Confusion about Rookie Card designation

[Drewk86a]

As a 15+ year collector I never thought I would be confused by something a simple as this.

Why are some cards considered RC and others are not when they are both from major sets and released in the same year?

Now, I'm not talking Series 1 young guns (RC) vs Series 2 in NHL uni (not RC), cards from minor sets (traded, update), or inserts. That I get. I am talking about cards from major releases all in the same year. For example:

According to the Beckett Big Book
1996-97 Fleer #135 Roman Vopat is listed as a rookie card
1996-97 Score #252 Roman Vopat is not as a rookie card

1996-97 Fleer #133 Jamie Storr is listed as a rookie card
1996-97 Skybox Impact #159 Jamie Storr is not as a rookie card
1996-97 Ultra #82 Jamie Storr is not listed as a rookie card

Any ideas?

[30ranfordfan]

Just taking a look at those players in question.

Roman Vopat from 96-97 Fleer should NOT be considered a RC. If that's printed somewhere, it's a mistake. His RCs are from sets in 1995-96:

Bowman #139, Donruss #307, Skybox Impact #219, and Upper Deck #440.

He's also got a card that year in Parkhurst European #447.... it should be classified as an XRC.

With Jamie Storr, it's the same problem again.His 1996-97 Fleer #133 is NOT a RC. His Rookie Cards all came from the 1993-94 releases:

Parkhurst #508
Pinnacle #458
Upper Deck #538

I don't think the info you found is a case of mis-classified cards, it's probably just a case of errors by whom ever was inputting the information.

[Drewk86a]

Thanks! I'm gonna guess the big book looked at the 96-97 fleer instead of the 95-96.

Thanks again!

[Goose97]

I have the big book too, and seen what you are talking about.
Things like this have to be throughout the book. There is way too much to be tracked, and year after year it gets re-printed. It takes good eyes like yours and 30randford to point that out, back to Beckett so they can correct it.