Am I crazy or do some people not know what rookie cards are?

[watashiwa05]

Originally Posted by hwc

So to you they are all the same? Really?? That's like saying chicken, beef, pork and the Impossible Burger are all meats.

Yes. Which part of the grocery store would you go to for an impossible burger? It’s all the same category.

If you were asked to go pick up a Luka rookie from the table, your choice of any Luka rookie for free and this was on the table:
2018 Luka Aurora
2018 Luka Downtown
2018 Luka Kaboom
2018 Luka Prizm base

You’d just shrug and pick up the base rookie because that’s the only one?

[duron]

If it was never in print by a Beckett high/low column, it never existed.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by watashiwa05

Yes. Which part of the grocery store would you go to for an impossible burger? It’s all the same category.

If you were asked to go pick up a Luka rookie from the table, your choice of any Luka rookie for free and this was on the table:
2018 Luka Aurora
2018 Luka Downtown
2018 Luka Kaboom
2018 Luka Prizm base

You’d just shrug and pick up the base rookie because that’s the only one?

You're moving goal posts. Of course any sane person would either choose the most expensive of the bunch when you take money off the table. The base RC would be the cheapest of the bunch and thus more easily obtained. But that picking up that Kaboom doesn't complete your collection of getting all the Luka Prizm base.

And as for the Impossible burger in the grocery store, it's found in the tofu/meat ALTERNATIVES section. Cause you know, it's not meat.

[watashiwa05]

Originally Posted by hwc

And as for the Impossible burger in the grocery store, it's found in the tofu/meat ALTERNATIVES section. Cause you know, it's not meat.

Apparently grocery stores aren’t all the same, who knew? Lol (they’re just with the other ground patties around here)

[Kobefan]

Originally Posted by TSonn

I think if it's got the rookie shield (and it's not an error like the Josh Hart) then it's a rookie card. You can get more granular and state if it's a base rookie or an insert rookie, but both are rookies if it's got the shield (or sometimes even if it doesn't like the SGA error rookie).

I think there can be a debate about insert sets released during a rookie year that don't include the rookie shield. Seems like Panini has gotten better at including those more recently especially for the popular case hits but I'm pretty sure they weren't always including them.

How does the basketball collegiate cards figure into this? Panini made them, they're not error cards and they have rc logo on them, and they aren't even in the league yet.

Originally Posted by JayDubz

So I’m basically brand new to the hobby. Just got restarted after my kids had me open up an old storage box and we found some cool 90s inserts. We bonded over looking up prices and seeing which ones to submit to PSA for grading. I am on month 4 of collecting.

I accept that my views are likely wrong as my perspective is vastly different than all you card veterans. I am constantly learning.

So to answer your question about “would I consider…”

Yes. I would. It has the little RC thing. So at first glance, my initial reaction is “ooh look. Rookie card. Pretty”.

I look for the little RC thing because I’m new. I don’t know off the top of my head what any given player’s “true” rookie card looks like. I don’t even know what year a player started playing in the pros without looking it up. So, I see the little”RC” thing of a player I want to buy, and then just assume that’s one of their rookie cards.

So to confirm the lesson here, true collectors don’t view inserts of rookies as “true rookie cards”?

The example I gave was an error card. It's not his rookie year, so it's not even considered rc inserts, and if you look at the back of the card, there are his stats in the 2017-18 season. The point I'm making is that Panini isn't reliable enough to tell us what is and what isn't a rookie card.

Originally Posted by watashiwa05

Yes. Which part of the grocery store would you go to for an impossible burger? It’s all the same category.

If you were asked to go pick up a Luka rookie from the table, your choice of any Luka rookie for free and this was on the table:
2018 Luka Aurora
2018 Luka Downtown
2018 Luka Kaboom
2018 Luka Prizm base

You’d just shrug and pick up the base rookie because that’s the only one?

I don't think anybody is arguing that the real rookie base card is the most desirable or the most expensive card of a player in his rookie season.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by hwc

But this is the difference between, let's say the 86 Fleer MJ RC and the 1986 Fleer Sticker. I know this isn't the perfect example, but let's say I told you I got you an 86 MJ Fleer RC for your birthday and when you opened up your present, it was actually the 86 MJ Fleer sticker, you'd be a little disappointed, no? We all know that the 86 Fleer RC, and that's probably what you thought of when you visualize an 86 Fleer MJ RC. Not the MJ sticker.

you must be new here

(84-85 Star 101 is the RC)

[GOATcards]

I would consider inserts a type of RC and I gather Panini has (rightly) decided to designate them as such.

[Makakilo Cards]

Originally Posted by Kobefan

I don't think anybody is arguing that the real rookie base card is the most desirable or the most expensive card of a player in his rookie season.

I think his and many others' point is that if being a base card makes it less desireable, then why even care? The whole point of RC is it's a positive thing. Nobody argues about the criteria that make RCs more sought after (primary, no subsets) but criteria making them universally less desireable (no parallel, insert, or auto) are a bit ironic since the RC label is supposed to be a good thing.

[hairyangryfella]

Panini put a RC logo on any card of a rookie in their products. Doesn't make them a proper rookie card, that's just a s**t company doing what they want and trying to make their product seem more valuable.

Is Anfernee Hardaway's 1993-94 Upper Deck RC card not a rookie card then because it doesn't have any text to say that it is? Kobe's 1996-96 Topps or Topps Chrome?

The first base card of any rookie is their RC.
Anything beyond is generally some version of that watered down.
1994-95 Topps had rookie versions in series 1 and series 2. The series 1 would be the true RC.

Kobe's Topps NBA at 50 and Topps Chrome refractors are both parallels of RCs but still generally more sought after than a rookie insert.

Now apply that to modern...

[Archangel1775]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Dont hate that you missed out on 2012 LeBron Prizm Silver rookies

[Nomad]

Waiting for PSA to start labeling things "first graded" and "rookie year graded"

[Arianny_Fan]

So what the heck is a 2003 exquisite Lebron James patch auto considered? Not a rc card?

[hwc]

Originally Posted by Arianny_Fan

So what the heck is a 2003 exquisite Lebron James patch auto considered? Not a rc card?

That's a RC because it is part of the base set. But if it was a 2003 Exquisite Limited Logos, that's not a RC as it's not part of the base set.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

you must be new here

(84-85 Star 101 is the RC)

No, not new here. And the Star Cards were only available around the Chicago area and not available nationally. So technically, the Star cards are not true RCs. I view them as pretty much equal but technically speaking the MJ Star card isn't a true RC.

[Scottish Punk]

There is probably some "new" school vs "old" school in this thread. I think it is relatively easy for the most part. If you are talking prizm - the base card along with its parallels are RCs. Insert sets like Emergent are NOT RCs. Additional cards like "All American" from the draft sets are not RCs - those are akin to "IN action" or "Record Breaker" cards from the topps days.

Now patch and autos get more murky. I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and call them RCs, but it also depends on the set. The Prizm sets call them auto parallels so that would indicate RC for me. If it is something like a rookie gear relic set, than that would not be a RC for me.

[watashiwa05]

Originally Posted by Kobefan

I don't think anybody is arguing that the real rookie base card is the most desirable or the most expensive card of a player in his rookie season.

Originally Posted by Makakilo Cards

I think his and many others' point is that if being a base card makes it less desireable, then why even care? The whole point of RC is it's a positive thing. Nobody argues about the criteria that make RCs more sought after (primary, no subsets) but criteria making them universally less desireable (no parallel, insert, or auto) are a bit ironic since the RC label is supposed to be a good thing.

Sorry—I wasn’t actually trying to make a point about desirability. Only that OP has a very narrow definition of a “rookie card”, and yet presented with choosing a free “rookie card” they’ll throw that definition out of the window for a Kaboom because it’s actually silly not to call all cards of rookies, “rookie cards”.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by watashiwa05

Sorry—I wasn’t actually trying to make a point about desirability. Only that OP has a very narrow definition of a “rookie card”, and yet presented with choosing a free “rookie card” they’ll throw that definition out of the window for a Kaboom because it’s actually silly not to call all cards of rookies, “rookie cards”.

Your example isn't indicative of what would happen in reality. This is like offering a person, who's only interested in collecting Corollas, an option to own the following cars:

Ferrari Roma
Lamborghini Huracan
Lucid Air
BMW i8
Bugatti Veyron
2023 Toyota Corolla

Even though that person only cares about Corolla, any sane person would choose any of the other cars, even if it's just for the monetary value. They could then sell the super car and purchase the Corolla and pocket the rest of the cash made in the sale. That doesn't distort the fact that the Corolla is still the main collection.

And that's the thing about your scenario, everyone would go for the expensive card, even if their goal is to acquire a true base RC, even if only for the fact that they can sell that expensive card so that they can use that money to buy that true base RC and pocket the remainder. In your example, the prizm base is the only RC, the rest are rookie year inserts.

[watashiwa05]

Originally Posted by hwc

Your example isn't indicative of what would happen in reality. This is like offering a person, who's only interested in collecting Corollas, an option to own the following cars:

Ferrari Roma
Lamborghini Huracan
Lucid Air
BMW i8
Bugatti Veyron
2023 Toyota Corolla

Even though that person only cares about Corolla, any sane person would choose any of the other cars, even if it's just for the monetary value. They could then sell the super car and purchase the Corolla and pocket the rest of the cash made in the sale. That doesn't distort the fact that the Corolla is still the main collection.

And that's the thing about your scenario, everyone would go for the expensive card, even if their goal is to acquire a true base RC, even if only for the fact that they can sell that expensive card so that they can use that money to buy that true base RC and pocket the remainder. In your example, the prizm base is the only RC, the rest are rookie year inserts.

My scenario would be all those cars are maroon, and the Corolla is red. And you’ve spent the whole thread telling people there’s only one definition of red. And then you’re asked to choose a red car and you decide, I guess maroon is red actually now, that there’s money involved.

Maybe I’m bad at hypotheticals

[Kobefan]

Originally Posted by Makakilo Cards

I think his and many others' point is that if being a base card makes it less desireable, then why even care? The whole point of RC is it's a positive thing. Nobody argues about the criteria that make RCs more sought after (primary, no subsets) but criteria making them universally less desireable (no parallel, insert, or auto) are a bit ironic since the RC label is supposed to be a good thing.

Being a base rookie card doesn't make it less desirable, it is just a label to differentiate and in most cases makes the card more desirable than other cards of the same player, within the same or similar rarity. The key thing is rarity, so if a rookie year insert or parallel card is much more rare than the base rookie card, then it's usually much more desirable than the base rc card.

[dcarado]

I apparently have too much time on my hands so I'll play... wikipedia definition: "A rookie card is a trading card that is the first to feature an athlete after that athlete has participated in the highest level of competition within their sport."

Due to the abundance of modern product offerings, I think people would generally agree this applies to each card set, thus within each set, the first card would typically be the base card featuring said rookie (same reason NT rpa and contenders auto are more desirable since they are autographed, but are also the first appearance of the player within the set.) As far as hobby desirability with "iconic" rookies, SP rookie inserts and such, pretty tough to dispute that there are simply more value factors than just the definition of "true RC," but for the sake of the OPs argument, I'm in the camp that thinks the prizm emergent RC is not a RC, and I think market values mostly support that position. As of this morning, Doncic prizm #280 psa 10 = 230-240, Doncic 18/19 emergent psa 10 - 50-55, Doncic 19/20 psa 10 - 15-20. Pretty significant drop-off between "RC" within the first year set.

Side note- this is a basketball thread, but the differences within other sports and the market values of each I think generally supports the OP's definition. Just one example but the value of the UD young guns in hockey vs other key cards from other RC products when you consider the print runs makes zero sense other than the definition of "true RC."

[JayDubz]

Originally Posted by Kobefan

The example I gave was an error card. It's not his rookie year, so it's not even considered rc inserts, and if you look at the back of the card, there are his stats in the 2017-18 season. The point I'm making is that Panini isn't reliable enough to tell us what is and what isn't a rookie card.

Oh. Based on the comments, I thought we were talking about what set a RC card is from. But your point this whole time was about Panini's error rate? Their failure rate with mislabeling cards as RCs is so high that the community considers Panini unreliable?

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by watashiwa05

My scenario would be all those cars are maroon, and the Corolla is red. And you’ve spent the whole thread telling people there’s only one definition of red. And then you’re asked to choose a red car and you decide, I guess maroon is red actually now, that there’s money involved.

Maybe I’m bad at hypotheticals

Yep, got it in one. You're the one who said "pick a rookie card" but then presented a bunch of options that aren't, in fact, rookie cards, and said I could choose one of them instead anyway. That's not on me, the one picking a card, and says nothing about me. The act of picking the Kaboom does not in any way mean that I'm "admitting" or "saying" or "whatever-ing" that the Kaboom is a rookie card. It just means that you gave me the option to take it instead of the rookie card, and I'd be an idiot not to.

Now, if you changed your hypothetical to say I could only HAVE the card I chose if it was actually a rookie card (as determined by people who know WTF they're talking about), I'd choose the only one that's actually a rookie card.

[Kobefan]

Originally Posted by JayDubz

Oh. Based on the comments, I thought we were talking about what set a RC card is from. But your point this whole time was about Panini's error rate? Their failure rate with mislabeling cards as RCs is so high that the community considers Panini unreliable?

Along with various other issues like releasing sets with rc labels well after the rc season has passed (and sometimes well within the next rc season), and releasing collegiate sets and labeling some of the cards as rc. What I'm saying is that there is already an existing standard to determine whether a card is a rookie card or not, and a company cannot, especially one with such unreliable history, just come in and tell us what is and what isn't a rookie card.

[phdbeckett]

Originally Posted by mc1

The fact that it is numbered is not an issue. Base card rookies have been numbered in the past.

In 2009-10 Topps inserted Chrome into regular Topps Hobby/Jumbo/Retail. It wasnt a standalone product. I think there were a few Chrome cards in a whole Box of Topps.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by hwc

No. It has to be a part of the base set to be considered a RC. A Paolo Prizm base RC is the true RC. A Paolo Prizm Emergent is a rookie year insert.

Just think of it in reverse if it makes sense...Let's say you wanted to collect all the prizm base cards of Luka. You'd pick up the 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Prizm base cards. Great right? Well, now you're just missing his first year card aka his RC. Do you pick up the 2018 Luka Prizm base card of Luka or do you pick up the 2018 Luka Prizm Emergent card? Most collectors, if not all, would most likely choose the 2018 Luka Prizm base to complete that collection.

The "true rookie" definition is a Beckett creation. Panini has the exclusive rights to produce licensed NBA cards and decides what a rookie card is. They do this by slapping the rookie logo on the card. If you don't like it, tough.

The idea that an insert can't be a rookie card is silly. It's a licensed card of a rookie player, right? What's the problem here?

The "true rookie" definition is a relic from a long-gone past. It was created when there were only a small number of sets made a year. Get your head out of the sand and take a look at the current landscape.