Site Forum

Yes, you read it right, an epidemic. I just updated several sets (100?) that are actually parallel sets that had RCs. Only problem - there are NO RCs in parallel sets. There are still several hundred out there with RCs. These are not correct.

My problem - when it comes to sports other than the big 4, I'm truly clueless as to what is a true parallel, and even then, some of these signature sets in FB or BKB are beyond my knowledge.

So, this is a plea for help in cleaning up the RCs that are erroneous. If you want to help, but don't know where to find the sets that still have RC (and shouldn't), send me a private message (and let me know which sport(s) you are willing to work on) and I can point you in the right direction. I do need help with the big 4 sports as well, so please help.

Thanks!

One solution is to never upload a parallel checklist. Copying the base set checklist to the parallel set will not copy the "RC" note.  And is a much quicker process.

I wonder how these RCs are getting on the parallels. Is someone adding them? Are the checklists found that way and copied from another site?  Luckily, with mass Note changes it's a pretty quick correction.

In the meantime, I'll get vaccinated and keep my eye out for this problem.  Thanks, Dan for bringing it to our attention.

With the current state of the hobby, I'm not even sure what is actually considered a "RC" anymore. With National Team, High School Prep, and minor league sets, do we have a concrete definition for a RC?
 

Major League Baseball has a definition. In 2006, MLB instituted a set of guidelines which dictated what cards could and could not bear the official MLB rookie card logo and banned cards of players who've not yet appeared in a Major League game from being in the base set. And only base sets have rookies; no insert sets, parallel sets, minor league sets, etc. have rookies. So, since 2006 if you don't see the RC logo on a baseball card it is not a rookie card.

Now if the other leagues (NHL, NBA, NFL) would follow suit.

I wonder how these RCs are getting on the parallels. Is someone adding them? Are the checklists found that way and copied from another site?  Luckily, with mass Note changes it's a pretty quick correction.

Well, I think most of the time, it's just people who were trying to get checklists loaded as quickly as possible (all with good intentions).

I did find this because the TCDB member I mentioned in another thread was at it again, editing only his player, and added XRC to a traded tiffany set. In that set I saw RC, and knew that was wrong. Then, I got the hare-brained idea to see how many parallel sets had XRC (only a couple, fixed) and RC (epidemic levels, only scratched the surface so far). So, in that case, it was a mistake that lead me to this. Maybe I'm being too kind. XRC was put on the card on 2/1/16, I removed it 12 minutes later, and they put it back again today at 12:45 AM, and I saw it at about 7:45. Here's the card in question: http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/59558/cid/3339798 Not a XRC.

Extended Rookie Card (XRC) is a term created and used by Beckett. A way to assess a premium on a techinally, non-Rookie card. Used primarily in Update sets. Prior to 2006 I've seen it used on the database probably because so many people get their information from Beckett. This Alomar card definitely gets no RC (nor XRC) since it's an Update and a parallel.

What I don't like is their use of the XRC on all true RCs of the 3 years Star Co had the NBA license. So Jordan's REAL RC is in Star Co, but Fleer gets the credit for an RC (it's actually a 3rd year card!). And yes, a lot of the terminology used here was created and/or perpetuated by Beckett, but let's face it (as much as I don't like to), Beckett is a long-time voice of the hobby.

I understand using XRC on the update and traded sets. Not sure how else you'd work it. For example, Kirby Puckett. RCs in the 1985 products, XRC in the 1984 Fleer Update set. Would you like to call the 1984 card the RC and not call the 1985s RCs, or would you prefer not to have the XRC label at all for the update set?

Personally, I have no objection to the "XRC" label. Traded/update sets were always a gray area for me. Yeah, they weren't typically in wax packs and were sold as an external complete set (in the original form), but the cards generally kept the same design as the regular sets.
But here's my question: what about cards like the 1984 Mark McGwire? It's generally considered his RC, but it doesn't really fit the description anymore. His RCs should be the 1987 base cards.

Questions for any and all:

There are some sets that have a hobby and a retail version. One is technically a parallel of the other, but, they are kinda 2 different releases. Admin just moved the 1975 Topps mini set from being a parallel to being it's own set since it was sold separately. Should we do the same with those? Should both sets have RCs?

Personally, IMO, I don't like the XRC; get rid of it. It doesn't even make sense (?"we're going to extend rookie status to this card"). And like I said it's something Beckett created for themselves. I believe a rookie card is a rookie card is a rookie card. And to a vintage collector like myself a rookie card is a player's first card (a more accurate descript). I also don't consider Update sets to have rookie cards (nor XRC) because they (at one time) were not Major Releases, but factory box sets.

And yes, small companies (Star) got the shaft. Probably, collusion between the big companies and price guide companies (Beckett, etc).