Results 11 to 20 of 68
-
08-13-2020, 09:35 PM #11
That is correctSelling All My Cards Here------>Hidden Content
Baseball Autograph and Game Used Only Trade Page: pwaldo.webs.com/
//s123.photobucket.com/albums/o299/pwaldo/
-
-
08-14-2020, 10:18 AM #12
@cwpucks it's a good discussion. I enjoy this sort of thing.....
I'll speculate, quickly, on the Bill Cook. It's just that though (speculation). The 20s & 30s are too far back for my knowledge. I'm pretty good with 1951 & newer, but anything older than that... I'm just guessing.
Bill Cook, as you pointed out, had three cards in 1933-34 that get tagged as RCs: OPC V30, V129, and V357 Ice Kings. He also had three cards in 1924-25: V145-2, V130 Maple Crispette, and V128-1 Paulin's Candy.
I'm assuming the 33-34s are tagged as RCs, and not the 24-25s, because of distribution. The 33-34s are "major sets", where the 24-25s are not.
When it comes to the 90s... I think we have to also emphasis that it was not just Upper Deck. Score (later renamed to Pinnacle) got the ball rolling, when the signed Lindros to an exclusive deal in 1990. Upper Deck had Team Canada cards that year too, Bure's RC shows him wearing a CCCP jersey. Probably a few other specific cards I'm forgetting about that year.
1991-92 had UD doing a full slate of WJC players (not just team Canada). 1992-93 had a large slate of WJC players, plus UD included cards from the World Championships (this is where Renberg & Naslund rookies were made).
I think by 1993-94 Fleer, Donruss and Pinnacle were all doing WJC cards. 1994-95 UD took it a step further, and started making cards of the Under 18s as well as the World Juniors. Pretty sure UD is the only company that ever did that (that's the other thing: The Program of Excellence cards that you find in 1996-97 UD... like the Thornton & Marleau RCs: I don't think those are even WJC cards. Those are Team Canada Under 18 cards).
Anyway, blah, blah, blah. Toss in all the international stuff, and a few guys in junior sweaters, and I agree. It was a MESS, and we (collectors) are better served with the new rules stopping that stuff. Plus it created some really strange cards, for when people look back at checklists. Take the 1997-98 Beehive set, for example. All the "Rookies" (there weren't many NHLers in this group) have signed versions of their cards (including Thornton, whose card is not considered a RC, re: the prior discussion). They also pumped in a bunch of Junior players, who also signed their cards. Luongo is one them, it is considered a RC. Funny thing though, when you're using Junior players.... and trying to get the jump on your competition, you're guessing on who will become a star, while also trying to cash in on hype around these prospects right now.
I bring this up, because I remember Charlie Stephens back in the day. He was a HUGE prospect, the #1 pick in the OHL draft. That Beehive card was considered a great hit back in 1997-98. What happened to Stephens? He was taken in the 2nd round of the 1999 draft (31st overall, by the Capitals). They never signed him, and he went back into the draft two years later. This time Colorado took him 196th overall. He did sign with the Avs. He did finally get into the NHL in 2002. Played 8 games for the Avs over two seasons. He does have at least one card showing him in Colorado (2002-03 ITG Action). Interestingly enough, he did go on to have a long professional career..... played in the minors in North America until 2006, then 10 seasons in Germany. He's still playing Senior A hockey now (spent the 2019-20 season with the Dundas Real McCoys) - but he's hardly the kind of player that a card company needed to jump at, and one-up their competition.
The Bowman Baseball stuff, as it's been explained to me, is that Bowman makes minor league cards of players almost as soon as they're drafted, and playing affiliated games. Baseball collectors have always been huge on the "prospecting" and a player's first Bowman card (and first Autograph) can command some really good dollars.
There was Bowman CHL cards in the 90s, but they never really caught on. ITG Heroes & Prospects did very well for a lot of years.... and you saw base cards from that set, as recently as 2015, sell really well. Anything McDavid, before he had NHL cards, sold like crazy. You could get $20 for a base card of his from 15-16 H&P. Now? The card is still worth a couple of bucks. UD is making CHL cards now as well (have been for a few years). Most of what I've noticed: They do really well until a player is drafted. Lafrienere's UD CHL cards are selling like hot cakes right now, but they'll plumet in value once NHL cards come out.
But I don't think Baseball collectors have ever considered those Bowman cards to be RCs (correct me if I'm wrong?) just like hockey collectors don't consider the CHL cards to RCs.
A large set filled with affiliate NHL prospects would be hard to do. Most NHL stars don't spend a long time in the AHL... and baseball has 6 or 7 affiliated teams per MLB club... with prospects all over the place in terms of development. Take a guy with the #15 pick in the draft... he's going to be in the minors (typically) for a few years... Rookie Ball, A ball of some kind. Then either a higher level of A, or maybe he goes right to AA. Some players get promoted to the majors from AA, others go to AAA. You can make cards (and autographs) of players drafted in a particular year... and that 10th round pick might grow to be a top prospect three years down the road. Hockey lacks the volume of prospects to do anything similar.
Have other sports really adjusted what they consider to be a Rookie Card? Or do they simply follow a formula that says "rarer = more desirable" ? A baseball player gets his Rookie Card in Topps Series 1. There's gold, yellow, rainbow, exclusives, etc, etc. Lots of variants. The Variants are more valuable than the base... but are they all considered RCs? Or is it just a simple fact that rarer = more valuable?
That's the thing with this debate in hockey. Anytime I see a comment that the "true RC" (rather than the parallel) is more valuable... I simply don't agree with that statement. There are cases where that's true, but for the most part it's false. If I use Upper Deck Young Guns as the example - You can not name a single instance where the base Young Gun sells for more than the Exclusive, High Gloss, Acetate, or even the various ePack Foils. The Canvas are sort of a special case. They are not rare, at all. It's easy to find them. They're rarer than the base YG though. For the very exceptional player - the base YG tends to sell higher (people want the "true RC") but for the commons... the Canvas generally is worth more. Yeah, maybe that's $2 for the Canvas, and 75 cents for the YG.
I'm with you, generally speaking, on the Canvas being a nicer looking card than the base YG. Most of the time anyway. I collect autographs of every player to have played for the Oilers. I will get a pack-pulled auto if available, but that's not always the case... so I'll write to players to have them signed through the mail, if they have never signed for a card company. If that's the case, and a Canvas YG is available for the player, that is my preferred card to send them.
I'm curious about your take on that Carter Hart. Why would you consider that a RC, but NOT something like a Portraits insert? Very different cards, to be sure, but they're both "inserts" - in that they are not part of the base set (BTW, yes... it's a beautiful card).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't image we're ever going to see a push to have the RC rules changed, as it relates to their actual Rookie Year / how they're pictured on the cards. It's an issue that only spans the 1990s, and it's even an issue for MOST players. Lots of guys in that decade, their RCs are from their first NHL season, and they're shown playing with their NHL team. I just don't see the hobby (en mass) agreeing that we've gotten it wrong all these years about what a Joe Thornton or Eric Lindros RC should be.... especially since that problem ended two decades ago.
As for the "parallels ARE Rookie Cards" notion: Maybe you're right, and maybe we'll get to a point where people just accept them as RCs too. I dunno. Maybe I'm the weird one, but I never will. For me, it has to be a base card - regardless of the other attributes (serial numbering, jersey, auto). I mentioned my Oilers Autographs... I also collect Oilers Rookie Cards. Typically for each player what I seek is four things: A Rookie Card, an Autograph, a Memorabilia Card, and a card showing them as an Oiler. For many players... I can do this in one card (i.e. a Cup ARP of an Oiler rookie). For lots I can't. I typically try to do it in as few cards as possible though. This leaves me with 1-4 cards of everyone. I do go over the 4 cards once in a while (sometimes a specific card is so cool, IMO, that I have to add it. That's RARE though). I'm just mentioning this because there are three players that have played for the Oilers who had XRCs (Bill Guerrin, Roman Hamrlik, Ray Whitney). I mentioned them earlier... they came from an Update Boxed Set (91-92 Parkhurst), and the UD Czech WJC set. In these three cases, those players do get 5 cards in my collection, as I wanted the XRC as well as the RC. The alternate tag (or even lack of tag) doesn't make the cards less collectible, IMO, it just makes them different.
-
08-14-2020, 08:15 PM #13
And Paul Kariya's 1991-92 Upper Deck WJC/Oly Czech card as well. That card should be his true rookie if Lindros' 1990-91 Score is his "rookie"....
-
-
08-14-2020, 09:23 PM #14
The Lindros card came from an NHL Licensed set. The Kariya did not. They're not the same thing.
-
08-14-2020, 10:03 PM #15
Yes they absolutely are..... Kariya has a 1991-92 Upper Deck Czech WJC/OLY card that looks no different from any of the main WJC/OLY 1991-92 Upper Deck cards.... They're Upper Deck cards.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-92-Upp...kAAOSwW89eLdst
I have a "brick" of them and they should be considered his official rookie.
-
-
08-14-2020, 11:13 PM #16
I know what the card looks like, and I'm aware that Upper Deck made it.
Since Upper Deck started in 1989, they've made all sorts of sets that have nothing to do with their NHL/PA license. The Czech WJC set is one of those.
Yes, the designs are the same. Yes, many of the cards look identical to the 91-92 UD Series 2 cards.
For it to be a rookie card, it has to come from an NHL licensed set, and that set had nothing to do with UD's license.
-
08-15-2020, 06:50 AM #17
Dude, it's an officially licensed NHL card.... As a matter of fact you can buy them buy the box if you want on ebay... I mean it's not like a UD McDonalds issue or something - it's a legitimate set .....
Either way I have bricks of both Kariya rookies but I consider the Czech version to be the "true" rookie.... Of course it's subjective but whatever.... It's a cool card and much rarer than the "hobby rookie" so I'm happy to have both, lol.
-
-
08-15-2020, 08:32 AM #18
If you have a Brick of them, could you show me on the back, where thr NHL and PA logos are?
I'm picking a player that was in both sets.... Alexei Yashin. Look at the backs of the cards. While the text is different, the licensing logos are different too. The UD Series 2 card has both the NHL and PA logos. The Czech set has white space where they would have been placed.
Neither the league nor the PA recieved a nickel in licensing money frkm UD for making that set.
It's not an illegitimate card, I agree. It was not made by some dude in a basement.... money was spent on licensing. It's much more similar to sets from Classic at the time, than an NHL set though.
EDIT:
Since I'm on my computer now, and not the phone, I'll show you (using Yashin as an example):
The back of his 1991-92 Upper Deck:
The back of his 1991-92 Upper Deck French:
Finally, the back of his 1991-92 UD Czech:
I'm fairly certain that the lack of NHL or PA licensing on the third card is obvious......Last edited by 30ranfordfan; 08-15-2020 at 02:10 PM.
-
08-15-2020, 02:03 PM #19
Well I have an answer to @30ranfordfan, @Savard18 & @sparty07 your all right. To Savard18 the players 1st card (1991-92 Upper Deck Czech is a rookie. To 30ranfordfan the 1992-93 upper deck Word JR card is the rookie and to Sparty07 the 1994-95 Cards are his Rookies. The Joy of the hobby is everyone is alloyed their own opinion on what is a rookie. 30ranfordfan and i dont agree on if parallels are rookies or not. That does not mean that one of us is right or wrong its just that collectors opinion.
When i posted this topic i already knew i would get allot of different takes on what a RC is. There is no wrong opinion on if its the players 1st card ever issued, a card issued in a NHL licensed set, the players 1st card in a NHL jersey, or if its a insert, parallel or card from a non major release (aka McDonald, Tim Hortons.....)
As for the Paul Kariya all 3 options go for about the same price. The 1994-95 maybe a little bit less but still.
As for my Carter Hart The Cup The Show card. I say its a RC because I own it and want to say i have a Carter Hart The Cup RC. I know its a insert and i do not normally call inserts RC but i do know people that say any card issued in the players 1st year is a RC.
-
08-15-2020, 02:28 PM #20
@cwpucks
I would just say this... when it comes to collecting, you're bang on. There is no right or wrong answer. Collect what you like. If you want to call something a "Rookie Card", and I don't accept your definition - it doesn't really matter. It's your collection, if it makes you happy - call it whatever you like.
I just need to point out, again, that if you're in anyway concerned about what "the hobby" in general considers a rookie card to be, then there is a right & wrong answer. I would certainly agree with the notion that this definition may change over time. It has already, so there is no reason to dismiss the idea it will again.
When it comes to cards like the Paul Karyia RCs, this is what we're talking about. You stick 500 collectors into a room. 1 of them insists that the 91-92 UD Czech is his RC. 1 of them insists that his 93-94 Cards should be his RCs. The other 498 all say it's the 92-93 UD.
I'm not suggesting that those two people shouldn't be entitled to their own opinions, but since the generally accepted definition is that it's a player's first card in an NHL licensed set... the two are ignoring what's generally accepted to be correct.
I don't want to start any sort of political debate, but let me make a statement here: Donald Trump is the 44th President of the United States of America.
Now, I think most anyone would tell you that's incorrect. Trump is the 45th President of the USA. We all know this. It's written all over the place.
But I'm not wrong calling him #44. I'm just refusing to count Grover Cleveland twice. He served two non consecutive terms. So what? He's the 22nd President, Benjamin Harrison is the 23rd, and William McKinley was the 24th.... except the rest of the world refers to McKinley as the 25th, because Cleveland is both #22 & #24.
Anyone could really stick to their guns, and insist that Trump should be counted as #44. They're going to have a hard time finding many people to back them up.
-