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

[hwc]

So on the basketball card sub on reddit, someone had posted about pulling a 1/1 Chet Recon Future Legends insert. I made an off hand comment saying that it's a rookie year insert and not a true rookie card. And pretty much most people are disagreeing with my take. Am I wrong?


https://old.reddit.com/r/basketballc...f_one_chet_rc/



From their point of view, just having the rookie shield logo makes it a rookie card. That's like saying a Paolo Prizm Emergent card is a rookie card, the same as the Paolo Prizm base RC. Am I the wrong one here?

[dizzy4111]

No, you're not crazy

[the mesiah]

Everybody knows there are 3rd year prizm rookies , where you been at OP,

[hwc]

Originally Posted by dizzy4111

No, you're not crazy

Thank you!

[Nomad]

I mean, an NBA Hoops insert that was printed while the player was physically in his rookie year, vs. almost anything else?

Logic says...

[hwc]

Originally Posted by Nomad

I mean, an NBA Hoops insert that was printed while the player was physically in his rookie year, vs. almost anything else?

Logic says...

That it would be a rookie year insert. The base NBA Hoops card of the rookie would be the RC.

[Above the Rim]

When I was a kid, my friends and I couldn't care less about rookie cards - and most of the card collecting world as well. It wasn't until the mid-1970's when someone came up with new rules about collecting cards (Mr. Mint, I think). Now the powers that be declared rookie cards to be important. Before that, nobody wanted them - they looked ugly, they often had multiple players per card, nobody knew who they were yet. When I pulled one from a pack, ugh, disappointed. My friends and I were looking for the stars - Reggie, Ryan, Seaver, Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, etc.

Looks like the new rules stuck, and forever more they have become the be all and end all. Damn, am I that much of a dinosaur? But honestly folks, that's the story of the almighty RC.

[Kobefan]

I have the same feeling about other things in the hobby as well. For example, calling a card a rookie card after the rookie season is over (some even made well into the next season), calling any jersey/relic card patches, and saying cards iconic when they have only been popularized/pumped in the modern times.

[tmar214]

Well it does literally say RC on it. Whether it’s a “true” RC or an “insert” RC that you call a rookie year insert doesn’t make much difference.

[Nomad]

And there are some players in the 90s whose rookies are by far not their most sought after issue.

[Meets1]

Semantics, I think. I mean it's A rookie card, but not THE rookie card.

[Chris P]

I know it bothers some people..but it doesn't really to me..if it's a card issued in the players rookie year and people call it a rookie card instead of a rookie year card it just doesn't matter to me..but we all have our pet peeves. Mine is calling every jersey card a "patch" even if its just a 1 color jersey swatch

[Nomad]

The one that gets me is Kobe's first produced card the TSC series 1 being technically called an insert because numbered as subset and different design. But it is definitely not an insert as we think of it.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by Chris P

I know it bothers some people..but it doesn't really to me..if it's a card issued in the players rookie year and people call it a rookie card instead of a rookie year card it just doesn't matter to me..but we all have our pet peeves. Mine is calling every jersey card a "patch" even if its just a 1 color jersey swatch

That's another one that in the past I made a remark about that a plain white jersey swatch is not a patch and got downvoted to oblivion.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by Meets1

Semantics, I think. I mean it's A rookie card, but not THE rookie card.

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.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Nomad

The one that gets me is Kobe's first produced card the TSC series 1 being technically called an insert because numbered as subset and different design. But it is definitely not an insert as we think of it.

Its not a subset. All the rookies are numbered R1-R25 and the vets are numbered 1-90. The rookies are inserted 1 every 4 or 5 packs. That looks and sounds like an insert.

[Nomad]

How about soccer, isn't the rookie sticker traditionally the more valuable? What do they call it.

[hauntedcomputer]

Ken Goldin called the '52 Mantle a "rookie" in an internationally televised Netflix series, so, yeah, even genius experts get it wrong.

[JayDubz]

To me, if it has the "RC" on it, its a rookie card. Insert or not.

[Kobefan]

Originally Posted by JayDubz

To me, if it has the "RC" on it, its a rookie card. Insert or not.

Then would you consider this a rookie card as well?
Josh Hart

Originally Posted by Nomad

How about soccer, isn't the rookie sticker traditionally the more valuable? What do they call it.

I don't think it's fair to compare across different hobbies. Even baseball has its own thing, when considering rookie cards.

[hwc]

Originally Posted by JayDubz

To me, if it has the "RC" on it, its a rookie card. Insert or not.

May I ask why you feel that way? It's an honest question. I would like to know why you feel that way.

See, from my point of view the first year base card would be the RC and so that player's next year base card would then obviously be a 2nd year base card. So on and so forth. So if a collector is looking for a player's 1st year base card, then they are looking for a rookie card, a true RC.

So let's say hypothetically, I asked to buy a Paolo Prizm RC from you, you would then offer to sell me a Paolo Emergent card? And if I said, "Wait, that's not a RC." You would reply, "Yes, it is?"

[mc1]

Theres true rookie cards.
Theres rookie year cards.
Theres parallels of rookie cards.
Theres rookie year insert cards.

It is easy to call all of them rookie cards but they really arent. For example, would all the Luka parallels from 2018-19 Prizm be considered True Rookie cards? I mean, parallel of Rookie Card or maybe just Rookie card.

[Nomad]

so, silver arguably not true rookie. and "true blue," don't even go there.

bass collectors rejoice.

[Kobefan]

Originally Posted by Nomad

so, silver arguably not true rookie. and "true blue," don't even go there.

bass collectors rejoice.

The base are indeed true rc cards, but that doesn't mean they're the most valuable/coveted cards. Usually it's rare rc year cards> real rc cards> slightly rarer or equally as common rc year cards.

[fabiani12333]

OP, you're describing the Beckett Media definition of a rookie card:
http://baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/Rookie_Card

But Panini has their own versions of rookie cards. In this case, the insert is an official rookie card because Panini has designated it as such. They have exclusive rights to produce licensed NBA cards, and therefore decide what are official rookie cards.