PWCC is abusing the term rookie card

[pspa123]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1985-86-Star-Basketball-Michael-Jordan-ROOKIE-RC-117-BGS-9-5-GEM-MINT-PWCC/352848022873?hash=item5227618d59:g:VZIAAOSwURhdxess

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Star-MJ-Michael-Jordan-ROOKIE-RC-3-BGS-9-5-GEM-MINT-PWCC/143436235582?hash=item216577433e:g:accAAOSw53Rdxewy

Probably countless other examples and in baseball too certainly with Jeter where I have seen them list cards up through 1996 as rookie cards.

Here we are, 13 1996 Jeters in the current auction called rookie cards.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odkw=&_ssn=pwcc_auctions&item=143436235582&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=1996+jeter+rookie&_sacat=0

Come on. Stop it.

[LC2nine10]

Dont most of those jeters day 'rookie' somewhere on the card?

[pspa123]

Dont most of those jeters day 'rookie' somewhere on the card?

Does this one, from 1994?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1994-Bowman-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-633-PSA-9-MINT-PWCC/143432355327?hash=item21653c0dff:g:rosAAOSwxlxdwKm-

Or this one?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1994-Bowmans-Best-Blue-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-2-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/143432355328?hash=item21653c0e00:g:830AAOSwyGpdwKm-

[Deadshot]

The dropdowns are a little tricky for reporting items. Here is the route I chose for the 2 MJ cards you linked

Report item, Listing practices, Search and browse manipulation, Misleading title

"Item includes both ROOKIE and RC in the title when the card is actually neither."

[pspa123]

The dropdowns are a little tricky for reporting items. Here is the route I chose for the 2 MJ cards you linked

Report item, Listing practices, Search and browse manipulation, Misleading title

"Item includes both ROOKIE and RC in the title when the card is actually neither."

I am just calling attention to it, they've been doing it forever, I don't want to interfere with various consignors' auctions over this.

I've discussed Jeter with Brent before, his claim is that the market considers all Jeter cards from 92 to 96 as rookie cards. Uh..... no.

[LC2nine10]

Does this one, from 1994?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1994-Bowman-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-633-PSA-9-MINT-PWCC/143432355327?hash=item21653c0dff:g:rosAAOSwxlxdwKm-

Or this one?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1994-Bowmans-Best-Blue-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-2-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/143432355328?hash=item21653c0e00:g:830AAOSwyGpdwKm-
Why do the say rookie? Im legit curious.
Didnt he win rookie of the year in 96?

[pspa123]

Why do the say rookie? Im legit curious.
Didnt he win rookie of the year in 96?

His first year in the majors was 1996. But back then, the first issues from major league sets (for Jeter, 1993) were universally regarded as the RC. A player cannot, IMO, have rookie cards in multiple years.

[ThoseBackPages]

There are forum members that feel Jeters RCs are in 1996

[pspa123]

There are forum members that feel Jeters RCs are in 1996

The only way to get there is to retroactively apply a new set of rules brought about by licensing changes. If you collected in the 1990s, the 1993 Jeters were indisputably his rookie card.

I could live with calling the 1996s rookie year issues. But not RCs. And what of the 1994s and 1995s PWCC also calls RCs?

And how on earth is a second year Star Jordan his RC?

[ThoseBackPages]

The only way to get there is to retroactively apply a new set of rules brought about by licensing changes. If you collected in the 1990s, the 1993 Jeters were indisputably his rookie card.

I could live with calling the 1996s rookie year issues. But not RCs. And what of the 1994s and 1995s PWCC also calls RCs?

i agree with you.

as for SIDA, i dont bother with them.

add this to your search -PWCC

[n1nesports]

And while you're at it please report all the fake 1/1's on ebay.

[LC2nine10]

His first year in the majors was 1996. But back then, the first issues from major league sets (for Jeter, 1993) were universally regarded as the RC. A player cannot, IMO, have rookie cards in multiple years.

Ok boomer:D

Id figure the year mlb considered him a rookie, would ve his rookie year. Since thats the 1st time he played in the majors?

I tried readig the thhread about the rc logo, and that just made it more confusing.

[goodole13]

His first year in the majors was 1996. But back then, the first issues from major league sets (for Jeter, 1993) were universally regarded as the RC. A player cannot, IMO, have rookie cards in multiple years.
There you go, it’s just an opinion. Their opinion differs. Not a big deal.

[asujbl]

So PWCC is just like Blowout on this issue

Earth shattering

[pinguino17]

first year card is a rookie. the card qualifies.

Also, submitting to PWCC allows cosignee to modify the listing, including title and description so this, once again, is another null attempt to blame PWCC for laughable reasons.

[ThoseBackPages]

first year card is a rookie. the card qualifies.

Also, submitting to PWCC allows cosignee to modify the listing, including title and description so this, once again, is another null attempt to blame PWCC for laughable reasons.

this is a Simmons RC?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2017-18-Prizm-Prizms-Silver-9-Ben-Simmons-Philadelphia-76ers/163932213539?hash=item262b1f1123:g:excAAOSwO0VdwgY5

[pinguino17]

not a pwcc listing. not a rc. no relevance.

[ThoseBackPages]

not a pwcc listing. not a rc. no relevance.

you said "first year card is a rookie"

Ben Simmons' first year in the NBA was 2017, he was named Rookie Of The Year

[6celtics33]

I had this conversation with Ricky P once about him calling every star Jordan a rookie card. His response was something like the 86 fleer is the rookie so everything before that was the rookie too. Not how I see it but opinions differ I guess.

[asujbl]

So essentially this was a hit on PWCC (not warranted in this case... absolutely in others)

Since no one will agree

Blowout I’ve missed you all

[pinguino17]

Correct, another null attempt.

So essentially this was a hit on PWCC (not warranted in this case... absolutely in others)

Since no one will agree

Blowout I’ve missed you all

[pspa123]

There you go, it’s just an opinion. Their opinion differs. Not a big deal.

Please explain to me how anyone can have a legitimate opinion that a 2nd year Star Jordan is a rookie card, or a 1986 Star subset Jordan, or a 1994 Bowman Jeter?

Or a 1995 Upper Deck?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Upper-Deck-Special-Edition-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-5-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/143432357623?hash=item21653c16f7:g:5pkAAOSw7dNdwKqP

How about a 1995 minor league team set card?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Columbus-Clippers-Team-Issue-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/401946575927?hash=item5d95e20437:g:vPcAAOSwT5RdwKpa

[ThoseBackPages]

oooooooh, we've not had a white knight in a "hot minute"

[goodole13]

Please explain to me how anyone can have a legitimate opinion that a 2nd year Star Jordan is a rookie card, or a 1986 Star subset Jordan, or a 1994 Bowman Jeter?

Or a 1995 Upper Deck?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Upper-Deck-Special-Edition-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-5-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/143432357623?hash=item21653c16f7:g:5pkAAOSw7dNdwKqP

How about a 1995 minor league team set card?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-Columbus-Clippers-Team-Issue-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-PSA-10-GEM-MINT-PWCC/401946575927?hash=item5d95e20437:g:vPcAAOSwT5RdwKpa

Ask them, I don’t owe you an explanation. I’m just letting you know that, at the end of the day, they’re just opinions. They think it’s a rookie card, while you don’t. I couldn’t care less either way. Just letting you know it’s okay to have different opinions, does it really bother you that much?

[cking]

I think Jeter rookies are in 2011 products

[LondonGames]

Not with you on the Jeter cards. It does not bother me one bit to see them call a card that says "rookie" on it as a rookie. Nor does it bother me to consider any card that lead up to his actual rookie year being labeled "rookie".

Even back in the day, way back, when Beckett deemed a players first card a RC, and used that along with the XRC sometimes, many people still considered the rookie and prospect cards as rookies. Not in the same way a Beckett "RC" got extra value and popularity, but just like we have the "RC" cards today that follow the Draft and Prospect cards, this concept always existed.

[Vladdy Jr]

Ask them, I don’t owe you an explanation. I’m just letting you know that, at the end of the day, they’re just opinions. They think it’s a rookie card, while you don’t. I couldn’t care less either way. Just letting you know it’s okay to have different opinions, does it really bother you that much?

I agree that it’s fair to justify the collectors’ opinion on rookie cards. However, based off of PWCC’s actions to date, it’s in the collectors best interest to assume that there is always deceit in their listings. They haven’t given us any reason to not assume this. A felon is a felon (convicted or not $$$$).

[superdan49]

I am just calling attention to it, they've been doing it forever, I don't want to interfere with various consignors' auctions over this.

I've discussed Jeter with Brent before, his claim is that the market considers all Jeter cards from 92 to 96 as rookie cards. Uh..... no.


Peter I'm with Brent on this one. '92 to '96 are considered Jeter's rookie era by Jeter collectors.

[pinguino17]

Thread posts makes false claims that PWCC is posting debatable cards as RC when users are the ones that approve their own titles and descriptions when cosigning with them. The continuing incompetence of people around here blaming PWCC for their erectile dysfunction don't know much about anything and can't think for themselves. Just unverified, unintelligent finger pointing and trolling. Psh, unreal.

I agree that it’s fair to justify the collectors’ opinion on rookie cards. However, based off of PWCC’s actions to date, it’s in the collectors best interest to assume that there is always deceit in their listings. They haven’t given us any reason to not assume this. A felon is a felon (convicted or not $$$$).

[Ken735i]

Some Jeter cards are prospects some are true rookies, others are rookie cards because the card is his first in a licenced mainstream product. That's just how baseball is.
Tell me what year is Aaron Judge a rookie?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Vladdy Jr]

Thread posts makes false claims that PWCC is posting debatable cards as RC when users are the ones that approve their own titles and descriptions when cosigning with them. The continuing incompetence of people around here blaming PWCC for their erectile dysfunction don't know much about anything and can't think for themselves. Just unverified, unintelligent finger pointing and trolling. Psh, unreal.

Comparing erectile dysfunction to stealing millions of dollars from people. Jeff Litchman better have a lot of viagra.
How long have you or your friends been working for PWCC?

[Ken735i]

Point to the RC that touched youhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/4ef9500f9634d98ac7a3e59f793d8302.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/9db19f6540073f4a16ca89836e4f3619.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/886751fd473c1ed420e092b281446f6d.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/549afcf585140bdc16d3dabc21d2fb99.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ken735i]

Some call the 86 fleer his true rookie. The star RC obviously his first year rookie

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[mc1]

Jordan was hurt. Some call the 86 fleer his true rookie. The star RC obviously his first year rookie

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

:confused:

Fleer is considered his rookie because it was a mainstream product issued in packs. Star was offered in team bags.

Not sure what Jordan’s injury in his 2nd year has to do with RC designation.

[Ken735i]

:confused:



Fleer is considered his rookie because it was a mainstream product issued in packs. Star was offered in team bags.



Not sure what Jordan’s injury in his 2nd year has to do with RC designation.Agreed, as I also said in the post prior, fleer was his first mainstream issue.

And yes he was hurt in 85 not 84.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

Peter I'm with Brent on this one. '92 to '96 are considered Jeter's rookie era by Jeter collectors.

Rookie era is not the same thing as rookie card. RC has a specific meaning.

[Ken735i]

Was he on the Yankees mlb roster 45 days or have 130+ at bats?
That determines prospect or rookie.

What was his true RC year by definition?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ken735i]

Was he on the Yankees mlb roster 45 days or have 130+ at bats?
That determines prospect or rookie.

What was his true RC year by definition?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TapatalkMaybe him playing in Kalamazoo michigan (his actual home town) was his rookie year. NJ my ass. He is known as the Kalamazoo kid. My science teacher in high school forced us to watch a game he umped claiming he was the next big thing. Whatever. I guess he ended up being ok

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

Was he on the Yankees mlb roster 45 days or have 130+ at bats?
That determines prospect or rookie.

What was his true RC year by definition?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

That was not the operative definition at the time. The operative definition was first inclusion in a major league, nationally distributed set sold in packs. At one point Dr. Beckett did not recognize update sets and such because they were not sold in packs, and designated first cards from those sets as XRCs, but abandoned that at some point.

By the current definition, 1996 would be Jeter's rookie year, and those cards would have had the official MLB RC designation.

But the hobby does not, in general, apply changes in definition retroactively. So 1992 Bowman is Mariano's rookie card even though he is pictured as a kid in street clothes, for example.

As to Jordan, while I think the 1984-85 Star is his rookie, I can (sort of) understand the case for the 1986-87 Fleer. But whichever of those one thinks is his rookie card, the 1985-86 Star Jordan decidedly is not.

[3124508 on COMC]

PWCC is abusing the term patch

There’s no such thing as a “bat patch”, Brent.

[Ken735i]

No take backs.lol

1996 is his RC year. 1996 bb atomic refractor.... best jeter rookie ever.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ken735i]

Panini claims it prints basketball cards. Clearly just mass-produced pigshit.
So it's up to collectors to determine a true rookie, prospect, xrc, or piles of worthless exclusive NBA contract pigshit.

Rants so, I officially worked too late tonight.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

No take backs.lol

1996 is his RC year. 1996 bb atomic refractor.... best jeter rookie ever.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would handle this would be
1992 minor league cards/pre-rookies
1993 RCs
1994 nothing or "rookie era"
1995 same
1996 "rookie year" cards

[Ken735i]

Or call them what modern prospects are called. Prospects

This kid was 18 signed a $16ml contact and was traded for m Machado. Still not a rookie. Maybe 2020? That's how baseball is. This is not a rookie card

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/8a5f03ba2d716a71e46ef304b78b4849.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/50c17646e3b183cf05fbd19472e6485f.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191111/ac81c8e39b13e64345e191e99c58a01f.jpg

[pspa123]

The thing is, in the 90s it was the norm to see what were considered (universally) official rookie cards long before a player made the bigs. I forget what year MLB stepped in and changed this but it lasted quite a while.

[superdan49]

The thing is, in the 90s it was the norm to see what were considered (universally) official rookie cards long before a player made the bigs. I forget what year MLB stepped in and changed this but it lasted quite a while.

Correct, I believe MLB's imposition of the "rookie card" logo was intended to dispel this confusion. However, it created more confusion at first, but I think the market settled the issue nicely, differentiating between prospect and "true" rookie cards (i.e., those base cards and parallels bearing the rookie logo).

Also the first rookie logo was hideous. Can you imagine the 2011 Topps Update Trout with that logo? Yikes!

[pspa123]

It was somewhere between 05 and 08 because my Verlander rookie doesn't have one and my Kershaw does.

[ThoseBackPages]

2006.

[Ken735i]

You guys are Seriously saying mlb is dictating the rookie designation on baseball cards? C'mon man?

Panini is not even affiliated with mlb in any way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

You guys are Seriously saying mlb is dictating the rookie designation on baseball cards? C'mon man?

Panini is not even affiliated with mlb in any way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Yes. It was MLB that made this change. Google it, I am sure you will find articles.

[ThoseBackPages]

Topps wouldnt give up the golden goose (Bowman Prospects)

if they had, we'd be wellllllll past this now, in 2019

[ThoseBackPages]

The other three sports have no "debate" in this matter

[Ken735i]

Yes. It was MLB that made this change. Google it, I am sure you will find articles.So MLB controls the RC and Rated rookie designation on unlicenced baseball cards? That sounds correct

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

So MLB controls the RC and Rated rookie designation on unlicenced baseball cards? That sounds correct

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

correct.

which is why Panini did not make a Yordan RC this year

[Ken735i]

That is a true statement

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ken735i]

Wierd football and basketball aren't as confusing?

They have the same complicated roster, bring up send down, multi tier minor league system as baseball. I'll never figure this out

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

The other three sports have no "debate" in this matter

True but there are a few instances where there are regional issues that pre date the rookie cards, or CFL. And of course there is Star BKB.

[pspa123]

Wierd football and basketball aren't as confusing?

They have the same complicated roster, bring up send down, multi tier minor league system as baseball. I'll never figure this out

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Except for a few local issues there are no college football or basketball cards.

[pinguino17]

Did I hit a nerve there? Get off the Burger King, Use a splint. Might help with the blood flow.

Another example of an ignorant clown. why don’t you dig into actual facts and/or legal Documents pertaining to such matters and other cases and then speak. Forum loons and your penile distinction pamphlets do not count as reliable sources.

Comparing erectile dysfunction to stealing millions of dollars from people. Jeff Litchman better have a lot of viagra.
How long have you or your friends been working for PWCC?

[Deadshot]

Shouldn't PWCC still screen titles for any sort of keyword spam?

I'm not going to weigh in on the Jeters, but I don't agree with putting rookie in the MJ titles. This is the first I've heard of MJ Star "rookies" other than the 84, Gatorade, etc.

[Ken735i]

What is going on?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pspa123]

Meanwhile, Mariano's RCs stretch from 1991 to 1996. 6 years!! If only they had a 1990 Tampa up there, it could have been 7.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=pwcc+mariano+rivera&_sacat=0

[Ken735i]

If you search Jordan rookies hundreds of fake junk tributes or reprint come up. HUNDREDS

Are we seriously griping because 1985 star Michael Jordan keyed?


It's a nice, somewhat iconic vintage jordan card. I believe we've exhausted our supply of frivolous complaints.

Nothing to say about the 180 decade of excellence rookies listed on eBay now? It's all keyword spamming but I don't mind seeing legitimate cards instead of reprints and garbage and fakes

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[JMANIA]

I agree with the original post, but it is not just PWCC doing it, as Probstein and others do it as well to appear in search listings and obtain more money for cards. And while people can edit the listings, PWCC is the one writing rookie on all these listings.

XRC - Extended Rookie Card. Typically designated as such because a card was issued as part of an extended or traded set, not a part of a regular base set (notably Star Co. basketball cards became the exception when Beckett made the designation of XRC).

Rookie or Rookie Card ("RC") - A rookie card is typically a player's first appearance on a card licensed by the league and issued as part of a team set through a regular base set. An exception is if the player did not have a card issued as part of a regular base set.

Sorry, Jeter's rookie cards are not in 1996. How many rookie cards can a player have from the same brand? That makes no sense. And second year Star Co. Jordan's are not rookie cards. Jordan had 25 Star Co. cards, 24 of which were released prior to the 1986-87 Fleer card. Listing them all as rookies is nothing but manipulative and hurts people from learning about the cards. The same non-sense goes on with them calling all the Star Co. Wilkins, Drexler, I. Thomas, Worthy, Stockton, Barkley, Ewing etc. as rookie cards. Again, it hurts people from learning the cards and when they learn the truth they still have to buy the rookie. Like a 1985-86 Star #144 Stockton should be called his second year base card similarly to the 1985-86 Star #117 Michael Jordan as a second year base card. And the subset cards can never be called rookies as they are not part of a regular base set, they can be called first year or rookie year issues or second year issues. The term pre-rookie card can also be used. But calling them all rookies or rookie cards is pathetic.

Beckett and PSA both designate rookie cards (of course PSA nothing on Star) and while there are a few conflicts between the company, neither list the cards the poster was referring to or that are similarly implicated as rookie cards. These sellers call them rookie cards when they are selling but when they are buying believe me they know they are not rookie cards. Call Probstein or PWCC tomorrow and tell them you have a BGS 8.5 Michael Jordan rookie card you want to them to sell and they will ask if it is the 1984-85 Star #101 or the 1986-87 Fleer #57 (not looking to start that debate of which of the two), they are not going to ask which Star Co. card it is, which Fleer card it is, whether it is the Interlake Jordan, a Nike Promo card, a Bulls Pocket Schedule or something else.

[JMANIA]

Peter I'm with Brent on this one. '92 to '96 are considered Jeter's rookie era by Jeter collectors.

Sorry, no. He is talking about what a rookie card is. Beckett and PSA do not list the cards poster was referring to as rookie cards and sellers should not be making their own rules to manipulate search functions, expand the cards it wants people to buy and create higher prices. This topic was a no-brainer to me, I am surprised that people did not support the post. The SMR for PSA does not list 1996 Jeter's as rookie cards, but designates the rookie cards. In fact, years ago the SMR did not even list 1996 Jeter cards but has expanded now and lists them without the rookie desigation. Same with a Beckett magazine or online Beckett population report. This 1996 Select Jeter card is not a rookie card under any proper analysis and neither PSA or Beckett say it is:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1996-Select-Certified-Mirror-Gold-Derek-Jeter-ROOKIE-RC-30-100-PSA-10-PWCC-/352816860218?hash=item5225860c3a%3Ag%3AZycAAOSwr-hdm6RH&nma=true&si=vRHxHt4TlAOt4zmOyaAWMnUMZB8%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[pspa123]

Sorry, no. He is talking about what a rookie card is. Beckett and PSA do not list the cards poster was referring to as rookie cards and sellers should not be making their own rules to manipulate search functions, expand the cards it wants people to buy and create higher prices. This topic was a no-brainer to me, I am surprised that people did not support the post.

I've been collecting longer than I care to admit and -- with perhaps the single exception of the 1984 v 1986 Jordan debate (and other Star v Fleer issues) -- it has been the gospel truth that a player only has rookie cards in one year's issues. PWCC, and apparently Probstein, are running listings completely contrary to that bedrock tenet. Now I agree, it's not the biggest deal in the world and I'm not pretending it is, but it's still in my view something worth pointing out and yes, complaining about because it's misleading.

Find me any other industry participant who thinks a player can have rookie cards in 5,6, or 7 different years. Go on.

[hairyangryfella]

How is this basketball related?
You should bring up that they continue to call every jersey card a patch.

[Vladdy Jr]

Did I hit a nerve there? Get off the Burger King, Use a splint. Might help with the blood flow.

Another example of an ignorant clown. why don’t you dig into actual facts and/or legal Documents pertaining to such matters and other cases and then speak. Forum loons and your penile distinction pamphlets do not count as reliable sources.

Okay, Betsy. That’s why your husband is paying Jeff Litchman $10-15 million to stay out of prison. Too bad because they love chomos!

[LC2nine10]

Wierd football and basketball aren't as confusing?

They have the same complicated roster, bring up send down, multi tier minor league system as baseball. I'll never figure this out

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Basketball everyone argues "true rookie" and vertical vs horizontal.
Also very stupid

[JMANIA]

I've been collecting longer than I care to admit and -- with perhaps the single exception of the 1984 v 1986 Jordan debate (and other Star v Fleer issues) -- it has been the gospel truth that a player only has rookie cards in one year's issues. PWCC, and apparently Probstein, are running listings completely contrary to that bedrock tenet. Now I agree, it's not the biggest deal in the world and I'm not pretending it is, but it's still in my view something worth pointing out and yes, complaining about because it's misleading.

Find me any other industry participant who thinks a player can have rookie cards in 5,6, or 7 different years. Go on.

Your observations are spot on and shared by all Star Co. basketball collectors I know. The XRC/rookie card/"true rookie card" debate is a different issue. Simply put, if one wants to designate a player's Star Co. basketball card as a rookie card instead of XRC because they do not agree with the XRC designation, a player can only have had one rookie card issued by the Star Co. That is why it is called a rookie card. Multiple rookie cards from the same brand make no sense (not multiple years and has to be from the regular base set team card which is why one calls the #101 Jordan his rookie card, XRC or "true rookie card" but the #195 and #288 are not his additional "rookie cards"). We are not saying the other cards are not important, they are not his "rookie card".

Baseball is simple and I do not know anyone that calls Derek Jeter's 1996 cards rookie cards and neither do Beckett or PSA.

The XRC designation is a different issue and one area in football I have seen Beckett and PSA disagree. Beckett calls the USFL cards XRC's while PSA labels them rookies.

But let's look at one example and analogize. Reggie White's 1984 Topps USFL #58 card is his XRC with Beckett; his 1985 Topps USFL card #75 received no designation; and his 1986 Topps #275 is his rookie card. With PSA the 1984 Topps USFL card is his rookie card; his 1985 Topps USFL card received no designation; and his 1986 Topps card is also a rookie card. The difference here is that Beckett labels the person's first USFL card an XRC while PSA calls it a rookie card. Neither label anything if a player had a second year USFL card and both label the Topps card that follows as a rookie card.

This leads me to believe that PSA might consider the Star Co. cards rookie cards and not XRC's if they ever graded them again and put them in the SMR (which is not happening), but just one Star Co. card per player, not all of them. And by the way, Beckett does not label the Star Co. cards you are referring to as "rookie cards" or XRC's and agrees with you.

[goodole13]

Okay, Betsy. That’s why your husband is paying Jeff Litchman $10-15 million to stay out of prison. Too bad because they love chomos!

Wait, what? What does this have to do with PWCC? Is there more to the PWCC issue than we know about?