Gala RCs Best Base RCs?

[theLUCKYshow]

Someone had started a thread about best mid-level base RCs to own which got me to thinking about the high-end base RCs. To me there's only 2 legitimate options with Gala being one and Flawless being the other. Flawless has the big name appeal and the fancy jewelry, but the added parallels and increased base print run has diluted the base somewhat. In contrast, Gala RCs have always been numbered to /8 (rarest RC base ever?) with no parallels. Panini had to be sneaky and put them in Chronicles this year which makes them even cooler being in a low-end product. Still commanding top dollar, though. A Tatum raw went for $1575 yesterday. Besides all that, just look at these Gala's... they are STUNNING!

Which RC would you rather have of your guy? Gala or Flawless?

*None of these cards are mine https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181016/52d0708630025fca481d740a4219fd88.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181016/fb46bacf25c17edd76f7ffb002c4064b.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181016/ae9309d1dd035c205e4a575a3e0b0821.jpg

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Orangejello727]

If Gala as a brand is dead, but it comes out of another product like Chronicles, is it a base rookie or an insert now? This is what will kill the gala rc /8 following. If Gala was still a brand/product then it would have kept its popularity and lineage. Now that its a dead brand and inserted into a product like Chronicles that aggregates all these mulch products, it kills it.

[chris_ac]

Definitely like the 17/18 Gala design. My 15/16 has the goofy draft day photos. Flawless is nice but like most resonate, an awful lot of white in the background.

[chris_ac]

If Gala as a brand is dead, but it comes out of another product like Chronicles, is it a base rookie or an insert now? This is what will kill the gala rc /8 following. If Gala was still a brand/product then it would have kept its popularity and lineage. Now that its a dead brand and inserted into a product like Chronicles that aggregates all these mulch products, it kills it.

While I somewhat agree, like lucky said a JT just sold for >1500 so not dead yet.

[splum]

Gala for me and it's not close. Awesome looking card that is an impossible pull from a product that no one bought.

[theLUCKYshow]

If Gala as a brand is dead, but it comes out of another product like Chronicles, is it a base rookie or an insert now? This is what will kill the gala rc /8 following. If Gala was still a brand/product then it would have kept its popularity and lineage. Now that its a dead brand and inserted into a product like Chronicles that aggregates all these mulch products, it kills it.It's still a base RC right? Smarter peeps than me will tell me Im wrong. I get what youre saying though, and Chronicles was just straight up weird with like 10 RC products in one. I honestly don't care what box it's coming from if it looks that good.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[smalltown]

It's a nice insert but it's not a base rookie anymore.

[theLUCKYshow]

Definitely like the 17/18 Gala design. My 15/16 has the goofy draft day photos. Flawless is nice but like most resonate, an awful lot of white in the background.Yeah they really nailed it with this years design, similar to 14-15.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[theLUCKYshow]

Gala for me and it's not close. Awesome looking card that is an impossible pull from a product that no one bought.Yeah exactly. Ive thought about getting a case but those Gala's are probably 1 in 4 or 5 cases so I bailed.It's a nice insert but it's not a base rookie anymore.Damnit I knew you were going to say that!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Orangejello727]

It's still a base RC right? Smarter peeps than me will tell me Im wrong. I get what youre saying though, and Chronicles was just straight up weird with like 10 RC products in one. I honestly don't care what box it's coming from if it looks that good.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

A base rc of what set? There is no Gala base set is there? If there is no base set of Gala, then how is this a Gala base rookie?

To each their own, im not forcing you to hate or like something. You asked a question and I simply answered it with my opinion.

[smalltown]

Damnit I knew you were going to say that!

Just to pound home the point that it's an insert in the Chronicles set and not a "true" rc. :D I direct you to the reverse of the card.

https://i.imgur.com/0wnRRxb.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BsisyJu.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5gd5G6q.jpg

[theLUCKYshow]

A base rc of what set? There is no Gala base set is there? If there is no base set of Gala, then how is this a Gala base rookie?

To each their own, im not forcing you to hate or like something. You asked a question and I simply answered it with my opinion.

Previous Gala RCs were base and numbered to /8. It’s hard for me to say they aren’t anymore because of that, despite coming out of Chronicle.

[splum]

Previous Gala RCs were base and numbered to /8. It’s hard for me to say they aren’t anymore because of that, despite coming out of Chronicle.

They got that sweet sweet RC stamp on em. Check and mate!

[theLUCKYshow]

Just to pound home the point that it's an insert in the Chronicles set and not a "true" rc. :D I direct you to the reverse of the card.

https://i.imgur.com/0wnRRxb.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BsisyJu.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5gd5G6q.jpg

Then these would be the only rookie inserts from 2017-18 Panini products to have the RC logo. I’m not giving up!

[theLUCKYshow]

They got that sweet sweet RC stamp on em. Check and mate!

Damnnn from the top rope...

[AlexHunter]

They both ugly!!!

Why is every new series of card im learning about this morning horrendous.

[LC2nine10]

1st year flawless were AMAZING.
I feel they've gone overboard with their baroque stylization.

[yiguiri2002]

Just to pound home the point that it's an insert in the Chronicles set and not a "true" rc. :D I direct you to the reverse of the card.

https://i.imgur.com/0wnRRxb.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BsisyJu.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5gd5G6q.jpg

Actually, given that it follows the numbering from the base set, won't it be a subset instead of an insert?

I think of Gala is more like Rated Rookie than The Rookies. Just my two cents.

[theLUCKYshow]

1st year flawless were AMAZING.
I feel they've gone overboard with their baroque stylization.

Yeah I loved the second year two. Funny thing is I own 5-6 base Flawless cards and 0 gala RCs. That would be a tough one for me, 1st or 2nd year flawless vs these Gala’s.

[smalltown]

Actually, given that it follows the numbering from the base set, won't it be a subset instead of an insert?

I think of Gala is more like Rated Rookie than The Rookies. Just my two cents.

The Rated Rookies are rookies.

But that said... Subset it is.

[theLUCKYshow]

They both ugly!!!

Why is every new series of card im learning about this morning horrendous.

Woah hey now. If it wasn’t for your awesome avatar and danggg you’re from Fresno? You might be my cuz homie.

[PKIPP]

They got that sweet sweet RC stamp on em. Check and mate!

^^ this

Ppl can say all they want that they think chronicles rookie cards aren't true RC's, but the RC logo and the prices they're commanding would say otherwise. It's all subjective though I guess.

[theLUCKYshow]

The Rated Rookies are rookies.

But that said... Subset it is.

Yiguiri:flex:!:flex::flex:!

Momentum.

[splum]

The Rated Rookies are rookies.

But that said... Subset it is.

Subset of cool and good rookie cards. Glad we agree :)!

[smalltown]

Yiguiri:flex:!:flex::flex:! Momentum.

I'll say this though. It really doesn't matter.

Some guys are real sticklers for this but to be honest anything released in the rookie year is going to be seen as a rookie.

[bballautographs]

Id vote Gala ~ but don't care if its a base or insert . . . Im not very helpful

[GeechQuest]

It's a nice insert but it's not a base rookie anymore.

That Gala Tatum is actually card #181 in the Chronicles base set.

Not that it's not devalued in the eyes of the majority of collectors, because if Gala was a standalone product I'd suspect the Tatum would be pushed even higher, but it technically is still a base card.

[dasiegel]

This question which is especially controversial with baseball and minor league prospect cards is honestly one of the most subjective things ever that people try to act like there is a definitive answer on.

Even if a rep from Panini told us what they intended it would still be up to the collector to decide if it's a "true RC" based on their definitions.

Making this particular Gala question even more difficult here is the fact that the checklist says "Gala Rookies Set Checklist" but it it #d as part of the base set lol. Then they put a RC symbol on it!!!!! :cry:


My answer is that these are GROSSSSSSSSSSSSS in person!!! The nicest design from all of 17-18. You get "RC," action shot, refractor foil and pretty much everything you want in a PC card.

https://sportscardalbum.com/c/582ivh0n.jpg (https://sportscardalbum.com/card/582ivh0n)

[smalltown]

That Gala Tatum is actually card #181 in the Chronicles base set.

Not that it's not devalued in the eyes of the majority of collectors, because if Gala was a standalone product I'd suspect the Tatum would be pushed even higher, but it technically is still a base card.

I've conceded that it's part of the Chronicles set. But it's a subset. If we get technical card #137 is Jayson Tatum's RC in this set.

I'm really only posting in here to bust theLUCKYshow's balls. I'm not a big proponent of "true" rcs over any other rookie year cards.

[GeechQuest]

I've conceded that it's part of the Chronicles set. But it's a subset. If we get technical card #137 is Jayson Tatum's RC in this set.

I'm really only posting in here to bust theLUCKYshow's balls. I'm not a big proponent of "true" rcs over any other rookie year cards.

I quoted before reading the rest of the thread (typical of me). I'm just set on this not being an insert, similar to "Vintage Art" in Noir. If we we're using Noir as a measuring stick, I'd take the RC /79 over Vintage Art in a "true" RC sense. Subset makes perfect sense and the most apt word I can thing of.

I don't even play the "true" RC game. Rarest non-paralleled RC I can get behind. Unnumbered base variations (Galactic) are good with me. After that, it's all kind of hodge-podged together.

[theLUCKYshow]

My answer is that these are GROSSSSSSSSSSSSS in person!!! The nicest design from all of 17-18. You get "RC," action shot, refractor foil and pretty much everything you want in a PC card.

https://sportscardalbum.com/c/582ivh0n.jpg (https://sportscardalbum.com/card/582ivh0n)

Sooo dope. Every one I see I want!

I've conceded that it's part of the Chronicles set. But it's a subset. If we get technical card #137 is Jayson Tatum's RC in this set.

I'm really only posting in here to bust theLUCKYshow's balls. I'm not a big proponent of "true" rcs over any other rookie year cards.

Dude my balls are on ice cuz of you.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TBarn291]

It's interesting that Beckett doesn't list these under Chronicles, you have to search Gala to find them. They also don't have them marked as a RC.

Personally imo it's a Chronicles card and Chronicles already has a base RC. These are a subset, a very rare and expensive subset.... but it's not like it has to be a True RC for it to command a huge price. The True RCs in Chronicles are not very appealing at all. They should have just kept the Gala product. I'm sure it sold just as well if not better than Chonricles.

[yiguiri2002]

Speaking of subsets, what do people think of Marquee?

I think this is kinda like that. I can't think of another product to compare Chronicles to.

[nfunk]

Gala 100%

[theLUCKYshow]

Marquee was same in Chronicles too, right? They're meehh.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Yaz1966]

So are the RPA's in immaculate this year a subset? As some players have normal base cards as well

[smalltown]

So are the RPA's in immaculate this year a subset? As some players have normal base cards as well

Interesting question. Not every rookie is represented in both. But technically it would... i think. Brain spinning.

[GeechQuest]

So are the RPA's in immaculate this year a subset? As some players have normal base cards as well

https://media.giphy.com/media/Qh2MZDIHvZavK/giphy.gif

[yiguiri2002]

Marquee was same in Chronicles too, right? They're meehh.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I meant 12-13 Marquee. They have 5 different subsets, all with rookies. Only difference is that they didn't have rookies on the "normal" base set.

[theLUCKYshow]

I meant 12-13 Marquee. They have 5 different subsets, all with rookies. Only difference is that they didn't have rookies on the "normal" base set.Yeah, looking at checklist now. Reminds me of Court Kings and Select with its different levels.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[dasiegel]

https://media.giphy.com/media/Qh2MZDIHvZavK/giphy.gif

yea man, you can't do stuff like that!!!

[shindo03]

Not a True RC based off beckett.

[the27guy]

In 2012 and 2013 Flawless was the best rookie.

In 2014 and 2015 Gala was the best.

In 2016 Gala was not produced.

In 2017 Gala is strange for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. There was no Gala product. There are no Gala non-rookies. I still don't have a strong sense whether it's actually a rookie card. I could not care less that there is a little "RC" logo on the card. It's not a real set in 2017.

What's amazing to me is that Panini entirely missed on getting the breakout stars a Gala rookie. I wonder what the perspective of a Steph Curry, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid or Ben Simmons Gala rookie would be. The sad thing? We will never know. Even in 2014 when they could have made an Embiid they elected not to.

I've nearly acquired two different Mitchell's, but both were ended early. I still have my Towns and Exum, but sold all the others that I've owned.

[theLUCKYshow]

In 2012 and 2013 Flawless was the best rookie.

In 2014 and 2015 Gala was the best.

In 2016 Gala was not produced.

In 2017 Gala is strange for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. There was no Gala product. There are no Gala non-rookies. I still don't have a strong sense whether it's actually a rookie card. I could not care less that there is a little "RC" logo on the card. It's not a real set in 2017.

What's amazing to me is that Panini entirely missed on getting the breakout stars a Gala rookie. I wonder what the perspective of a Steph Curry, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid or Ben Simmons Gala rookie would be. The sad thing? We will never know. Even in 2014 when they could have made an Embiid they elected not to.

I've nearly acquired two different Mitchell's, but both were ended early. I still have my Towns and Exum, but sold all the others that I've owned.So this the best checklist the Gala RCs have had then? Not a bad year to get it right.

Sucks on the DMs. Ive sold a few bigger cards through auction and the second I listed it I would get 3 messages trying to purchase the card and have me remove it.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[dasiegel]

In 2012 and 2013 Flawless was the best rookie.

In 2014 and 2015 Gala was the best.

In 2016 Gala was not produced.

In 2017 Gala is strange for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. There was no Gala product. There are no Gala non-rookies. I still don't have a strong sense whether it's actually a rookie card. I could not care less that there is a little "RC" logo on the card. It's not a real set in 2017.

What's amazing to me is that Panini entirely missed on getting the breakout stars a Gala rookie. I wonder what the perspective of a Steph Curry, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid or Ben Simmons Gala rookie would be. The sad thing? We will never know. Even in 2014 when they could have made an Embiid they elected not to.

I've nearly acquired two different Mitchell's, but both were ended early. I still have my Towns and Exum, but sold all the others that I've owned.

I think the idea of a true rookie card is vastly overrated. It affects RPAs and a few high end cards, prizm etc. But generally the way these sell, it really doesn't matter much. Enough people see them as a 1st year card to have of a very good class of players. The fact that they are in such an obscure product and so scarce means they rarely pop up and people shell out $.

[Anish]

For me, Flawless >>> Gala because:
1) Gala doesn’t stand out from the numerous other shiny cards
2) Gala didn’t even come out last year - a Simmons would have been big
3) Flawless has a distinct element to it aside from being short printed
4) Flawless is actually it’s own release
5) Flawless is the much more expensive product

[theLUCKYshow]

For me, Flawless >>> Gala because:
1) Gala doesn’t stand out from the numerous other shiny cards
2) Gala didn’t even come out last year - a Simmons would have been big
3) Flawless has a distinct element to it aside from being short printed
4) Flawless is actually it’s own release
5) Flawless is the much more expensive productAll great points except your first. Cant think of another card that looks like the Gala's. Maybe Platinum Essentials but nahh.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[the27guy]

For me, Flawless >>> Gala because:
1) Gala doesn’t stand out from the numerous other shiny cards
2) Gala didn’t even come out last year - a Simmons would have been big
3) Flawless has a distinct element to it aside from being short printed
4) Flawless is actually it’s own release
5) Flawless is the much more expensive product

The reason that I haven’t gone hard after them is number 4. Not being it’s own release hurts 2017 gala cards.

I still love the first two years.

Assuming panini doesn’t do eminence, I’ll probaby pick up a flawless Mitchell diamond. I always want the rarest true rookie card. Looks like that will be it.

But my biggest hope is that they do eminence again and we see true rookies /10.

[theLUCKYshow]

Kuzma Gala just ended over 1k. Interesting to see BGS didn't put Chronicles on the label. I wonder if actual thought was put into that.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181025/9437aedb09b89a5b331fd3d2733fb844.jpg

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[the27guy]

Kuzma Gala just ended over 1k. Interesting to see BGS didn't put Chronicles on the label. I wonder if actual thought was put into that.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181025/9437aedb09b89a5b331fd3d2733fb844.jpg

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Good post. They should. It’s a chronicles card.

I’m still not sure how I feel about it being a rookie. But I am sure that it ought to have chronicles in the label.

[smalltown]

Kuzma Gala just ended over 1k. Interesting to see BGS didn't put Chronicles on the label. I wonder if actual thought was put into that.

Good post. They should. It’s a chronicles card.

I’m still not sure how I feel about it being a rookie. But I am sure that it ought to have chronicles in the label.

100% should have Chronicles on the label. It wouldn't surprise me if the person who submitted asked to have the label this way.

[theLUCKYshow]

DMs Gala Raw ended last night @ $1125. Another beautiful card. Chronicles wasn't on the Panini "axe list" so I guess Gala in Chronicles again?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tmar214]

I bought a nurkic for 115 a couple nights ago. Some of the mid tier guys def sneak through the cracks pretty cheap.

[theLUCKYshow]

I bought a nurkic for 115 a couple nights ago. Some of the mid tier guys def sneak through the cracks pretty cheap.Nice! I was watching that one. The OG 2014-15 Gala RCs and base were just great looking cards. These 2017-18 (Chronicle) Galas definitely invoke that original design.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[mcgahee21nfl]

Gala and it isn't even close.

1. Lower serial #'ing. 2. Better design. 3. More of a True RC (it has base set numbering).

Pretty much the only criteria I look for when judging a card.

There are many sets over the past years that are going overlooked because of the nosebleed costs of some of the top sets... which are crap and the hobby will eventually realize it.

[Anish]

Gala and it isn't even close.

1. Lower serial #'ing. 2. Better design. 3. More of a True RC (it has base set numbering).

Pretty much the only criteria I look for when judging a card.

There are many sets over the past years that are going overlooked because of the nosebleed costs of some of the top sets... which are crap and the hobby will eventually realize it.

The Flawless diamond cards have base numbering...

[Ross]

To me it’s a subset as chronicles is a mess of 58 brands in one. That said gala has a following of bigger than 8 so these will Be desired no doubt.

To me the true base rookie is the chronicles rookie in the base set:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181116/84f19571971bd4b538db8d29c1468262.jpg

Gracias,

Ross


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dasiegel]

To me it’s a subset as chronicles is a mess of 58 brands in one. That said gala has a following of bigger than 8 so these will Be desired no doubt.

To me the true base rookie is the chronicles rookie in the base set:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181116/84f19571971bd4b538db8d29c1468262.jpg

Gracias,

Ross


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that is a cool looking card, not quite gala, but different and sharp

[Ross]

that is a cool looking card, not quite gala, but different and sharp



Agreed it’s not gala I’m just saying that’s the true base card imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLUCKYshow]

Agreed it’s not gala I’m just saying that’s the true base card imo


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think most people agree with you about Gala not being the true RC out of Chronicle. On the flip-side, I don't think Gala fans really care. Either way they are beautiful and pricey cards.

Side note: Ive decided to try and complete the 2014-15 Gala base set if anyone has some randoms up to superstars laying around.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[the27guy]

Side note: Ive decided to try and complete the 2014-15 Gala base set if anyone has some randoms up to superstars laying around.

I'm assuming you won't be doing the rookies, right?

I got down to only needing 5-6 cards from the /79 base set and 7-8 of the rookies and moved them all to a member here. It's a great set! And at this point, that would be a fun chase! Best of luck.

[dasiegel]

I think most people agree with you about Gala not being the true RC out of Chronicle. On the flip-side, I don't think Gala fans really care. Either way they are beautiful and pricey cards.

Side note: Ive decided to try and complete the 2014-15 Gala base set if anyone has some randoms up to superstars laying around.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

i think this. it's just a beautiful card in person so anyone who has seen them is gonna love it. bowman chrome are not "true rookies" in baseball but are the top prospect cards. some say 1st bowman, some don't. some have better or worse designs. certain things just stick for whatever reason.

[theLUCKYshow]

I'm assuming you won't be doing the rookies, right?

I got down to only needing 5-6 cards from the /79 base set and 7-8 of the rookies and moved them all to a member here. It's a great set! And at this point, that would be a fun chase! Best of luck.

Just the base, the RCs would drive me crazy and I'd never get them all. I've got about half of them so far. Gonna take it nice and slow as I have another set I'm closer to finishing.

i think this. it's just a beautiful card in person so anyone who has seen them is gonna love it. bowman chrome are not "true rookies" in baseball but are the top prospect cards. some say 1st bowman, some don't. some have better or worse designs. certain things just stick for whatever reason.

The beauty definitely helps its appeal despite being in Chronicle. The fact Gala was its own product once also helps.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[the27guy]

Just the base, the RCs would drive me crazy and I'd never get them all. I've got about half of them so far. Gonna take it nice and slow as I have another set I'm closer to finishing.


Well good luck. I regret selling mine. I took a lot of flack here about my love of the product, but now I wish that I wouldn't have let that influence me. I totally should have finished the non-vet piece and even been patient with the rookies. Everyone other than Wiggins and Lavine has now sold for reasonable prices.

[theLUCKYshow]

Well good luck. I regret selling mine. I took a lot of flack here about my love of the product, but now I wish that I wouldn't have let that influence me. I totally should have finished the non-vet piece and even been patient with the rookies. Everyone other than Wiggins and Lavine has now sold for reasonable prices.

Thanks man. Hopefully I'll be sharing the completed set in the not-so-distant future. I wonder if the member on here who you moved your Gala's to ever finished?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[theLUCKYshow]

Well good luck. I regret selling mine. I took a lot of flack here about my love of the product, but now I wish that I wouldn't have let that influence me. I totally should have finished the non-vet piece and even been patient with the rookies. Everyone other than Wiggins and Lavine has now sold for reasonable prices.One question that I'll probably regret. Would you consider the base set finished if I just collected the vets, or do I need to complete the RCs too? Remember I have no RCs so please answer carefully.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[bberns]

the LUCKYshow: Do you collect the 2014-15 set only or the 2015-16 set as well? I like both for different reasons and have been trying to piece together a set of each.

[theLUCKYshow]

the LUCKYshow: Do you collect the 2014-15 set only or the 2015-16 set as well? I like both for different reasons and have been trying to piece together a set of each.Just the 2014-15 and only the vets. I've got about half of them and am slooowly moving along. I'm in no rush.

How far along are you? I think I have a few duplicates.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[bberns]

Cool. I'm about 60% on the 2014-2015 (vets only) and 80% on the 2015-2016 (vets and HOFs only). I've picked up a few rookies, but mostly think they are overpriced.

I'm also working on the 2016 football set because I am an obsessive completist.

If you don't mind PMing me a list of your duplicates, there may be a few I don't have.

[theLUCKYshow]

Cool. I'm about 60% on the 2014-2015 (vets only) and 80% on the 2015-2016 (vets and HOFs only). I've picked up a few rookies, but mostly think they are overpriced.

I'm also working on the 2016 football set because I am an obsessive completist.

If you don't mind PMing me a list of your duplicates, there may be a few I don't have.Ok I'll take a look tonight and post back or PM actually.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk