The only point where I disagree is the parallel versions not being considered rookie cards. The reason I do not consider the autographed cards as autographed rookies is because they are numbered as an insert set. If, for example, Royce Gracie's autograph card was numbered 1 as opposed to AURG, I would consider it an autographed rookie. By this same standard, I consider the parallel versions part of the base set as they are numbered that way.
Ps, highest offer on GSP is $950 so far.....
On a side-note. This topic has me thinking of Glen Davis. Stud 1st baseman for the Astros in the 80s and 90s. A devoted Xtian, he didn't approve of the Garbage Pail Kids Topps produced. And back in those days, MLBPA hadn't disallowed players from omitting their names from certain card companies. At the time, there was only Topps, Fleer and Donruss. Davis' rookie was 1985 Fleer, he had a 1986 (obviously his FTC) and 1987 Topps, but after that, he said unh unh to Topps.
So, true rookie cards don't really mean much. It's all about what the collectors want. Personally, I'm not on board with all of the insert cards as they take away all meaning from rookie cards. I'd much rather have the Pride cards, but most of the new collectors can barely spell Pride. Forrest and Bonnar, all day.........Igor who? Kazushi what?
I played golf with a guy in his late 40's who knows who all of the TUF cats are, but hadn't seen Fyodo fight.
Oh well. To each their own imo.
PS I had a 52 Mantle in VG when I was 7. It was prob worth 300, and I didn't give a shit. I had a 50 cent rookie Greg Brock that I wouldn't have traded 10 Mantles for back in those days. I think Greg cleaned my brake shoes last month.
Mr4NIK8R - The only point where I disagree is the parallel versions not being considered rookie cards. The reason I do not consider the autographed cards as autographed rookies is because they are numbered as an insert set. If, for example, Royce Gracie's autograph card was numbered 1 as opposed to AURG, I would consider it an autographed rookie. By this same standard, I consider the parallel versions part of the base set as they are numbered that way.
Ps, highest offer on GSP is $950 so far.....
Which GSP- GSP 1/1? Or GSP error or GSP red sig
good thread
ChicagoTom -
Which GSP- GSP 1/1? Or GSP error or GSP red sig
1/1.
rtwil2007,
by real MMA collectors, I mean people who are even aware of MMA cards outside of the Topps UFC cards.
Like Pride, or even some big names appeared in 1990's Pancrase releases. Frank Shamrock and Bas come to mind.
And BTW, I was referring to the MLB guidelines regarding the ROOKIE CARD designation.
What I am saying is the its not beckett or Topps/UD/Donruss or the players unions (in teh 4 major sports) that determine what a RC is. Its the collectors.
Perfect example is Cameron Maybin.
He has Bowman Chrome Prospects card in 2006. And then a Bowman Chrome Draft Rookie Card in 2007.
Beckett will tell you the 2007 is technically his RC but collectors know whats up!
Everythign else I do agree with you on. Paralells are not Rookie cards, and neither are the autographs in UFC Topps. Now what Topps may eventually do is make 2 sets of autographs. One is an insert and one is a part of the base set. Meaning it would be an autograph RC . They do it will all 4 major sports and it will probably come to that!
So what would you guys call the buy back rc autographs? Are they still rookie cards or are they now parallel cards of the rc card, making them no longer a rookie card? How are the values of these limited edition rookies, er, parallels compared to just the base rc card itself? How is this autographed rc valued in relation to subsequent autographed releases? My point is that as card collecting has evolved so has the defenition of what is accepted as a rookie card. Over the years we have seen the inclusion of gold cards, refractor cards, atomic refractors, game used memorabilia, autographs, etc. and yes they are all identified as rookie cards in Beckett and by collectors. Again it all comes down to whether the card is numbered as part of the base set or an insert set. A poster comparison would be like saying an autographed poster from 46 is not GSP's rc poster because it is a special, limited edition version of the base poster.
A buyback auto on a RC is not a RC any longer. Its now part of an autograph insert set.
Griffey Jr buyback auto on his UD RC (taken from EBAY):
Truth be told, I would rather have that card over his UD RC.
Maybe if Junior wasn't such a dick but yeah that's awesome from a historic card standpoint. It does still say it's an autographed 89 rc card on the back but agreed insert with the change. That sucks they did that but I'd also much rather have this than the base....Funny you'd pick that card though because the craze for that set back then almost mirrors the craze for this one now.
g~~_1.JPG)
Thats a damn nice card also. Realistically, most of teh top rookie cards nowadays are autographed to begin with. I would rather have a Buyback auto on a rookie card that the RC only because usually you can pick up teh RC for a fraction of teh cost. Griffey Jrs. UD rc can be had for cheap now. Like about $20.
The Pujols above, unsigned I sold one last year for $50.
The exact card above aint going for $50.
I gues rt is right in teh sense you or me can call anythign a RC. But I believe I am correct i that the collectors truly determine what is a true RC!
Pujols is a STUD!!!!!!!! Sorry, BIG CARDS fan. I hope the next round of cards do good. I personally agree with u guys on them being overpriced but talked to my hobby dealer and only people who got in on ground floor with the round ones can order the round 2s (hobby that is). I personally bought a case and 5 more boxes. I am gonna pop the 5 and store the case.