New Definition of RC?

[KingKuba]

I've never really understood the inconsistency of RCs over the years and each sport. I also find it strange how the hobby money dictates how it is determined... thinking back to the 80s 90s, I somehow remember the definition of RC being, first card produced by a real card company where the card was available to the public. Example: the Eric Lindros Score card, where now, it would be his Young Guns card after he had played in the NHL.

Promo cards, team cards and 2nd issue cards were disqualified as RCs

Lindros card would still be a rc.
Young Guns don't mean anything.
There's Young Guns that are not rc's too.

[creasecollector]

The "what is a RC?" discussion has been a fun one over the years. While I think it's up to the collector, it's fun to debate it.

As for COMC here, I think the labelling was a mistake on their end for these cards. I've seen COMC mislabel card in the title before. It happens. I search COMC often to see if the cards are labelled properly or not. Sometimes you miss something you actually need.

[RGM81]

Not looking to dump on COMC. I've gotten some great deals from them. Funny situation that came up last week, though. I placed a shipment order for some of the cards I purchased on COMC. I was quoted an estimated delivery date of January 09, 2022
Yesterday, I placed a shipment order for some of my transferable cards from Upper Deck ePack (which is handled by COMC).. The ePack shipment is schedule to arrive next week. I think their partnership with ePack has dumped a ton of extra work on them and they are finding it hard to keep up with their regular customers. I hope they are able to work it out. Would hate to lose them as a trading card hub.

I think they heard me. Package marked as ship and expected to be delivered on Thursday LOL
There is for sure an emphasis placed on the epack orders above “standard” shipping for COMC orders. I received an epack shipment within 3 weeks of requesting. Yeah I paid extra but well worth it given the Caufield cards included.

Bigger picture: I’m sure they’ll be fine. A little hiccup here and there but nothing that would really suggest they’re on the brink of collapse. Who knows where they will fit in with the new Fanatics run world in a couple years.

[Marcb105]

Yes. COMC is very inconsistent with its RC and RY designations, so this doesn't surprise me. Also, COMC's designation of anything is hardly official or something shared by collectors.

[Marcb105]

Lindros card would still be a rc.
Young Guns don't mean anything.
There's Young Guns that are not rc's too.

I think the Pavel Francouz YG this year falls into this category, as he previously had a card in one of the Compendium releases, that should be considered his RC.

[30ranfordfan]

I've never really understood the inconsistency of RCs over the years and each sport. I also find it strange how the hobby money dictates how it is determined... thinking back to the 80s 90s, I somehow remember the definition of RC being, first card produced by a real card company where the card was available to the public. Example: the Eric Lindros Score card, where now, it would be his Young Guns card after he had played in the NHL.

Promo cards, team cards and 2nd issue cards were disqualified as RCs

There is inconsistencies between sports... which I find odd... but it is what it is. Within hockey, it's been very consistent, since there was a need to be.

- Prior to 1990, it was simply when a player got his first NHL card. There was only two (nearly identical) sets, so this was easy. I suppose WHA sets in 1970s could lead to some grey areas (is Mark Howe's RC his 79-80 OPC (first NHL card) or his 75-76 OPC WHA (first solo card) or the 1974-95 OPC WHA "The Howes" card ??

- A players first card, in an NHL licensed set, that's numbered with the base set, is his rookie card.... but with dozens of a sets per year, this can mean dozens of rookie cards.

If Upper Deck uses a Team Canada photo of Owen Power in Upper Deck Series 1 this year.... and they make it card # 125 in the set - so it's just a base card, and not a Young Gun.... it will still be a rookie card by every definition of the term. They wouldn't do that, but they (in theory) could.

The Eric Lindros card in 1990 score would be fair game to produce today, but only after he's played an NHL game. At some point, 20 years(ish) ago, the trading card licenses required that only players who have played an NHL game are allowed to be in NHL licensed sets. That wasn't the case in the 1990s. Some exceptions have been made over the years though.

There are cases of Young Guns not being rookie cards (Alex Stalock comes to mind, but there's been others). Mike Green is a good example of an Upper Deck Series 1 base card being a RC... but it wasn't a Young Gun.

Eric Lindros was such a special case. Score signed him to a big money deal before he was drafted... and that's why they were allowed to produce cards of him and nobody else was. Once he played an NHL game he was fair use for everyone, but Score had been making cards of him for two years at that point.

If you look at the "Young Guns" or "Star Rookies" (or the other subsets from 1993-1998) for the most part, they're totally void of actual decent Rookie Cards. There was a race between manufactures to get prospects into their sets ASAP (make those RCs). Most star RCs in that year range are shown on WJC cards... and then UD took it a step further with their "Program of Excellence" cards - featuring Canada players NOT from the World Junior Championships but from the U-18 tournament.

[30ranfordfan]

I think the Pavel Francouz YG this year falls into this category, as he previously had a card in one of the Compendium releases, that should be considered his RC.

There was another thread where this card was talked about specifically (among a few others. Caleb Jones too, maybe another few?).

First, I will say that I'm with you on this one. I think the Compendium Blue of Francouz should be considered his RC... but there's fair arguments against it:

1. Being a digital-only release (i.e. you can not buy physical packs) disqualifies Compendium cards.
2. The "base" card doesn't exist physically, so you can only physically collect parallels, and parallels are not Rookie Cards.

I understand why some may not like ePack... and that's okay.... but I think the distribution model is wide enough, that the first point is irrelevant. If a Sidney Crosby McDonald's card (i.e. regional release) can be considered a major enough release, with a wide enough distribution, to get a "RC" tag - then I don't think Compendium's distribution model should disqualify it.

The second point though, that's where I think the argument is a little more fair. You can not get a Compendium base card.... therefore no rookie cards exist in Compendium. For me - I would simply consider the blues to be the base cards... they're the simplest version of the cards to get.... but that's my opinion, not everyone's.

[WillyC]

rookie cards seem to be whatever hobby demand says... something I'm curious about since coming back to the hobby in 2018.

The 2009-10 John Tavares #201 Young Guns card is without doubt his most popular Rookie Card.... however, the 2015 and 2019 Buyback Auto Young Guns, which are actually authentic 2009-10 Youung Guns... do they now, un-rookie themselves and just reappear as parallels?... or are they still actual 2009-10 Rookie Cards that found their way back to JT and are now autographed Rookie Cards?

another similar example, if Wayne signed some of his 1979 OPC cards... would they still be signed Rookie Cards?

[Drewk86a]

It's COMC doing the labeling.... not the users. I think they're pretty consistent across all sports like this.

Mysellf, I will never accept a parallel card as a Rookie Card (for example) - but I believe in Baseball, most consider the base... and all of its parallels to be "Rookie Cards".

I've noticed lots of tags being incorrect on COMC, when it comes to RCs, or the use of "PRE" RCs. Lots of Rookie Cards get labeled as "Rookie Year", but not RC..... TONS of cards are labeled RC, but are (in fact) Rookie Year parallels or inserts.


I really like COMC, but this is one area where I think they've done a bad job.

I think SCF Football is doing it, too. Did a search on SCF Inventory Manager for Chase Claypool RCs. Came back with 879 RC's most of which a parallels.

[MR.M's Cards]

I think SCF Football is doing it, too. Did a search on SCF Inventory Manager for Chase Claypool RCs. Came back with 879 RC's most of which a parallels.

@ShayneShark