First Buzz: 2021 Panini Mosaic football cards

[mc1]

Originally Posted by forest

Second, they literally aren't part of a subset. At least not any more so than the base RCs are part of a subset. They're base cards. NFL Debut cards are numbered 241-260 in the 400 card base set, while the base RCs are numbered 301-400. And if they were to have to choose one "true" base RC from the set, why wouldn't it be the card that appears first in the set, which would be the rookie debuts? Or more logically, they should both just be considered RCs.

Fine, both the Debut and Rookie Cards are subsets. You can still only have one RC.

[forest]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

Valid points but the hobby has spoken.

NFL debuts are not seen as the true RC.

I get that but just curious why exactly Beckett doesn’t consider them to be. They consider Wander Franco’s 2020 Bowman’s Best to be a RC even though the majority of the hobby probably doesn’t. So I don’t see why the way people view the rookie debut cards should effect whether Beckett labels them as true RCs or not.

I don’t really care enough to actually reach out to Beckett and ask (not sure if they would even answer this type of question or not), but figured I might as well ask everyone here. I’d be interested to hear any insight

[forest]

https://imgur.com/a/NI4ZtDm

For anyone not familiar with Beckett’s database, here is what I’m talking about.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by forest

I get that but just curious why exactly Beckett doesn’t consider them to be. They consider Wander Franco’s 2020 Bowman’s Best to be a RC even though the majority of the hobby probably doesn’t. So I don’t see why the way people view the rookie debut cards should effect whether Beckett labels them as true RCs or not.

I don’t really care enough to actually reach out to Beckett and ask (not sure if they would even answer this type of question or not), but figured I might as well ask everyone here. I’d be interested to hear any insight

I think what Beckett says is less meaningful in football where RC is pretty cut and dry compared to baseball. I think that’s where the hang up for you is. Football doesn’t lean on Beckett, it’s pretty straightforward.

And count me in the BB50 crowd. Just cuz I like to be different.

[mc1]

I dont consider the debut as true RCs. If you do and like them then buy them for whatever price you like.

In the 90s, for example, there used to be Series 1 and 2 and sometimes 3 or update releases. In 1996-97 Metal Kobe had a card in S1 and S2. Beckett only considers the Series 1 card as the True RC. Collectors and the market consider and treat both as RCs. They do sell for about the same.

In the Kobe scenario, I dont really think the Series 2 is a “True” RC. Neither does Beckett.

[forest]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

I think what Beckett says is less meaningful in football where RC is pretty cut and dry compared to baseball. I think that’s where the hang up for you is. Football doesn’t lean on Beckett, it’s pretty straightforward.

And count me in the BB50 crowd. Just cuz I like to be different.

I don’t think of it as a baseball vs football issue, I think the rule is just that once a player has a base card in a major leaguer product (I.e. not minor league, college, high school, etc.), all his base cards from that season are then rookie cards. There’s a reason Trevor Lawrence’s 2018 Leaf All-American card or Connor McDavid’s 2012 Erie Otters card aren’t their rookie card, and it’s the same principle that applies to all the major sports. So I think all the rookie debut cards, given that they’re base cards from the players’ rookie season, should be true rookies.

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

I dont consider the debut as true RCs. If you do and like them then buy them for whatever price you like.

In the 90s, for example, there used to be Series 1 and 2 and sometimes 3 or update releases. In 1996-97 Metal Kobe had a card in S1 and S2. Beckett only considers the Series 1 card as the True RC. Collectors and the market consider and treat both as RCs. They do sell for about the same.

In the Kobe scenario, I dont really think the Series 2 is a “True” RC. Neither does Beckett.

I guess at least one difference between this scenario and the Kobe scenario is that the mosaic base RC and rookie debut come from the same product, same set, same base set, same everything. So how does Beckett pick and choose which of the two base cards becomes the true mosaic RC. There must be some more reasoning on their end besides “this is how collectors view it”.

[mc1]

I already explained it. There can only be one TRUE RC base card. Since the NFL debut is a subset, then the TRUE RC is the regular base.

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

I already explained it. There can only be one TRUE RC base card. Since the NFL debut is a subset, then the TRUE RC is the regular base.

Where is Beckett's rule that there can only be one true RC base card? Genuinely wondering if that exists, or if that's just how you personally view it.

Like I said, both the rookie card and the rookie debut are base cards. There's no argument against that. Now, by your presumed definition of "subset", both cards are part of subsets: there is the NFL debut subset (cards numbed 241 to 260) and there is the "rookies" subset (cards numbered 301 to 400). What I am trying to figure out is why does Beckett consider one subset to be a true RC and one not to be? And there has to be a reason besides "collectors don't view the NFL debut as a true RC". Beckett's labeling of RCs and non-RCs has nothing to do with how people view them.

[mc1]

One of the cards says “NFL Debut” and the other doesnt.

[NHRonin]

There’s literally no real difference between the two and both have the RC logo. This is a silly debate. Neither are inserts so why aren’t both RCs.

[forest]

Originally Posted by NHRonin

There’s literally no real difference between the two and both have the RC logo. This is a silly debate. Neither are inserts so why aren’t both RCs.

That’s my argument, but Beckett labels one as an RC and one isn’t.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by NHRonin

There’s literally no real difference between the two and both have the RC logo. This is a silly debate. Neither are inserts so why aren’t both RCs.

One is a subset and the other is the true base.

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

One is a subset and the other is the true base.

Two little words, NFL Debut, is enough to make it a subset? That’s literally the only difference. The design is the same, the stats on the back are the same. In Topps baseball sets would you consider Future Stars and Rookie Cup cards to be subsets and not part of the base set?

[mc1]

Originally Posted by forest

Two little words, NFL Debut, is enough to make it a subset? That’s literally the only difference. The design is the same, the stats on the back are the same. In Topps baseball sets would you consider Future Stars and Rookie Cup cards to be subsets and not part of the base set?

None of that matters or applies here.

Like I mentioned before, dont worry about what Beckett or other collectors think. If you want to call them both RCs no one is stopping you.

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

None of that matters or applies here.

Like I mentioned before, dont worry about what Beckett or other collectors think. If you want to call them both RCs no one is stopping you.

Thanks, we can all call them whatever we want but the entire reason I was posting here is to try to figure out why Beckett is classifying them the way they do. Nobody here, myself included, seems to have the slightest idea of the actual answer to that

[elp11]

Originally Posted by forest

Thanks, we can all call them whatever we want but the entire reason I was posting here is to try to figure out why Beckett is classifying them the way they do. Nobody here, myself included, seems to have the slightest idea of the actual answer to that

Mc1 literally gave you an explanation. Just sounds like you don’t want to hear it.

[forest]

Originally Posted by elp11

Mc1 literally gave you an explanation. Just sounds like you don’t want to hear it.

His/her explanation that one is a subset and one is the "true" base is just wrong though. What even is a subset? It's a 400 card base set. There are no sub sets. Like I've already said multiple times, one could just as easily argue that the 100 base RCs are part of a subset as well. So the opinion that the rookie debuts being part of a subset disqualifies them as RCs can't possibly be Beckett's reasoning. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Their claim that Beckett won't/can't label two cards within one set as a RC is wrong as well; to use a hockey card example, Trevor Zegras and Cole Caufield both have two cards in the recent Upper Deck Series 1 labeled as RCs by Beckett.

I'm trying to understand Beckett's reasoning. Mc1 trying to say "don't worry about what Beckett thinks" and just stating their personal opinion doesn't help me in that regard

[mc1]

Originally Posted by forest

His/her explanation that one is a subset and one is the "true" base is just wrong though. What even is a subset? It's a 400 card base set. There are no sub sets.

Take 2020 Mosaic for example.

It is a base set of 300 with subsets of Debut, MVPs and HOF. Subsets are part of the base but they arent ONLY base. They arent inserts either, obviously.

https://www.beckett.com/news/2020-pa...saic-football/

“ The base set comes with three distinct sections. Veterans make up the main part of the checklist. Of course, there are rookies as well. Mosaic also has a Pro Bowl subset featuring players in their special uniforms.”

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

Take 2020 Mosaic for example.

It is a base set of 300 with subsets of Debut, MVPs and HOF. Subsets are part of the base but they arent ONLY base. They arent inserts either, obviously.

https://www.beckett.com/news/2020-pa...saic-football/

“ The base set comes with three distinct sections. Veterans make up the main part of the checklist. Of course, there are rookies as well. Mosaic also has a Pro Bowl subset featuring players in their special uniforms.”

Thanks. I still don't know why these rookie debut cards being part of a subset disqualifies them from being a RC in Beckett's eyes. And I don't think I will be getting the answer here and that's fine. Upper Deck Young Guns hockey cards are pretty clearly part of a subset by this definition and nobody would ever argue against them being RCs.

[elp11]

Originally Posted by forest

Thanks. I still don't know why these rookie debut cards being part of a subset disqualifies them from being a RC in Beckett's eyes. And I don't think I will be getting the answer here and that's fine. Upper Deck Young Guns hockey cards are pretty clearly part of a subset by this definition and nobody would ever argue against them being RCs.

What’s your angle? Did you overpay for a rookie debut card or did you pull a big rookie debut card and disappointed you’re not getting as much as you wanted because you comp’ed against the base rookie?

If it’s purely a value play, this is nothing new. Rookie debut cards receive the RC logo but are valued lower by collectors. The market will speak for itself.

If you’re just collecting and want to view it as a rookie card, go for it, no one is stopping you.

[forest]

Originally Posted by elp11

What’s your angle? Did you overpay for a rookie debut card or did you pull a big rookie debut card and disappointed you’re not getting as much as you wanted because you comp’ed against the base rookie?

If it’s purely a value play, this is nothing new. Rookie debut cards receive the RC logo but are valued lower by collectors. The market will speak for itself.

If you’re just collecting and want to view it as a rookie card, go for it, no one is stopping you.

I've said multiple times it's not about what I think about it. I've never said one thing about value or about RC logo. I don't care about either of those things. Sure, I have my opinion on them but I am posting here trying to understand Beckett's reasoning as to why a base card RC from a product is not considered an RC in their eyes. I have no real attachment to NFL debut RCs and would gladly change my opinion on them being RCs if someone gave me a genuine reason as to why they aren't, but I haven't heard any yet. I fully understand that 99% of people aren't interested in this type of stuff, but I am. I figured this would be the type of place to post about it, but I guess not. Take care!

[mc1]

Originally Posted by forest

I've said multiple times it's not about what I think about it. I've never said one thing about value or about RC logo. I don't care about either of those things. Sure, I have my opinion on them but I am posting here trying to understand Beckett's reasoning as to why a base card RC from a product is not considered an RC in their eyes. I have no real attachment to NFL debut RCs and would gladly change my opinion on them being RCs if someone gave me a genuine reason as to why they aren't, but I haven't heard any yet. I fully understand that 99% of people aren't interested in this type of stuff, but I am. I figured this would be the type of place to post about it, but I guess not. Take care!

Both cards are base but there can only be one True RC. Youve already been told many times. The Debuts are part of the base but they are a subset. That is not the same thing as an insert or a parallel.

Its not that hard to understand. Stop trying to make comparisons to baseball or hockey releases.

[forest]

Originally Posted by mc1

Both cards are base but there can only be one True RC. Youve already been told many times. The Debuts are part of the base but they are a subset. That is not the same thing as an insert or a parallel.

Its not that hard to understand. Stop trying to make comparisons to baseball or hockey releases.

Why not make comparisons to baseball or hockey releases? I've given you examples ranging from 1933 to 2021 that prove that a player can have more than one RC within a set, and all you've given me is the mysterious "there can only be one True RC". You saying "Youve already been told many times" doesn't make your opinion a fact

I sense you and elp1 have a idea of me as someone hoarding a ton of NFL debut cards hoping to turn a profit. Not at all the case; I personally think they're pointless and shouldn't be part of the set at all. But they are, and for the reasons I've stated I think they should be labeled as RCs.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by forest

Why not make comparisons to baseball or hockey releases? I've given you examples ranging from 1933 to 2021 that prove that a player can have more than one RC within a set, and all you've given me is the mysterious "there can only be one True RC". You saying "Youve already been told many times" doesn't make your opinion a fact

Its not mysterious.

Thats how Beckett labels the cards.

Take it up with them if you have a problem.