Are RCs played out?

[djmcards]

If you have a PC of a lesser known player, the large number of rookie cards are a blessing. I PC Taylor Leier, who has been a parttime NHLer for a couple of years and now is a solid fourth liner for the Flyers. Because of the effort the card companies put out comprehensive sets of rookie cards, Leier was in 9 card sets in his rookie year of 2015-16. When you add in all the parallels, there were over 30 cards of Leier in NHL sets to collect that year. Last year, the only NHL set he was in was the Compendium set on ePack, which has 900 cards in the series. And even this year that he has made the roster and will likely play all year, other than OPC and Compendium it is extremely unlikely he will appear in any sets, because if a set only has 100 or even 200 cards of non-rookies, players on the 4th line aren't going to make it into the checklist. So the rush of card companies to have 50 rookies or more in every series is great for people collecting cards of players who aren't on the top line or two of their team, simply because it creates so many cards of the player during their rookie year.

[sparty07]

In general, I agree with this. However, in the last year or so, UD has completely left a number of teams without a rookie in the product at all.

If you have a PC of a lesser known player, the large number of rookie cards are a blessing. I PC Taylor Leier, who has been a parttime NHLer for a couple of years and now is a solid fourth liner for the Flyers. Because of the effort the card companies put out comprehensive sets of rookie cards, Leier was in 9 card sets in his rookie year of 2015-16. When you add in all the parallels, there were over 30 cards of Leier in NHL sets to collect that year. Last year, the only NHL set he was in was the Compendium set on ePack, which has 900 cards in the series. And even this year that he has made the roster and will likely play all year, other than OPC and Compendium it is extremely unlikely he will appear in any sets, because if a set only has 100 or even 200 cards of non-rookies, players on the 4th line aren't going to make it into the checklist. So the rush of card companies to have 50 rookies or more in every series is great for people collecting cards of players who aren't on the top line or two of their team, simply because it creates so many cards of the player during their rookie year.

[dafoefan34]

Having been in this hobby for over 20 years, it seems that Rookies really are the only constantly in-demand component of any product. It isn't really a surprise that card manufacturers make them the focus of most sets.

Parallels, Serial Numbered, Autos, Jerseys, Patches, Premium Sized Patches, etc.. All had their 15 minutes of fame and eventually faded. There is still demand for shields and booklets, but eventually those too will be beaten to death.

[pbc]

Coming back into the hobby recently, things have certainly become so much more confusing, especially with RC's (or maybe all cards in general). E.g., why is an Emerald Jersey patch more valuable than a Silver Jersey patch rookie card? Exact same looking card, but one is purple, the other is silver. I mean, who cares if one is numbered to 99 and the other 399 when they look identical? Even the YG's do this, they have the "numbered" YG's, and the standard non-numbered. They're identical cards from what I can tell, except UD decides to print a XX/99 or whatever on it, and suddenly the value sky rockets. I get it to some extent with Auto's and different "unique" cards, but not with this stuff.

[30ranfordfan]

Are Rookie Cards played out? I would say "no" because for top players, they are still what everyone chases.

I think the over-saturation of rookie content in a lot of sets is kind of played out, but maybe I'm in the minority?

I do think there are way too many inserts, GU, and auto sets that are either exclusive to rookies, or include rookies... and that does have a negative effect on how desirable those cards are going forward.

I keep seeing "Young Guns" mentioned as cards that everyone wants.... well, aside from the top players - I'm not sure that's really true. It's a popular set to build, but how many people are clamoring to get ahold of a Sebastian Aho YG today? They can EASILY be had for less than $5. Should they be expensive?? It's a guy that scored 24 goals and had 49 points last year. That's a really good rookie season. This is a player that could remain in the top 50 (or so) of NHL scorers, year-over-year, for a long time... but the cards aren't valuable?

They're not valuable because he's not one of the handful of rookies that everyone wanted from last year. Matthews, Laine, Marner, Nylander.... if hit one of those guys and it's a big deal. There's a few others that are "good" hits, and then a bunch of "good players, that nobody really wants".

SPA or Cup or whatever - The cards are more valuable than the YGs, but they're not a whole lot more collectible.


https://www.comc.com/Cards/Hockey/20...tails,_RY,i100

Look how many Cup ARPs from 15-16 can be had (on COMC) for under $10. If you hop on eBay, I assure you that you can picks some cards from this set up for under $5. Why? Nobody wants them.

I think what UD has done with sets like Trilogy & Ultimate in recent years has been bad too. In an effort to create more Rookie hits - They add multiple cards of the same player to the base set... creating "extra" rookie cards:

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/inv/viewset/212754

Which card of Puljujarvi is the rookie card? Is it #54 (/999), #87 (Auto'd, /275), or #120 (Auto'd, /49) ?? Is it two of them? Maybe all three are rookie cards?

That really muddies the waters on what a rookie card is. I don't mind the tearing of sets - If they wanted to make the lesser names non-autos /999, mid-tier players are autos /275, and the stars autos /49: That would work for me..... but if you're like me, and say that a set can only have 1 Rookie Card of a player in it... then UD made a bunch of extra auto'd cards that are simply "rookie year autos" and not "auto'd rookie cards" - And devalued those autos in the process..... and the more rookie year autos you can get for cheaper, means the cheaper the others will get.


In SPA... They've got FWA Rookie Cards, plus a few variations (inscribed, Black, Patch Version). Why isn't that enough? Why do they have to include Rookie SOTT and Silver Skates too? Based on the simple notion of Supply & Demand - It kills the values, and collectiblity, of rookies.

[Sharky94]

Are RCs played out?

Not even close. Most people who open cards these days are only concerned with what their card is worth, not who they get (Why else would Random team breaks be so popular? You pay to get cards from a random team? In what world does that make sense?). If they had their choice of getting a short-print patch of someone from their favorite team, or a short-print patch of some hot rookie, most would choose the rookie. It's all about "winning" or instant gratification. If your card is worth more, you win. It doesn't matter whether you wanted it or not.

Why do you think sets like OPC are a vanishing breed these days. Nobody wants 600 cards of vets. They would rather have a 100 card set with 20 vets and 80 rookies, even though 78 of those 80 rookies will never go up in value after initial release. Everyone remembers that one rookie they bought for $1 and sold for $20 three years later. They never remember the other 30 rookies they bought for $1 each that are now worth a nickel and sitting in a box because they can't give them away. Or they remember that one RPA they pulled and sold for $350, even though the box cost them $500, and the rest of the box got them less than $50. People remember their victories and forget their defeats, even though in card investing, the defeats are far more common.

[Thick McRunfast]

"Desire to acquire"

Put that on a T-shirt and sell it at card shows.

I have noticed that RC values have increased because of the expressed desire to acquire multiple copies.

[Leafsman]

@Maggot:

I only collect rookie cards of star players/hall of famers and I am very selective about what ones I collect. Everything else is just a giant waste of cardboard for me. I despise parallels and inserts with a passion.

For modern players, I am mainly an SP Authentic RC collector unless a player doesn't have one (if that's the case, I try for their Ultimate or Ice RC). Because SP Authentic rookies are generally numbered to 999 these days they are usually fairly easily available for trade or even on the secondary market. I'm not big on cards numbered to 100 or less. It's an availability thing for me.

For players from the 1990s, I go with UD or Parkhurst generally.

For players from the 1980s and before, it's O-Pee-Chee.

I have some ARPs from The Cup that I was able to get cheap, and a number of autographed jersey cards, but I don't really like the practice of cutting up jerseys of any kind - especially those of hall of fame members - and putting them in cards. I'm strongly considering moving the majority of them.

Like I said, everything else is just fluff for me.

[Taxi]

The issue with hockey is that every team has many players on it and the fanbase is not as big as the other sports. You can't expect rookies of random 2nd pairing d-men from a random Southern team to hold value. With these kind of market dynamics, that's unfortunately just the way it's going to be. Star players, and players from big hockey markets will always be the only highly sought after cards.

I've found the star players, however, are holding more value than ever. These are the cards that drive the hobby.

[Maggot]

Why do you think sets like OPC are a vanishing breed these days. Nobody wants 600 cards of vets. They would rather have a 100 card set with 20 vets and 80 rookies, even though 78 of those 80 rookies will never go up in value after initial release.

That's funny you mention OPC, it's the only product I bust anymore b/c it's in my price range and offers me the best perceived value. If you're right that it's in decline, I guess that goes to show that I am really in the minority.
@30ranfordfan Great post! My thoughts mirror exactly what you said, I wasn't able to put it in writing.

It's somewhat comical to me that people's defense of the glut of rookie content is the value of Crosby, Mcdavid, Mathews rookies. EVERY card of these players is pulling a huge premium, not just their RCs.