Weird one: Alex Stalock Rookie Cards

[30ranfordfan]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I don't remember it (we're talking about 10 year old cards)....


Alex Stalock Rookie Cards.

Not a player I ever paid any attention to, but he was recently claimed on waivers by the Oilers so now I want one, hence why I've only discovered this now.

In 2010-11 he had four Rookie Cards issued by Panini: Score, Zenith, Luxury Suite, and Dominion (I'm looking for a copy of the Dominion).

Upper Deck then issues cards of him in 2011-12: Gave him the full run of Rookie Cards.

Now, in my mind that means that none of the UD cards are actual Rookie Cards. They were issued a season later than his first regular NHL Licensed trading cards. I suppose some might disagree, not really trying to start that debate.

I'm just wondering: Has this happened much in the last number of years? I'm assuming it hasn't happened since Upper Deck got their exclusive back. Are there any other cases of UD or Panini issuing "rookie cards" of a player, when the other had already done so the year before?

[creasecollector]

That's a weird one because each company can, in theory, "decide" when a player gets a rookie card because of their unique product timelines/checklist adds.

If Panini wasn't in the game at the time, then his Upper Deck rookie cards in 2011-2012 would have been 100% his true rookie cards, but since Panini has some the year before, I guess you can decide which companies rookie card "rules" you respect more when it comes to his cards.

I personally would consider both true rookies, even if the run of rookie cards did differ for each company. For me, it would be hard to argue with a Young Guns RC not be a "true" rookie. Like, I totally see where you're coming from no doubt, but it's just too classic of a card to not consider it.

Since it's Stalock and not someone super expensive, I wouldn't mind picking up Panini and Upper Deck rookie cards of his for your collection and consider it a nice "oddball" set of rookie cards with a unique story behind them and the different manufactured years.

[30ranfordfan]

I like these kinds of convserations.... so I'll bite on a couple of points:

If Panini wasn't in the game at the time, then his Upper Deck rookie cards in 2011-2012 would have been 100% his true rookie cards, but since Panini has some the year before, I guess you can decide which companies rookie card "rules" you respect more when it comes to his cards.

If Panini hadn't been around (or hadn't made those cards in 2010-11), then absolutely those UD cards in 2011-12 would be RCs. Why Panini had him in 2010-11, and UD not until 2011-12, I can only speculate.... but it has nothing to do with "rules". The PA puts a cut off date in. Player has to debut by that date, or they can't make cards of them until the following year.... and for goalies they simply have to have dressed.

Stalock played one game in the 2010-11 season, on February 1st, 2011. Since Panini put him into four late season products, my assumption is that this was prior to the cut off date mandated by the PA, but it may have been after Upper Deck's internal cut off.

That's a weird one because each company can, in theory, "decide" when a player gets a rookie card because of their unique product timelines/checklist adds.

Each company can decide when (if ever) to print cards of a given player, for sure..... but being part of a Rookie Card subset (Young Guns, Future Watch, Rated Rookies, etc) doesn't make it a rookie card, and NOT being included in those sets doesn't exclude it from being a rookie card (05-06 UD Mike Green is an easy example off the top of my head).

It's always been accepted that a player's rookie cards are his base cards, from the first year he had licensed cards. That means any 2010-11 base is a RC, and any 2011-12 base is not.

I personally would consider both true rookies, even if the run of rookie cards did differ for each company. For me, it would be hard to argue with a Young Guns RC not be a "true" rookie. Like, I totally see where you're coming from no doubt, but it's just too classic of a card to not consider it.

Well, I think it's easy to argue that his Young Guns is not a "true" rookie card. It came out a season after his true rookie cards did.

2004-05 is a great set to use further examples. Two cards (Brad Fast, and Brennan Evans) are absolutely RCs. They were a couple of holdovers from the year before, and got RCs in 04-05. That was it for holdovers though.

Of course nobody considers that Gretzky, Roy, etc cards to be "Rookie Cards" - even though they use old photography, the Young Guns name, and are made to look like RCs. Why is Stalock any different than those guys? Or if I use a late 90s example: Luongo & Sedin YGs are not, and have never been, considered Rookie Cards. They came out well after their first cards.

Of course going a little more with 2004-05: Bob Goodenow - that is absolutely a Rookie Card.

Since it's Stalock and not someone super expensive, I wouldn't mind picking up Panini and Upper Deck rookie cards of his for your collection and consider it a nice "oddball" set of rookie cards with a unique story behind them and the different manufactured years.

For sure he's cheap. Wouldn't be a big deal to add an extra card of him for my collection. On a similar note, there's a few guys in the early 90s with "XRCs" (Ray Whitney, Bill Guerrin, Roman Hamrlik) - and in each of those cases I do have the XRC, plus an actual Rookie Card. I'm not against adding an extra rookie type card, if I think there's something neat about it.

I just don't see the point in this case. With the XRCs, it was a licensed card being issued in a non-traditional way that excluded them being being labeled RCs.... but I like the "early release" angle to them. With Stalock - I'd be adding a second one simply because UD issued cards a year later. Likely due to having their checklists already started, and not wanting to change midstream over a lesser known player.

I'll also mention: If All of his UD releases had been in 2010-11, and therefore were rookie cards: The Dominion would still be my preference over any of them. It's his one auto RC from Panini, and has about 1/5th the copies of the SPA.

If there had been a Cup RPA in 2011-12, that opinion might change though, lol.




On my original question, it appears that Jean-Philippe Levasseur had the same issue. Panini cards (and early season too!) in 2010-11, but UD put him into rookie subsets for 2011-12.

I've already read that Guillaume Desbiens had RCs in 09-10 (SPA, SPX, others) and in 10-11, he showed up in SPX and SPGU with "rookies" again.

Mathieu Roy would be the next most recent one. He had RCs in 2005-06 Hot Prospects, Trilogy, and Rookie Update (all UD releases). They must have forgotten about him, as he got a full run of RCs in 2007-08.

[Savard18]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I don't remember it (we're talking about 10 year old cards)....


Alex Stalock Rookie Cards.

Not a player I ever paid any attention to, but he was recently claimed on waivers by the Oilers so now I want one, hence why I've only discovered this now.

In 2010-11 he had four Rookie Cards issued by Panini: Score, Zenith, Luxury Suite, and Dominion (I'm looking for a copy of the Dominion).

Upper Deck then issues cards of him in 2011-12: Gave him the full run of Rookie Cards.

Now, in my mind that means that none of the UD cards are actual Rookie Cards. They were issued a season later than his first regular NHL Licensed trading cards. I suppose some might disagree, not really trying to start that debate.

I'm just wondering: Has this happened much in the last number of years? I'm assuming it hasn't happened since Upper Deck got their exclusive back. Are there any other cases of UD or Panini issuing "rookie cards" of a player, when the other had already done so the year before?

I agree with you 100% and I will go ahead and elaborate even more:

This issue doesn't only apply to Stalock, this has been an issue since 1990, and even before to some extent.. I mean I have thought about this extensively and perhaps I should write and article on this, but my thoughts on this issue is that a "rookie card" is really subjective and is really up to the collector, tho Beckett and even card companies try to establish what a "true rookie" actually is by setting certain prerequisites and criteria. Me personally I don't pay any attention to what the so called "authorities" in the hobby have to say when they attempt to define a "rookie card" because it generally makes no sense and there are many examples that define their own rules.

Look, Eric Lindros is a really good example of this, Paul Kariya as well, because both had official Upper Deck rookies before they were drafted which aren't considered "rookies" for some stupid reason, and obviously with Lindros it gets even more bizarre with his exclusive deal with Score, which Upper Deck circumvented by purposely issuing Lindros on cards with other players while bluntly printing his name on the back in the clear attempt of implying that the cards was indeed an official Eric Lindros Rookie - a good example of that card would be the 90/91 UD "Canadas Captains", lol - but it doesn't stop there because Score was issuing Lindros cards when he was with the Oshawa Generals, not only that but Score juiced the heck out of their exclusive deal with Lindros and made sure he had like 10 cards in every Score set before he even played an NHL game, and of course Lindros' actual "officially issued card" from his actual rookie season is NOT considered a rookie.

Now with that said - get this: I bought up Paul Kariya for a reason - Kariya's "official rookie" was in 93/94 UD, however Upper Deck issued Paul Kariya's offically licensed (legitimate rookie, IMO) in their 1991-92 Upper Deck Czech Olympic Set (with a few other players which wouldn't have rookies for a couple of years), and that card isn't considered a rookie card by the "powers that be" and are in some situations called "pre-rookies", tho Eric Lindros' UD's even the "Canada's Captain" card from 90-91 and the mass amounts of Score cards where Lindros has not been drafted yet and is still playing for the Oshawa Generals are??... It makes no damn sense whatsoever, which is why I said that rookie cards are subjective..

Another good example would be Arturs Irbe, or pretty much any player that was in the 90/91 OPC Soviet subset. I would consider those cards "rookies" - but they're not, and I don't understand why considering they were issued by an officially licensed brand in a major set - I mean I believe that's the prerequisite the "powers that be" use to define "rookie"...

Either way, and obviously this is just my opinion obviously - I've had it with Beckett determining what is or isn't a rookie card because as far as I'm concerned who the hell do they think they are setting standards? especially when they've lost all credibility over the years and their "price guide" is basically junk and their card values are arbitrary and based on absolutely nothing.

It appears that it's Upper Deck is the authority of determining what is and what isn't a rookie, which is another reason why I'm not too fond of UD and their hobby politics.... IMO, let collectors decide what a rookie card is. But if there must be some sort of a criteria to define what constitutes a rookie card - it would be very easy to set guidelines to define what a rookie card is.

[allonblack]

He also has one of these, which isn't listed in Beckett...I have a good chunk of the cards you're talking about (https://goo.gl/photos/ez91Xy19AQiavh73A)

[subban7677]

Slightly off topic, but in 2014-15 Jiri Sekac had a Young Guns in a Habs jersey in S1, and then a Young Guns in a Ducks jersey in S2. Both RCs?

[30ranfordfan]

I agree with you 100% and I will go ahead and elaborate even more:

This issue doesn't only apply to Stalock, this has been an issue since 1990, and even before to some extent.. I mean I have thought about this extensively and perhaps I should write and article on this, but my thoughts on this issue is that a "rookie card" is really subjective and is really up to the collector, tho Beckett and even card companies try to establish what a "true rookie" actually is by setting certain prerequisites and criteria. Me personally I don't pay any attention to what the so called "authorities" in the hobby have to say when they attempt to define a "rookie card" because it generally makes no sense and there are many examples that define their own rules.

Look, Eric Lindros is a really good example of this, Paul Kariya as well, because both had official Upper Deck rookies before they were drafted which aren't considered "rookies" for some stupid reason, and obviously with Lindros it gets even more bizarre with his exclusive deal with Score, which Upper Deck circumvented by purposely issuing Lindros on cards with other players while bluntly printing his name on the back in the clear attempt of implying that the cards was indeed an official Eric Lindros Rookie - a good example of that card would be the 90/91 UD "Canadas Captains", lol - but it doesn't stop there because Score was issuing Lindros cards when he was with the Oshawa Generals, not only that but Score juiced the heck out of their exclusive deal with Lindros and made sure he had like 10 cards in every Score set before he even played an NHL game, and of course Lindros' actual "officially issued card" from his actual rookie season is NOT considered a rookie.

Now with that said - get this: I bought up Paul Kariya for a reason - Kariya's "official rookie" was in 93/94 UD, however Upper Deck issued Paul Kariya's offically licensed (legitimate rookie, IMO) in their 1991-92 Upper Deck Czech Olympic Set (with a few other players which wouldn't have rookies for a couple of years), and that card isn't considered a rookie card by the "powers that be" and are in some situations called "pre-rookies", tho Eric Lindros' UD's even the "Canada's Captain" card from 90-91 and the mass amounts of Score cards where Lindros has not been drafted yet and is still playing for the Oshawa Generals are??... It makes no damn sense whatsoever, which is why I said that rookie cards are subjective..

Another good example would be Arturs Irbe, or pretty much any player that was in the 90/91 OPC Soviet subset. I would consider those cards "rookies" - but they're not, and I don't understand why considering they were issued by an officially licensed brand in a major set - I mean I believe that's the prerequisite the "powers that be" use to define "rookie"...

Either way, and obviously this is just my opinion obviously - I've had it with Beckett determining what is or isn't a rookie card because as far as I'm concerned who the hell do they think they are setting standards? especially when they've lost all credibility over the years and their "price guide" is basically junk and their card values are arbitrary and based on absolutely nothing.

It appears that it's Upper Deck is the authority of determining what is and what isn't a rookie, which is another reason why I'm not too fond of UD and their hobby politics.... IMO, let collectors decide what a rookie card is. But if there must be some sort of a criteria to define what constitutes a rookie card - it would be very easy to set guidelines to define what a rookie card is.

The criteria *IS* very simple:

1. It's part of a licensed NHL set
2. It's a base card (Short Prints are still base cards, if they are numbered with the base set)
3. It's a "regual" set. Something that was available in packs / boxes / etc, and not regional. Box Sets, Mail-In sets, Food Issues (etc) are typically not counted.

Each of the examples you're using, it's very clear why they are - or are not - Rookie Cards.

Lindros' 1990-91 Score is his first card in an NHL licensed set. That he wasn't drafted yet, or what jersey he's wearing, it doesn't matter. The UD card is NOT an Eric Lindros card. It has a photo that feature Lindros, but it's not a Lindros card.

Karyia: The 91-92 UD Czech set was both regional, and not licensed by the NHL/PA. The 1992-93 Karyia (also with Team Canada) was a normal release, and licensed.

Irbe: Which card are you talking about? His base card, #501 (with Riga) is his rookie card. His Red Army card, #7R, is an insert. Any of the Russian cards in the base set are considered RCs, but the Red Army set is inserts.

Other ones from that era worth mentioning (I think I did in my last post) are Ray Whitney & Bill Guerrin. They have 1991-92 Parkhurst cards that were available in the "update" set, they was a mail-in box set offer. Not a regular issue, so they don't count as RCs. Their 1992-93 cards do.

I am someone who also does not have a lot of time for Beckett - but on the definition of what a "Rookie Card" is, I will give them a lot of credit. If collectors widely believe something with their definition is wrong, they will change it. Two very good examples over the years:

2005-06 Sidney Crosby McDonald's cards. This was a regional (Canada only) issue, and not considered a Rookie Card. After a lot of people disagreed, Beckett gave it the tag - and also added the RC tag to past McDonald's cards that otherwise fit the definition. This wasn't so much changing the RC definition, but changing how they defined McDonald's Hockey Cards. I assume that logic still applies to the Tim Horton's cards that have come out in the last few years, but I don't know that for a fact.

The other thing was Beckett used to state that a RC had to have 99 (or more) copies. This one always seemed arbitrary to me, and I think to a lot of other people. Many collectors ignored this rule, but there was only a couple of early 00s Pacific sets that it really applied to.

At some point (I don't remember when) after Panini brought back Titanium, and UD started serial numbered SPGU RCs to the player's jersey # as well, Beckett dropped that criteria.

I do agree with you: Collectors should collect what they like... what Beckett, UD, or other collectors think: It doesn't matter. If I were a Lindros Collector, I'd probably want the 90-91 Score, plus something from 1992-93 (first Flyers cards). Karyia? Just because the Czech cards isn't a RC, doesn't mean I wouldn't want it. In my Oilers collection - In addition to a Hamrlik Rookie Card (1992-93) I also have the Czech card from 1991-92. I really like those XRCs.

Slightly off topic, but in 2014-15 Jiri Sekac had a Young Guns in a Habs jersey in S1, and then a Young Guns in a Ducks jersey in S2. Both RCs?

For me, I would say only the Series 1 is the RC - but I could go either way. Is Niklas Lidstrom's 1991-92 Young Guns card a RC? The Canada Cup card (team Sweden) #26 in Series 1 certainly is.... but is the Series 2 #587? If "yes" then both of the Sekac should be too.

[Savard18]

The criteria *IS* very simple:

1. It's part of a licensed NHL set
2. It's a base card (Short Prints are still base cards, if they are numbered with the base set)
3. It's a "regual" set. Something that was available in packs / boxes / etc, and not regional. Box Sets, Mail-In sets, Food Issues (etc) are typically not counted.

Each of the examples you're using, it's very clear why they are - or are not - Rookie Cards.

Lindros' 1990-91 Score is his first card in an NHL licensed set. That he wasn't drafted yet, or what jersey he's wearing, it doesn't matter. The UD card is NOT an Eric Lindros card. It has a photo that feature Lindros, but it's not a Lindros card.

Karyia: The 91-92 UD Czech set was both regional, and not licensed by the NHL/PA. The 1992-93 Karyia (also with Team Canada) was a normal release, and licensed.

Irbe: Which card are you talking about? His base card, #501 (with Riga) is his rookie card. His Red Army card, #7R, is an insert. Any of the Russian cards in the base set are considered RCs, but the Red Army set is inserts.

Other ones from that era worth mentioning (I think I did in my last post) are Ray Whitney & Bill Guerrin. They have 1991-92 Parkhurst cards that were available in the "update" set, they was a mail-in box set offer. Not a regular issue, so they don't count as RCs. Their 1992-93 cards do.

I am someone who also does not have a lot of time for Beckett - but on the definition of what a "Rookie Card" is, I will give them a lot of credit. If collectors widely believe something with their definition is wrong, they will change it. Two very good examples over the years:

2005-06 Sidney Crosby McDonald's cards. This was a regional (Canada only) issue, and not considered a Rookie Card. After a lot of people disagreed, Beckett gave it the tag - and also added the RC tag to past McDonald's cards that otherwise fit the definition. This wasn't so much changing the RC definition, but changing how they defined McDonald's Hockey Cards. I assume that logic still applies to the Tim Horton's cards that have come out in the last few years, but I don't know that for a fact.

The other thing was Beckett used to state that a RC had to have 99 (or more) copies. This one always seemed arbitrary to me, and I think to a lot of other people. Many collectors ignored this rule, but there was only a couple of early 00s Pacific sets that it really applied to.

At some point (I don't remember when) after Panini brought back Titanium, and UD started serial numbered SPGU RCs to the player's jersey # as well, Beckett dropped that criteria.

I do agree with you: Collectors should collect what they like... what Beckett, UD, or other collectors think: It doesn't matter. If I were a Lindros Collector, I'd probably want the 90-91 Score, plus something from 1992-93 (first Flyers cards). Karyia? Just because the Czech cards isn't a RC, doesn't mean I wouldn't want it. In my Oilers collection - In addition to a Hamrlik Rookie Card (1992-93) I also have the Czech card from 1991-92. I really like those XRCs.



For me, I would say only the Series 1 is the RC - but I could go either way. Is Niklas Lidstrom's 1991-92 Young Guns card a RC? The Canada Cup card (team Sweden) #26 in Series 1 certainly is.... but is the Series 2 #587? If "yes" then both of the Sekac should be too.

I have a ton of the Czech cards I obtained when I purchased a semi-large collection, I also got that Parkhurst mail-in set you brought up too in the same collection.. There are several XRC's in that UD Czech set that appear in both the regular and the Czech set, so say the Kovalev or Khabibulin from the Czech set are not RC's while the cards from the regular standard set are?... Also, if we're going to talk regional cards, what about the French Canadian versions of all of these sets in the early 90's, or even OPC for that matter considering they were generally manufactured and issued in Quebec for the French Canadian speaking population.. And you could toss the Czech set into this argument too considering the Czech set is no more regional than OPC, UD French, Score, Pro Set, Pinnacle French etc.

Of course this is why I ignore Beckett guidelines, lol... They're not consistent - they bend their own criteria for some sets and cards while stubbornly enforce their criteria on other sets and cards..... Look, as a collector I can consider whichever cards I believe to be rookies actual rookies, lol... I mean at the very least UD should label these first issued cards of players xRC's - I would be absolutely fine with that.. Tho calling them "extended" doesn't make much sense considering these cards aren't extended from any set..

Also, how about this one: Beckett labels "Steve Larmer's" 83/84 OPC his official rookie card - and the reason why I put Steve Larmer in quotations is because it's not Steve Larmer pictured on the card - it's Steve Ludzik, so realistically how can a player have an "official rookie" when he's not even on the card?? and of course his 84/85 OPC - the first official card that pictures him points nothing out, and of course his 84/85 Topps is labeled as Larmers FTC... I mean I could make a stronger argument that "Larmer's" 83/84 OPC "RC" is really Steve Ludzik's rookie because he's the one pictured - so it could technically be a Steve Ludzik rookie UER... As a Hawks fan and Hawks collector I've never considered the 83/84 OPC card to be Larmer's rookie, I've always considered his 84/85 Topps & OPC to be his official rookie cards...

Obviously that's not the only time card companies seriously screwed up a notable players rookie, I think the most notorious example of this is "Barry Bonds" 1987 Donruss Rookies set with Johnny Ray pictured rather than Bonds, however at least Donruss corrected it.... But when it comes to the 83/84 "Steve Larmer" - the card should be labeled in Beckett "Steve Ludzik UER"..

And I just cant accept that Eric Lindros' 90-91 Score is an official rookie, of course I believe the "rookie card criteria" was changed in-part because of this card and a few others that were issued that defied logic, now a player has to be drafted to have an official rookie - of course in baseball it's even more strict because a player must be drafted AND be wearing a MLB team uniform.

Anyway, obviously I have all of the cards that have been discussed, I just think Beckett's criteria is questionable at best, especially when they bend their own rules for certain cards, and if you can bend rules for one card you can bend them for all cards.... I mean I keep my 91-92 Czech Kariya's in rookie top loaders because it's a rookie in my opinion, lol...

[30ranfordfan]

I have a ton of the Czech cards I obtained when I purchased a semi-large collection, I also got that Parkhurst mail-in set you brought up too in the same collection.. There are several XRC's in that UD Czech set that appear in both the regular and the Czech set, so say the Kovalev or Khabibulin from the Czech set are not RC's while the cards from the regular standard set are?... Also, if we're going to talk regional cards, what about the French Canadian versions of all of these sets in the early 90's, or even OPC for that matter considering they were generally manufactured and issued in Quebec for the French Canadian speaking population.. And you could toss the Czech set into this argument too considering the Czech set is no more regional than OPC, UD French, Score, Pro Set, Pinnacle French etc.

Yeah, the Kovalev or Khabibulin are interesting, aren't they? (TONS like this, in the set). They look identical to the RCs, but they're not considered RCs.

You've got a fair point.... what makes the Czech sets "regional" vs any French set or even the OPC / Topps split. I can't give you a straight answer, other than knowing that the Czech set was always considered a regional thing... the others were not. The UD French sets - I'm pretty sure it was no problem to get a case of them anywhere in North America (distributors had them). They were issued because of Quebec, but allegedly much more scarce - and people wanted them all over the place.

The Canadian vs American releases of score.... or Topps vs OPC before that: They were slightly different products meant for sale on either side of the boarder - but I don't believe people would refer to those as a "regional" set. The McDonald's cards were a perfect example of something that (otherwise) always fit nicely with the definition of a normal release.... except you could only buy it from McDonald's. Maybe I'm inserting "regional" into this conversation erroneously, and that never really was a thing.

What about the mid-90s Parkhurst International Cards? How are they tagged? If memory serves, they were printed for, and sold in Europe - but quickly made their way back to North America. Those would be the only other sets I can think of, comparable to UD Czech..... but even then they're not.

The Czech set is not licensed by the NHL or the NHLPA. Even if we ignore the distribution of the cards - It's not an NHL set, so they can't be rookie cards.

Of course this is why I ignore Beckett guidelines, lol... They're not consistent - they bend their own criteria for some sets and cards while stubbornly enforce their criteria on other sets and cards..... Look, as a collector I can consider whichever cards I believe to be rookies actual rookies, lol... I mean at the very least UD should label these first issued cards of players xRC's - I would be absolutely fine with that.. Tho calling them "extended" doesn't make much sense considering these cards aren't extended from any set..

Yeah, the term XRC is a bit of an odd one. I know it comes (mostly) from baseball, when the update box sets had Rookies... but people didn't consider them to be the actual Rookie Cards. The Parkhurst cards like Whiteny & Guerrin I mentioned - they fit that model (extended) but the Czech cards don't. At some point - XRC & "Pre-RC" kind of became synonymous.

I bolded one sentence in particular. I think you're bang on. We should all collect what we like, and what tags get applied to which cards - it shouldn't really matter.

However, if what you consider to be a Rookie Card isn't consistent with 99.99999% of what others think: You're never going to be able to move that card as a "Rookie Card", because generally speaking, nobody will treat it as such.

Also, how about this one: Beckett labels "Steve Larmer's" 83/84 OPC his official rookie card - and the reason why I put Steve Larmer in quotations is because it's not Steve Larmer pictured on the card - it's Steve Ludzik, so realistically how can a player have an "official rookie" when he's not even on the card?? and of course his 84/85 OPC - the first official card that pictures him points nothing out, and of course his 84/85 Topps is labeled as Larmers FTC... I mean I could make a stronger argument that "Larmer's" 83/84 OPC "RC" is really Steve Ludzik's rookie because he's the one pictured - so it could tech
nically be a Steve Ludzik rookie UER... As a Hawks fan and Hawks collector I've never considered the 83/84 OPC card to be Larmer's rookie, I've always considered his 84/85 Topps & OPC to be his official rookie cards...

Obviously that's not the only time card companies seriously screwed up a notable players rookie, I think the most notorious example of this is "Barry Bonds" 1987 Donruss Rookies set with Johnny Ray pictured rather than Bonds, however at least Donruss corrected it.... But when it comes to the 83/84 "Steve Larmer" - the card should be labeled in Beckett "Steve Ludzik UER"..

Yeah, that's a tough one. The picture is wrong, but the rest of the card is a Steve Larmer card. I have no interest in Larmer myself.... but I would say this: If he was a player who I was looking to get a RC of: I'd want both.

Only one like that in my collection, is Peter Eriksson. His RC is in 1990-91 Upper Deck, but it's actually Tommy Lehmann on the card. Eriksson only had a cup of coffee in the NHL, so he never got another NHL card. I did pick up a copy of his first Swedish card though, as I wanted something that actually showed him. I've put two copies of the Eriksson into my collection - the other one goes with a Tommy Lehmann's first Swedish card (he never had his own NHL card).

And I just cant accept that Eric Lindros' 90-91 Score is an official rookie, of course I believe the "rookie card criteria" was changed in-part because of this card and a few others that were issued that defied logic, now a player has to be drafted to have an official rookie - of course in baseball it's even more strict because a player must be drafted AND be wearing a MLB team uniform.

Anyway, obviously I have all of the cards that have been discussed, I just think Beckett's criteria is questionable at best, especially when they bend their own rules for certain cards, and if you can bend rules for one card you can bend them for all cards.... I mean I keep my 91-92 Czech Kariya's in rookie top loaders because it's a rookie in my opinion, lol...

Honestly, I couldn't tell you if the definition was changed back in 1990 or not. I can tell you that the Lindros Future Superstar card was INSANE at the time. I don't ever recall there being any debate on weather or not it was a Rookie Card.

The Lindros card may have been the first to push that boundary. Putting a player into an NHL set, who hadn't even been drafted. My guess is that prior to that, nobody considered if something like that should or should not be a rookie card.

Of course throughout the 1990s, it became common place. Most top prospects had Rookie Cards a year or two before they were drafted.

The NHLPA did put an end to this. The 2020-21 season is the first time in 20 years that players were allowed to have cards in an NHL/PA set, before playing in an NHL game..... and even then, the exception was only made for players that skated in last summer's bubble, and Alexis Lafrinerre. I don't think we'll see a return to the 90s anytime soon.