators Chicago Cubs Seattle Seahawks
    Twitter: @@BartenderRon47 COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    Pacific tried something similar a few years back, by having their rookie cards serial numbered to the player's jersey number. Can't remember what set it was, but it actually DID result in a change as to what can be considered an RC or not. Because Pacific numbered them to the player's jersey number, and Ty Conklin's number was 1, you had a 1/1 Rookie card out there. Collectors went nuts, because a rookie card has to follow the sequential numbering of the set, but also be of a significantly high enough print run, so as to reasonably allow collectors to build complete sets. This is why Upper Deck would usually have rookie print runs of either 999, or 1500. Getting back to the Conklin RC then, because it did follow the sequential numbering rule, it was considered an RC, but the problem was, only 1 set builder on the entire planet would ever have a possibly complete set, and how would that be fair?
    Needless to say, in order for a card to be considered a rookie card, it must meet the three following criteria:
    1) It must fit into a recognized set release
    2) It must be sequentially numbered to fit into that set
    3) The print run must be high enough to allow for a reasonable set completion.

    As a case in point from my own PC, I'll use Jani Hurme's 2000-01 SP Game Used RC

    1) It fits into a recognized set, in that the entire set has a fairly uniform appearance, same print patterns, etc.
    2) It fits as a sequentially numbered card in the set (card #76 of the 90 card set)
    3) Print run of 900 allows for a reasonable ability to build multiple sets.

    Now, some of the rules may have changed again, but because of the reaction from collectors, the manufacturer's and the NHLPA actually worked together to come up with these guidelines.
    Always looking for Senators cards! Must be a draft pick, or the card is identifiable as a Senators card before I want it!
    Until further notice, I ship on Mondays. Only day off, so only chance to get to the Post Office.
    Hidden Content

  5. #5
    Hockey Advisor






    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    19,852
    SCF Rewards
    70,525
    Country
    Edmonton Oilers Toronto Blue Jays Hamilton Tiger Cats
    See 30Ranfordfan's Items on eBay COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    I appreciate the fast and thoughtful answer. I was actually trying to google some kind of a rule book regarding the terms required for a card to be considered as a true rookie card, but didn't really find anything concrete cause I didn't have the time for it. It seems that there are different takes on the matter. Also I asked directly from the Upper Deck and they disagreed with you (not that it necessarily means anything). Here's the response:

    "Parallel Spectrum cards from that set are numbered1/1, the base set is #’d29. The link here http://www.cardboardconnection.com/2...diamond-hockey is the card check list for that specific product. We use cardboard connection as a source for all of our checklists. The one of one cards are not considered true rookie cards the card numbered out of 29 is."

    Either way, kind of funny that the paralleled card isn't considered to be one, though I do get it. I disagree with the notion of Exquisite itself being an insert. It is not, it's a sub card set, or whatever you'd like to call it. While it has it's own rookie card base set, it does indeed has inserts along with it. However, Exquisite Collection Rookies aren't inserts. They are rookie cards, whether they are "true" rookie cards or not can be argued and I understand that not everyone considers them as such.

    What I find extremely odd is the rarity. The Black Diamond set was released ages ago, while none of these base cards of Laine has emerged yet. If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation, I'd be all ears.

    This is my take on it. I see the term "true rookie card" used a lot, and I think it's silly. There is no need to call something a "true rookie card" - because in my mind, it's either a rookie card or it's not. The card can have the word "rookie" written on it, that doesn't make it a rookie card.

    Subset, vs Insert... my take was always this:

    A subset is a group of cards that are numbered as part of one set, but something clearly makes them unique from the rest of that set. In those general terms - I would call Young Guns as subset of of the UD Series 1/2 base sets. If the subset is part of the base set, then great. If you add a bunch of All Star cards or trophy winners to a main set.... I would call that a "subset".

    Inserts - I would call anything that is numbered differently than the base set an insert.

    But I also see how Exquisite doesn't exactly fit into either of those. It's supposed to be a product within a product.

    I'll use the Black Diamond checklist (that you linked to) and Austin Matthews to describe what I would call each card:


    Rookie Gems Set Checklist
    18 cards. Serial Numbered #/399.
    RG-AM Auston Matthews - Toronto Maple Leafs

    ^^^^ This is the ONLY Rookie Card of Austin Matthews in the whole checklist.

    PARALLEL CARDS: Pure Black Signatures #/199 or less, Pure Black #/25.

    ^^^^ These are NOT rookie cards. They're parallel cards. The card that they are a parallel of happens to be a rookie card.

    Diamond Relic Rookie Gems Set Checklist Serial Numbered #/99.
    Quad Diamond
    BDR-AM Auston Matthews - Toronto Maple Leafs

    To me, this is another parallel of the above card... as is the 1/1.


    Then you get down to the Exquisite cards.

    There is this one:

    Exquisite Rookies Set Checklist
    PARALLEL CARDS: Spectrum 1/1.
    R-AM Auston Matthews - Toronto Maple Leafs #/ 34

    It's not the 1/1 Serial Numbering that stops that Spectrum from being a rookie card... the Spectrum is a parallel of the base. Those base cards are all #ed to player Jersey numbers... so whatever their jersey number is, that's how many copies there are. That's what the rookie card should be. SPGU is the same way, with different serial numbering for each player.

    HOWEVER... because Exquisite is not a stand alone release, It's debatable if those cards should be considered "rookie cards". I say no. Others will say yes. I suppose in the end, it doesn't really matter. That Matthews Exquisite /34 is going to sell for big bucks regardless of what tag beckett, myself, or anyone gives it.


    Look at the checklist for 2013-14 SPGU. Card #164.... Jack Campbell. His base card is serial numbered to his jersey: #1. That is the rookie card. The unnumbered Gold Autograph also exists, and is also card #164. It's a parallel.

    So again, we go back to this "true rookie card" thing. If you have that Campbell... do you say "I have Campbell's true rookie card from SPGU" ?? I think "true" is unnecessary, because if you have the Gold Autograph and say "I have Campbell's autograph rookie card from SPGU" you are wrong. That is not a rookie card. It's an autograph parallel of a rookie card.



    Pacific tried something similar a few years back, by having their rookie cards serial numbered to the player's jersey number. Can't remember what set it was, but it actually DID result in a change as to what can be considered an RC or not. Because Pacific numbered them to the player's jersey number, and Ty Conklin's number was 1, you had a 1/1 Rookie card out there. Collectors went nuts, because a rookie card has to follow the sequential numbering of the set, but also be of a significantly high enough print run, so as to reasonably allow collectors to build complete sets. This is why Upper Deck would usually have rookie print runs of either 999, or 1500. Getting back to the Conklin RC then, because it did follow the sequential numbering rule, it was considered an RC, but the problem was, only 1 set builder on the entire planet would ever have a possibly complete set, and how would that be fair?
    Needless to say, in order for a card to be considered a rookie card, it must meet the three following criteria:
    1) It must fit into a recognized set release
    2) It must be sequentially numbered to fit into that set
    3) The print run must be high enough to allow for a reasonable set completion.

    As a case in point from my own PC, I'll use Jani Hurme's 2000-01 SP Game Used RC

    1) It fits into a recognized set, in that the entire set has a fairly uniform appearance, same print patterns, etc.
    2) It fits as a sequentially numbered card in the set (card #76 of the 90 card set)
    3) Print run of 900 allows for a reasonable ability to build multiple sets.

    Now, some of the rules may have changed again, but because of the reaction from collectors, the manufacturer's and the NHLPA actually worked together to come up with these guidelines.


    Way back in the day... I think the rules written in Beckett were this:

    1. Must be an NHL licensed release
    2. Must be the first year the player had a card in an NHL licensed set.
    3. Must be a "widely distributed" set.
    4. Can't be a "box set" only release
    5. Part of the sequentially numbered main set (no rule that it says it has to use numbers... but whatever the 'numbering' is must match)
    6. Has to have at least 99 copies


    Maybe there is something else I'm forgetting about?

    The last rule was a response to Pacific's 2001-02 Titanium (as you mentioned). The "base" cards (for rookies) were all serial numbered to a player's jersey number. That meant there was only 1 Ty Conklin.... and lots of others are very limited.

    It also seemed like a really arbitrary rule that Beckett invented, because less than 99 copies meant it was too hard to chase. Many people ignored it, said they didn't care if Beckett wouldn't tag them. The whole "collect what you like" thing... are they RCs or not? At the time, it was a matter of opinion.

    Panini brought back the Titanium brand in 2011-12, and serial numbered the 100 rookie cards to the player's jersey number. Collector's accepted these as rookie cards, and Beckett gave them the tags. They also went back and updated the 01-02 cards, and gave them the tags. Mikko Koskinen (#200) exists in this set as a 1/1.

    Upper Deck started doing the same thing with SPGU the following year (or maybe it was two years after??).

    Anyway - over the years Beckett has changed rules. I don't like the magazine much (they produce good information, but the price guide is garbage IMO). This is one thing they've done that I will admit I think was a very good move. They (Beckett) don't get to define what the rules for a rookie card are. Collectors do. While you may not be able to get everyone to agree on something.... you can get most to agree. If something is widely accepted within the hobby, I think Beckett's job is to go with that rule.

    The widely distributed thing - it's been dead for more than 10 years. McDonald's card (for example) could not be a rookie card, because they were exclusive to one store (McDonald's) and they were not available outside of Canada. Then Sidney Crosby came along, and collectors felt the Crosby McD's card should count as a rookie. Beckett eventually added the tag, and also to any other cards that would have fit along these lines.

    The 99 copies has been removed as a rule since 2011-12.

    I'm not sure about the box set thing. I think the idea was that it had to be something you actually had to collect.... i.e. buying a single pack or box didn't ensure you'd get that Rookie Card (though early 90s boxset sales of sets that also had packs - they were not affected by this). I'm thinking about something like Score Rookie / Traded boxsets back in the early 90s. I'm not sure if anything similar exists now. Biography of a Season? They would not count as RCs.





    So, ummmm, to sum it all up: No need to write the word "true" in front of rookie card, because I think it's either a rookie card or its not.

    Exquisite does make for an interesting take on the rules though. Product within a product? Is it possible to pull two different cards from the same release, and call them both rookie cards? I don't know. I don't like the idea... because next thing UD will do is put 5 releases into one box, and make them all RCs.
    Last edited by 30ranfordfan; 03-23-2017 at 11:46 AM.

  6. #6




    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    765
    SCF Rewards
    4,696
    Country
    Ottawa Senators Chicago Cubs Seattle Seahawks
    Twitter: @@BartenderRon47 COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    @30ranfordfan,. Excellent points my friend! My only question now is, after searching Ty Conklin Rookie Cards, it appears to me, unless I missed it, that when Beckett went back and re-tagged the 01/02 Titanium as rookie cards, why was Conklin's not tagged? A moot point either way.
    On a slightly different note, as I was listing some cards for trade, I came across an Original 6 Lasse Kukkonen RC. Tried to find it under RC's but it wasn't listed. After searching, I discovered it's an XRC. When I asked about it here, I was told that SCF doesn't recognize an XRC destination, which made sense to me. Now, fast forward about a month, and I see there is an Auston Matthews XRC in the database. Again, can't remember which specific set, but just struck me as strange at first. Of course, since then I've concluded that, in certain instances, because of a player's collectability, rules will be bent from time to time. I mean hey, EVERYBODY wants a Matthews RC, but really, how many of us have even heard of Kukkonen?

    Yes, the 01/02 Titanium set was confusing to say the least! 1 Conklin RC, 17 Kovalchuk's, etc. Virtually impossible for all but 1 person to ever complete a base set!

  7. #7
    Hockey Advisor






    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    19,852
    SCF Rewards
    70,525
    Country
    Edmonton Oilers Toronto Blue Jays Hamilton Tiger Cats
    See 30Ranfordfan's Items on eBay COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    The Conklin, if I remember correctly was pulled like 10 years after the set came out - and sold for something in the range of $2k.

    XRC is a funny designation. I'm looking in the SCF database right now... those were redemptions in Portfolio?

    Seeing the way things are laid out - there is no 'XRC' tag, but XRC was written into that sent name.


    What's the Lasse Kukkonen card?? I see a bunch of Origional 6 cards in the SCF list.... but they all look like show cards.

    On the XRC topic - In recent years it's been relevant, because of redemption cards. Put a redemption into a set of this year's card, it's redeemable next for a rookie. It's not actually released until they're in the league.... but technically the card is from a season prior to their Rookie Year, so the 'X' prefix is necessary.

    That got me thinking about a few XRCs from the early 90s, when some of those other "rules" were more relevant. Take a look at Bill Guerin:

    http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/i...archleagueid/0


    All of his 92-93 base cards are listed with the 'RC' tag (which is correct) but so is the 91-92 Parkhurst. The 91-92 card is incorrect. It should not be a RC, it was an XRC.

    Then look at Joe Juneau:

    http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/i...archleagueid/0

    Only RCs are 91-92 Parkhurst (and French). Those cards should have the RC tag (not XRC) and, correctly, none of his 92-93 stuff is listed as a RC.


    What's the difference? Parkhurst was released in 3 chunks. Series 1 (1-225), Series 2 (226-450), and Update (451-475). The first two were pretty standard releases. Buy packs, buy a box, buy a case. Whatever. The Update set was a mail in box set..... and did not meet the qualification to be a rookie card (Ray Whitney & Trent Klatt also included in this).



    @30ranfordfan,. Excellent points my friend! My only question now is, after searching Ty Conklin Rookie Cards, it appears to me, unless I missed it, that when Beckett went back and re-tagged the 01/02 Titanium as rookie cards, why was Conklin's not tagged? A moot point either way.
    On a slightly different note, as I was listing some cards for trade, I came across an Original 6 Lasse Kukkonen RC. Tried to find it under RC's but it wasn't listed. After searching, I discovered it's an XRC. When I asked about it here, I was told that SCF doesn't recognize an XRC destination, which made sense to me. Now, fast forward about a month, and I see there is an Auston Matthews XRC in the database. Again, can't remember which specific set, but just struck me as strange at first. Of course, since then I've concluded that, in certain instances, because of a player's collectability, rules will be bent from time to time. I mean hey, EVERYBODY wants a Matthews RC, but really, how many of us have even heard of Kukkonen?

    Yes, the 01/02 Titanium set was confusing to say the least! 1 Conklin RC, 17 Kovalchuk's, etc. Virtually impossible for all but 1 person to ever complete a base set!


  8. #8




    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    765
    SCF Rewards
    4,696
    Country
    Ottawa Senators Chicago Cubs Seattle Seahawks
    Twitter: @@BartenderRon47 COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    @30ranfordfan, 03/04 Parkhurst Original6 Chicago Blackhawks #22 Lasse Kukkonen. I know this one isn't a show card because I pack pulled it myself at an LCS across the street from my work. I'm on a tablet, or I'd send a scan if I could!

  9. #9
    Hockey Advisor






    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    19,852
    SCF Rewards
    70,525
    Country
    Edmonton Oilers Toronto Blue Jays Hamilton Tiger Cats
    See 30Ranfordfan's Items on eBay COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/inv/viewset/54855

    That set. I see it now....


    I don't know why that wouldn't be a RC. Did something about the way Pankhurst Original 6 was released make it some that didn't meet standards at the time?



    @30ranfordfan, 03/04 Parkhurst Original6 Chicago Blackhawks #22 Lasse Kukkonen. I know this one isn't a show card because I pack pulled it myself at an LCS across the street from my work. I'm on a tablet, or I'd send a scan if I could!


  10. #10




    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    765
    SCF Rewards
    4,696
    Country
    Ottawa Senators Chicago Cubs Seattle Seahawks
    Twitter: @@BartenderRon47 COMC Cards For Sale Upper Deck ePack

    http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/inv/viewset/54855

    That set. I see it now....


    I don't know why that wouldn't be a RC. Did something about the way Pankhurst Original 6 was released make it some that didn't meet standards at the time?

    According to Beckett, it was classified as an XRC, but when I questioned it here, because at the time, I was listing my binder of tradeable RC's, but it didn't come up, I was told SCF doesn't use an XRC designation, only Beckett does.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SCF Sponsors


About SCF

    Sports Card Forum provides sports and non-sports card collectors a safe place to discuss, buy, sell and trade.

    SCF maintains tools that will allow collectors to manage their collections online, information about what is happening with the hobby, as well as providing robust data to send out for Autographs through the mail.

Follow SCF on