Site Forum

I have a question about the RC designation, specifically on base set image variations.

I've read rule 7, I understand the rules say that "inserts and parallels" should not have the RC, and I've searched the forums and read all the RC threads I can find. I didn't find any that specifically dealt with image variations, and these are treated differently in this DB. They show up in the base set list where inserts & parallels do not.

I'm specifically looking at the 2020 Topps Set as I ask this question, so as an example, Aristides Aquino's Card (#20 in the base set) has the RC on it and has the RC note designation. The SP & SSP variations also have the RC on the front, but they don't currently have the RC note designation.

TL;DR I think we are treating the Image Variations like a parallel and thus not adding the RC note, but would like input/confirmation.      

Image variations do not get a RC designation, only the base cards do. We do not follow what the manufacturers slap on the cards as they'll slap on a RC whenever and whereever they can. FWIW, manufacturers are incorrect when they slap the RC on all of these cards.

It depends on distribution. For example, there are sets with a Hobby version and a Retail version (e.g. Absolute Memorabilia), and we add RC notation to the Retail versions as well even though they're listed as a parallel.

If a rookie has multiple cards in a base checklist, the RC notation is applied to the primary card before any subsets or variations, so we always apply the RC to the base card and leave it off of any VARs, SPs, SSPs, SSSPs, etc.

That's what I thought. I would suggest adding "variations" or "image variations" to rule VII in the Rules & Guidelines document the next time it gets updated. Something like "Generally, inserts, parallels, & variations are not RCs" or "Generally, inserts, parallels, & image variations are not RCs."

Out of curiosity, how should this rule then be applied to a set such as this 2006-07 Topps basketball set where several of the rookie have one variation in uniform and one from the draft?

Currently both variations are labelled here as RC. I am not sure if one varitation was shorter printed than the other and neither is listed here as a SP.

Is it currently correctly noted or is a change required?

just my 2 cents, and I know this has been discussed, and debated, and the determinations have been made

the admins have spoken.  the ship has sailed.

I understand the reasoning.  for this database, there is ONE TRUE RC  per set.

an attempt at being the authority on which card is THE RC, as a help to the hobby, as a help to the collectors who are RC collectors, and want to get the RIGHT RC

but I would designate the one true RC as RC, and perhaps designate all image variations, and parallels, and inserts with some other, perhaps RCY [rookie card year with RC designation] or RCX[RC Xtra]  or RCO [ RC other]

I agree that rookie year cards should have a designation. the biggest reason for me is I honestly only follow football and even then I am not great at it. But I may not realize it is a players rookie year and it would be nice to have that showing.

Anything in Series One would be the RC and anything in Series Two wouldn't get the notation.

Example: 1999-00 Upper Deck Basketball

All the "Rookie Class" cards in Series One got RC, but anyone that also had a "Rookie Action" card in Series Two didn't get RC notation on that card ... only the ones that didn't have a card in Series One.

I personally consider all variations and parallels of a RC to be rookie cards and I'd imagine that a great many others think the same way.  They are certainly versions of the RC that most times carry a much larger price than the base card version.  However, I do see the value in just labelling the base card as the official RC.

The 2001-02 Upper Deck set is different than the Topps set since the UD set was two series while the Topps set was one. 

I'm not too familiar with the Topps set so I don't know if one was more common or not.