General Forum

Please share your thoughts on this, as many of the hobby veterans know the interpretation of RC'ing has changed over the years.

If you have a Beckett from 1990 and compare it to what is now so loosely deemed an RC you will notice the differences.

Something i remember about a base card in an officially licensed set being eligible (non sp non insert no parallel no mem or auto etc..)

Should anything Panini half licensed or non-licensed be getting consideration for RC designation?

I'm not lobbying for their removal just wanted to get your opinions.

Totally unlicensed (unauthorized), homemade, or "Broder-type" should never get an RC note. 

Also, IMO any company that has only the player's permission but not league or players association license should never get an RC.

What about this card? https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/5741/cid/1298156/2005-06-Fleer-Hot-Prospects-276-Sidney-Crosby

Do you think it should have an RC designation or is that an error? Strangely when i type in the filters notes for rc that card actually doesn't come up only 3 others do .

It's a completely licensed card (I'm seeing both NHL and NHLPA logos on the other cards in that subset) and issued during his rookie year so there's no issues with the RC logo. Unless you use the * wild card you won't see it under just RC. Because there are multiple notes the RC* needs to be used. The RC filter only returns cards that only have the RC note and no others.

baseballcardstoreca wrote:

What about this card? https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/5741/cid/1298156/2005-06-Fleer-Hot-Prospects-276-Sidney-Crosby

Do you think it should have an RC designation or is that an error? Strangely when i type in the filters notes for rc that card actually doesn't come up only 3 others do .

C2Cigars wrote:

Totally unlicensed (unauthorized), homemade, or "Broder-type" should never get an RC note. 

Also, IMO any company that has only the player's permission but not league or players association license should never get an RC.

When it comes to the RC designation I am old school. Only the first major brand base card release should be an RC no parallel/insert/Non or semi licensed card. I am fine with a update set card being designated XRC but that is it. I am sure some will disagree but that's where I come down on it.

Personally, no. I don't consider any serial numbered (or limited PR) card a "Major Release", even if it's in the base set of a Major Release. It's serial numbered, it's limited, it's a "Limited Release".

Appreciate the filter workings clarification.

If i understand your viewpoint correctly 1/1's can be rc's?

I know that COMC has these listed as PRC pre rookie. Minor league cards are included in the same category as well.

Not arguing but just clarifying, sets where all cards are SN’d like mid-2000s UD Ultimate Collection, or sets with a PR like 2000 Fleer Tradition Glossy (pr of 10,000 IIRC) - you would put those in a different category like “limited release sets”? 

Which is kind of weird. Okay, I get it's Hot Prospects which almost sounds like a draft/minor league set. I've see PRC used for minor league sets in BB, but these look to have been issued after the player had already began playing in the NHL and are in their pro uniforms. Heck, the backs mention when they make their NHL debut. So why PRC, not sure why.