What is a rookie card?

[cwpucks]

Ok so if anyone has noticed i post a lot of questions. Its not because I don't think I know the answer its because I like to hear others opinions on them. I have been doing this for about 35 years and have a nice collection (vintage cards and Autos as well as some current) so on to the question.....

So what do you think is a players rookie card? Simple question that you would think has a simple answer, A card or base card from the players 1st year in the NHL. But we all know its not that simple..

Per our favorite publication Beckett ( know its split on if Beckett is retentive or not) there are two types of rookies. RC = Rookie Card the one we all know and love and XRC = Extended Rookie Card. For those not familiar with this its because it mainly a Baseball thing from the 80's. Topps, Fleer and Donruss would put out late update sets with all the trades and rookies from the year, like they do now. so for some reason Beckett decided the update set rookies in the 80's are XRC and the next years cards of the players would be RC. This would be like all the upper deck young guns that are found in SPA being XRC and the next year they would still be RC's.

The next thing that happens with Rookies is vintage cards. So hockey cards put out in 20's 30's 40's some 50's. So i have 2 off the top of my head that i know. Beckett says Bill Cook's Rookie is 1933 OPC, V129 and ice Kings but he has a 1923 V128 Paulins Candy card and a 1924 V130 & V145 before the 1933's. The other is Bill Durnan. His rookie is listed a 1955-56 Parkhurst. But he had a 1951 Berk Ross before it. If you don't include the Beehive's.

Third are Parallels and Inserts. So Parallels we know from OPC Retro, OPC Platinum Auto and Color variations, UD Canvas as well as others... and Inserts like UD portraits, The Show (from The Cup), & Rookie science from Credentials. Beckett does not list any of these are RC.

So what are you thoughts? What do you consider and what don't you consider a Rookie card?

[30ranfordfan]

Really simple:

1. A base card
2. From an NHL licensed trading card set, in the player's first year of having cards in an NHL licensed trading card set.
3. Set has to have normal distribution. You buy packs of it (or a single pack / box / tin / whatever). Have to be able to go to a store to get it, mail in offers don't count.

When the player plays his first game doesn't matter. At all. A player can have a Rookie Card, even if he's not played yet. It's not his card from when he first makes the NHL, it's his base cards from the first year he had cards in an NHL licensed set.

For the last 20 years, nobody has gotten into an NHL licensed set without first playing a game. The PA doesn't let that happen anymore. They're going to make an exception for Lafreniere with UD Series 1. That will absolutely be a Rookie Card.... the same as Eric Lindros' 1990-91 Score card was Rookie Card. Lindros didn't play in the NHL until 1992-93. That's when he got his first cards showing him as a Flyer. Those are not rookie cards.

Baseball, I don't know much about it, when or how the XRC tags got applied. The only time I can recall them being used in hockey was for cards from major manufacturers, that didn't fit the normal distribution of cards. 1991-92 Parkhurst cards of Bill Guerrin & Ray Whitney, or 1991-92 UD World Juniors Czech cards of Paul Karyia & Roman Hamrlik. Those are the four that come to mind. You could only get the Parkhurst cards from a mail in offer with Parkhurst. Those have never been considered RCs. Their 92-93 cards are. The UD Czech World Juniors is a weird one. It's a 100 card set. Many of the cards match cards that were in 1991-92 UD Series 2, but there's more of them... and in a different language. They weren't marketed in North America even (of course they made their way here). There's probably some others similar to this I'm forgetting about.

What is not a Rookie Card? An insert. A parallel. Anything that isn't a base card. The serial numbering isn't important. Signed? Cool. Patch? Great! Auto and a Patch, and serial numbered to 20 ? Even Better!

What else isn't a rookie card? This really applies to cards from the 1990s (I see this kind of stuff listed as "Rookie Card" often):




Now, that's a card from 1997-98. It's a base card. That was Joe's first season in the league. It even says "ROOKIE" in big letters on it. Except he had cards in a few 1996-97 sets, showing him as a member of Team Canada. Those are his Rookie Cards.

Canvas Young Guns? Certainly not. They're not even really parallels (not everyone has one, they're numbered differently. Canvas is more of an insert set than parallel set). I'd also add "so what?" to this. The Canvas YG is worth more than the actual Rookie Card for almost every single player you can think of.


One last thing to add. People LOVE to bash Beckett. I'm no different, when it comes to pricing. While I think they're mostly accurate... I don't believe they use real sales data for most cards. They use real sales data to create a formula, that's it. On this definition... I see people who will say "who cares what Beckett thinks?". I would tend to agree with that sentiment - but I do feel that Beckett is simply stating what the overall hobby thinks. Twice in the last 15 years, I can recall Beckett changing their published definition because "the hobby" demanded it:

2005-06 Sidney Crosby McDonalds RCs. Beckett either tagged it as an XRC, or didn't tag it at all. I think XRC, but I don't remember for sure. McDonald's cards didn't fit a wide enough distribution model for them to count. Of course there were millions of packs sold in Canada, so it's not like these were hard to come by. After enough pressure, Beckett gave it the tag. I'll also point out that they didn't do it for JUST Crosby. There was a handful of other McDonald's cards (from other years) that also got it.

The other one was on serial numbering. Beckett, for many years, insisted that a RC had to have at least 99 copies. The only time this was ever an issue was in 01-02, with Private Stock Titanium. The RCs were numbered to the player's jersey number. I will admit, I had no idea that this was even part of beckett's definition (I wasn't heavy into cards at the time), nor did I realize there was controversy around this... i.e. Beckett wouldn't have tagged these cards as RCs, and some collectors were mad.

Fast forward 10 years, and in 11-12, Panini brought the same concept back. UD followed suit the next year. In 2012 when the Panini Titanium set came out, beckett changed their rules, because that's what everyone wanted them to do.

[sparty07]

I disagree with @RGM81 on this point "Now, that's a card from 1997-98. It's a base card. That was Joe's first season in the league. It even says "ROOKIE" in big letters on it. Except he had cards in a few 1996-97 sets, showing him as a member of Team Canada. Those are his Rookie Cards."

I don't think a non-NHL uniformed card should count as their rookie cards.

[30ranfordfan]

I disagree with @RGM81 on this point "Now, that's a card from 1997-98. It's a base card. That was Joe's first season in the league. It even says "ROOKIE" in big letters on it. Except he had cards in a few 1996-97 sets, showing him as a member of Team Canada. Those are his Rookie Cards."

I don't think a non-NHL uniformed card should count as their rookie cards.

I'm glad @RGM81 agrees with me :)


My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the RC tag shouldn't matter to anyone, if other people's opinions don't.

If a collector decides they'd rather have cards from a player's rookie season, instead of their first cards in an NHL licensed set, all power to them. "Collect what you like" is often a thing you'll see written, but I don't think there's enough emphasis on "stop worrying about what other people think".

Here's the thing though.... Joe Thornton (I'll keep using him as the example) is headed to the hall of fame. When that happens, there's going to be a run on his Rookie Cards. (Which I find a little funny.... one would think that most HOF collectors would already have one). Very few are going to suddenly decide that they need a 97-98 Joe Thornton card for their collection, they're going to want something from 96-97.

So if you're collecting for the joy of it, and not really worried about the future value of stuff - I would suggest the RC tag is rather meaningless. If you want a card that virtually everyone considers to be a RC.... then yeah, the tag is important. Could "the hobby" one day decide that some of these tags should be changed? I suppose so... but I don't see it happening.

What won't it change? We're talking about rules that really only apply to cards made 20-30 years ago. Since 2000, nobody gets into an NHL set without being in the NHL first. Pre-1990, nobody got into an NHL set without being in the NHL first. It's that 10 years in the middle where these issues come up.

I'm assuming the point of this thread (and @cwpucks can correct me if I'm wrong) was two fold:

1. Just a general discussion about RCs, and what is or is not a RC
2. Specifically to talk about Lafrieniere, his inclusion in series 1, and the that card's validity as a RC

Depending on the kind of photography they use, the Lafrieniere could be similar to some of those 90s rookies, where an image of an non-NHL player is used in an NHL set, and it's his rookie card. I can assure everyone, that people will consider that to be his rookie card, and IMO - they should. If he gets into some kind of freak accident in the middle of November, destroys his knee, and never plays hockey again - it will still be his rookie card.

[sparty07]

I'm glad @RGM81 agrees with me :)
Here's the thing though.... Joe Thornton (I'll keep using him as the example) is headed to the hall of fame. When that happens, there's going to be a run on his Rookie Cards. (Which I find a little funny.... one would think that most HOF collectors would already have one). Very few are going to suddenly decide that they need a 97-98 Joe Thornton card for their collection, they're going to want something from 96-97.

Why would they want something from 96-97 where he didn't play in the NHL and wasn't featured in a Boston uniform? I guess I may be the odd duck here who wouldn't consider a card produced a season before he played, not in an NHL uniform a rookie card.

Let's change this concept up for a modern player example. Mathew Barzal was featured in 2014-15 Team Canada cards. Using your argument, this would be the same as Thornton, mass produced set, featured on the card (or even 15-16 Team Canada after his draft year). Or, looking at his true rookie cards from the 16-17 set when he played 2 games for the Islanders, but a year before his true rookie season of 17-18 when he won ROY. I wouldn't consider any card before he put on a uniform his rookie card.

[30ranfordfan]

Why would they want something from 96-97 where he didn't play in the NHL and wasn't featured in a Boston uniform? I guess I may be the odd duck here who wouldn't consider a card produced a season before he played, not in an NHL uniform a rookie card.

Let's change this concept up for a modern player example. Mathew Barzal was featured in 2014-15 Team Canada cards. Using your argument, this would be the same as Thornton, mass produced set, featured on the card (or even 15-16 Team Canada after his draft year). Or, looking at his true rookie cards from the 16-17 set when he played 2 games for the Islanders, but a year before his true rookie season of 17-18 when he won ROY. I wouldn't consider any card before he put on a uniform his rookie card.

They'll want the 96-97, because that's what most people accept as a Rookie Card. If you would prefer the 97-98, and considered that to be his RC, you would be in a very small minority.

No, I wouldn't argue for that Barzal being a Rookie Card. It's true that the set is mass produced / distributed like a normal set - but that set is not licensed by the NHL or the PA. Hypothetically, if UD lost it's NHL license to Panini, they could keep on pumping out the Team Canada stuff - so long as they they maintained their license with Hockey Canada, and came to agreements with the players involved.

That's the thing... it also has to be part of an NHL set. Thornton, Marleau, the Sedins, and of course Lindros (off the top of my head) all fall under the way things were done in the 90s.

Another really good example: Roberto Luongo. His Rookie Cards are from 1997-98. He's got the following base cards that year:

Bowman CHL
Bowman's Best CHL
Beehive
Zeineth
Black Diamond
Donruss Elite


The first two (the Bowman sets) show him in his QMJHL all star jersey. Those sets were made outside of any NHL license, and are not considered rookie cards.
The Beehive is part of an NHL licensed set, and shows him playing with Val-d'Or (QMJHL team). That one is considered a rookie card.
Zenith & Black Diamond both show him with Team Canada, but are also NHL licensed sets. These are rookie cards.
The Donruss Elite is the most curious one. It shows him with the New York Islanders, but he didn't make his NHL debut until 1999-00. I'm assuming the photo is from a pre-season game. This one is also a rookie card.

Many of his 1999-00 base cards are part of the rookie subsets (i.e. Young Guns, Prospects, etc) but aren't considered RCs, because he had cards in NHL licensed sets two years earlier.

[RGM81]

Why would they want something from 96-97 where he didn't play in the NHL and wasn't featured in a Boston uniform? I guess I may be the odd duck here who wouldn't consider a card produced a season before he played, not in an NHL uniform a rookie card.

Let's change this concept up for a modern player example. Mathew Barzal was featured in 2014-15 Team Canada cards. Using your argument, this would be the same as Thornton, mass produced set, featured on the card (or even 15-16 Team Canada after his draft year). Or, looking at his true rookie cards from the 16-17 set when he played 2 games for the Islanders, but a year before his true rookie season of 17-18 when he won ROY. I wouldn't consider any card before he put on a uniform his rookie card.

Since I've been pulled into this. LOL

After the free-for-all bonanza of the 1990's when the race was on by everybody who owned a printing press to get the first cards out of future superstars, the NHL and NHLPA came together to establish some semblance of rules. We're all better off for it as it gave some clear direction in the hobby for rookie cards, what they are and what they aren't.

Licensed manufacturer, has to have played an NHL game, must be shown in their NHL uniform, etc. has been the guiding set of principles we currently follow, and have since about 2002.

Before that, though, we had this strange period where kids who weren't even drafted yet were getting cards produced, shown in their junior uniforms and/or Team Canada / World Juniors. When a newer collector, or even somebody who got into the hobby during the Crosby/Ovechkin craze after being out for 10-15 years, is looking for information it can be a wild goose chase trying to find some semblance of consistency, sanity, and regulation. The problem for many of us is that we look at that era through the prism of our current lenses...and it's a bit of a challenge.

Saku Koivu's RC is 1992-93 Upper Deck #617 - He was drafted by the Habs in 1993 and didn't play his first NHL game until the 1995-96 season. Naturally the card features him in his WJC uniform playing for Team Finland. Andrei Markov, same situation - his RC is from 1996-97 UD Ice, showing him playing for Team Russia. Didn't debut in the NHL until 2000.

Other key players in NHL history like Thornton, Iginla, etc. all have RC's shown with Team Canada instead of an NHL uniform. Because that was the rule at the time. It was counter-intuitive and that's why so many of their RC's don't have the value that they really deserve. These guys are all held in such tremendous esteem, but their RC isn't worth more than $5 because it doesn't jive with our modern definition of the term.

Now, one can easily venture out there and say that UD is seemingly turning the principle on its head again and has been since about 2014-15. Quick, what is the Leon Draisaitl "RC" in 2014-15 OPC Platinum? Anybody want that card instead of the autograph? Same goes for Trilogy and the "tier" rookie system they've introduced where three different cards exist but the RC is the least valuable of the bunch because, hey let's slap a sticker auto on one with a close-up shot and # it /49 because....reasons.

So yeah, the term has changed over time. You almost need a guide book to know what counts depending on the era.

Lafreniere is granted an exception because, well, we are in exceptional times and he is an exceptional player. I don't anticipate that what we will see with him will be the norm going forward. I expect that UD will do all they can to organize a photoshoot with him after the draft is official so that he's in a Rangers uniform and on the ice. Anything less would be a disservice--they won't do him in an Oceanic uniform, and a Draft Day shot holding the puck and raising his finger #1 is a cool photo for other purposes, but that YG you want him skating, even if it's just at a facility with no fans around to see it.

[subban7677]

I'm pretty sure the XRC tag in baseball was used because the "traded" sets weren't available in packs. For example...Bo Jackson's rookie cards are 1987, but his 1986 Topps Traded card would be an XRC because it was released as part of a full set, not in packs. I think I have that right.

[30ranfordfan]

Since I've been pulled into this. LOL

After the free-for-all bonanza of the 1990's when the race was on by everybody who owned a printing press to get the first cards out of future superstars, the NHL and NHLPA came together to establish some semblance of rules. We're all better off for it as it gave some clear direction in the hobby for rookie cards, what they are and what they aren't.

Licensed manufacturer, has to have played an NHL game, must be shown in their NHL uniform, etc. has been the guiding set of principles we currently follow, and have since about 2002.

Before that, though, we had this strange period where kids who weren't even drafted yet were getting cards produced, shown in their junior uniforms and/or Team Canada / World Juniors. When a newer collector, or even somebody who got into the hobby during the Crosby/Ovechkin craze after being out for 10-15 years, is looking for information it can be a wild goose chase trying to find some semblance of consistency, sanity, and regulation. The problem for many of us is that we look at that era through the prism of our current lenses...and it's a bit of a challenge.

Saku Koivu's RC is 1992-93 Upper Deck #617 - He was drafted by the Habs in 1993 and didn't play his first NHL game until the 1995-96 season. Naturally the card features him in his WJC uniform playing for Team Finland. Andrei Markov, same situation - his RC is from 1996-97 UD Ice, showing him playing for Team Russia. Didn't debut in the NHL until 2000.

Other key players in NHL history like Thornton, Iginla, etc. all have RC's shown with Team Canada instead of an NHL uniform. Because that was the rule at the time. It was counter-intuitive and that's why so many of their RC's don't have the value that they really deserve. These guys are all held in such tremendous esteem, but their RC isn't worth more than $5 because it doesn't jive with our modern definition of the term.

Now, one can easily venture out there and say that UD is seemingly turning the principle on its head again and has been since about 2014-15. Quick, what is the Leon Draisaitl "RC" in 2014-15 OPC Platinum? Anybody want that card instead of the autograph? Same goes for Trilogy and the "tier" rookie system they've introduced where three different cards exist but the RC is the least valuable of the bunch because, hey let's slap a sticker auto on one with a close-up shot and # it /49 because....reasons.

So yeah, the term has changed over time. You almost need a guide book to know what counts depending on the era.

Lafreniere is granted an exception because, well, we are in exceptional times and he is an exceptional player. I don't anticipate that what we will see with him will be the norm going forward. I expect that UD will do all they can to organize a photoshoot with him after the draft is official so that he's in a Rangers uniform and on the ice. Anything less would be a disservice--they won't do him in an Oceanic uniform, and a Draft Day shot holding the puck and raising his finger #1 is a cool photo for other purposes, but that YG you want him skating, even if it's just at a facility with no fans around to see it.

Yeah, and the other thread shows us that there's going to be a whole bunch of exceptions made. Anyone who played in the bubble can be included... so that's a whole bunch of guys that (essentially) just went to training camp with their clubs.

I'm also assuming that this is JUST for UD Series 1, but who knows.

As for the picture: They can do four things..... Oceanic, Team Canada, Draft Day, Photoshoot. I assume it will be a Photoshoot... but who knows?

[cwpucks]

wow Thank you everyone this is a great discussion. @30ranfordfan yes my main reason for this post is Just to discuss what everyone thinks is a rookie. I did not internally post this to talk about the upcoming class but its a nice wrinkle. My other reason for posting this topic was to see if i can understand why the hockey cards put out in the 1920's and 1930's some like the Bill Cook example above his 1933 OPC is listed as his rookie when he has cards issues years before that. There are many of this type.

As for what Upper Deck did in the 1990's. I want to say think you to the NHL and NHLPA for putting a stop to that. @sparty07 take on rookies for the 1990's may in time be right. The reason i say this is as is pointed out hobbyist push to have a 2015-16 Upper Deck McDonalds card listed as a Rookie. when the cards are only available in Canada McDonalds. so Everyone's definition of what is a RC is different and it will change throughout time and sometimes it will not make any sense why one is listed as a RC and one is not. In time People may view the WJ rookies that are in NHL sets from the 90's as pre rookies / XRC and the player 1st set of cards in a NHL jersey as their true rookie. Base ball has this issue now with all the Bowman Minor league and draft sets they put out. Trust me Hockey is clean compared to baseball. Football and Basketball are as clean as you get due to little or no minor league system like baseball and hockey do.

Yes the Parallels and other type sets are making us re-look at what is a RC. This has already happened in other sports where hobbyist have or seem like they have adapted to this. Hockey being Hockey we are less accepting of change. It seems to take us some time to accept change.

I personally think the parallels, color variations, and other type sets are RC. I do not care for the YG but i love the UD canvas set. so If i want a RC of someone i will get the UD Canvas one before i ever get the upper deck YG. But thats me. Im strange i dont think the UD portraits and like inserts are RC but if the insert is from a higher end set and signed or with a jersey piece in it i will think its a RC. i know strange. I think its because i want to think the Carter Hart The Show from The Cup i have is a RC. Either way Its a beautiful card.
s-l1600.jpg