Are Inserts of Rookies Considered Rookie Cards?
 

Hello,

Pulled a /10 Gold insert of a rookie recently, and I was curious as to how the community values these, if at all. Thanks for your thoughts.

I don't consider them true rookie cards, but others may disagree

You are asking two, maybe three questions.

Inserts of rookies are rookie year cards, but not necessarily thought of as “rookie cards” which are the cards in the base set of a release.

A /10 gold is a parallel, and golds are very desired, insert, RC, regular. There could be a gold in an insert set or a gold parallel of a true rookie. Likely the latter would be very coveted based on who the player is.

Would help if you shared what the card was.

Depends for me. If it is parallel of the main rookie card, than yes. If you are talking about stuff like prizm emergent or donruss the rookies and the like, than no. Actual insert sets that aren't part of the main set, I don't consider rookie cards. Rookie year inserts. Or Rookie year autos (although the autos kind of straddle the line for me).

Baseball thinks so.

Really appreciate the rapid feedback. It is a 2017 Mahomes Optic Gridiron Kings Gold /10. No auto unfortunately.

It’s Patty so that’s a high dollar card either way.

[QUOTE=shorne07;19135817]Really appreciate the rapid feedback. It is a 2017 Mahomes Optic Gridiron Kings Gold /10. No auto unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

It is a nice card for sure. I would classify that as a rookie year insert parallel and not a rookie card.

Many thanks for clarifying, everyone!

Monster pull! Takes guts to rip a pack of 2017 anything at current prices vs. odds of pulling something worthwhile.

[QUOTE=Scottish Punk;19135822]It is a nice card for sure. I would classify that as a rookie year insert parallel and not a rookie card.[/QUOTE]

Its still a Rookie card though.
Rookie Year Insert Parallel Card
Rookie.....Card

But yea most would call it a rookie year insert, but I would still consider it like a rookie, just not as desirable,

[QUOTE=shorne07;19135817]Really appreciate the rapid feedback. It is a 2017 Mahomes Optic Gridiron Kings Gold /10. No auto unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

You’re good. 2017 Mahomes gold should do well no matter what. He lives in his own universe, hobby-wise.

Now days, many of these inserts have "RC" on them, but they're not. It's a selling point that's been put on Panini cards the last four years or so.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53314271633_efd0bbdbdb_b.jpg[/img]



I consider all of these rookie cards and I value/price them accordingly. :)!

Yes. Inserts of a player are a Rookie card. However, desirability of that card vs base will vary all over the place. Emergent insert is a Rookie but not very desired. Downtown insert however is a Rookie and very desired.
But they are all rookies.

[QUOTE=dkcardman;19136072]Yes. Inserts of a player are a Rookie card. However, desirability of that card vs base will vary all over the place. Emergent insert is a Rookie but not very desired. Downtown insert however is a Rookie and very desired.
But they are all rookies.[/QUOTE]

100% agree. Everything released during a player's first season is a rookie (year card) and everything released afterwards is not a rookie (year card)

If you really want to go into semantics, the base card from each product could be considered the one true rookie of that product. And if you're getting that specific, any parallels of that said base card may no longer be considered a 'true' rookie either.

But most collectors aren't like that.

However, they will pay 10x less for an Emergent silver compared to the base Prizm silver. Unless the player sucks and both are worth a quarter.

So congrats on pulling a sweet Patty rookie!

[QUOTE=dkcardman;19136072]Yes. Inserts of a player are a Rookie card. However, desirability of that card vs base will vary all over the place. Emergent insert is a Rookie but not very desired. Downtown insert however is a Rookie and very desired.
But they are all rookies.[/QUOTE]

Only base cards are true rookie cards. Inserts and parallels arent base cards. As such, they cant be true rookie cards.

This forum is more discerning with this type of stuff.

I would say 90% of collectors outside this forum would classify an insert as a RC.

[QUOTE=JWBlue;19136179]This forum is more discerning with this type of stuff.

I would say 90% of collectors outside this forum would classify an insert as a RC.[/QUOTE]

That would surprise me.

Inserts/sub-sets are not RCs in my opinion. They are of a player RC year which holds value but not rookies IMO

It's a card of a rookie, not a rookie card as traditionally defined (first base card in a set in a generally released product). Rookie year card is also acceptable. Personally I don't sweat the difference.

It being an insert, parallel, or insert parallel doesn't mean it wouldn't sell for as much or much more than the base rookie card.

[QUOTE=JWBlue;19136179]This forum is more discerning with this type of stuff.

I would say 90% of collectors outside this forum would classify an insert as a RC.[/QUOTE]No. Not at all. A lot of people on and off this forum sell and would list a card that is truly a rookie year insert as a true base rc (or some parallel of the true base rc). Wrong or right, it's about doing what it takes to sell.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Many consider only the first base card of a major manufacturer release set to be the Rookie Card, like how it is understood on TCDB.

I consider all the cards, of major or minor manufacturer releases, of the rookie year, to be rookie cards, but I view some of them as "preferered" rookie cards over others.

I call them "rookies" or "rookie year" cards. I consider the base card to be the bona fide "rookie card". Pretty much on par with COMC notations... but I won't argue with anyone calling them all rookie cards.

Nope. Not a rookie card

It’s called an insert or parallel for a reason

Common sense