1991-92 Upper Deck Hockey Forum

So I have been taught that the first card of a new player in a set is their true RC and all cards after that in that set are not RCs correct? Well in this UD set Doug Weight, Tony Amonte and Steven Rice all appear on the CL card for the subset (#440) BEFORE the cards that depict their "RC". Somebody has listed the CL card as an RC but the individual cards as well. Which is correct? Any wisdom gladly taken. =)

Checklists and multi-player cards are not RC, ever. The Checklist is tagged in error.

Well, baseball has multiple multi-player RCs, actually, but I don't think any were ever checklists.

Thanks guys, will kill the RC on the CL.

The RC tag goes on the base set, non-subset card(s) (could be multiple). If the only card is a subset card, that that would get the RC. Not my rules. And it does not matter what the card number is. Cards 1-6 could be highlights from the previous season and could include something a rookie did on say card #3. Card #286 is the base card of that same player. Card 286 gets RC. Card 3 gets HL only.

Thanks for adding Dan. Still confused just a bit ............ subset cards don't count as RCs if there is a standard issue within the same set correct? I knew about the HL cards for some silly reason. So can a player also have multiple RCs in one set? Since we are on the topic. =)

Sure - if they are all base cards and no subset or insert cards, they would all qualify as RCs. Just as a player can have multiple RCs across products. 

Man are you schooling me tonight ............. I'm Ralph Machio to your Miagi ?!?! LOL I was taught years ago by the card shop in town that it was the lowest numbered card of standard issue in a set. I always saw players that had an exception to the rule but the exception always made sense to me. If that makes any sense. Vladimir Vujtek comes to mind but after talking tonight I think I need to correct his 92-93 Upper Deck cards. His first card is a SR, RC and the second one is simply RC. The first he was with Montreal, the second with Edmonton. As per discussions tonight tho it appears the SR card would not count.

I may be wrong, but in your last example, the first card should be his RC.  The second card was issued in a second series only because he was traded.  Baseball has a Hi # series of 701-800 that has repeat players because they had been traded.  Those are not RC.

I don't know of any player that has a card in a subset dedicated to first year or potential rookies that also have a non-subset card in the same set.

Yep, I was juts going to say that it sounds like your card shop guy was simply talking about series 1 vs Series 2. However, they were still incorrect as many card companies opt to hold out certain players' base cards until Series 2. And if traded, they are still cards issued in the same year - here's a kicker - they actually both should be RC. (If it's S1 / S2 and not an "Update set").

There are going to be oddities all over the place with the RC designation. I keep going back to baseball because it's what I know best. 1989 Upper Deck - they released a 100-card update that is numbered 701-800 - to append to the set. It was released in packs along with the first 700 cards. (IIRC, there were 2 "high-number" cards per "update" pack along with 8 or 10 low numbers.) Anyway, any rookies in that set are tagged with RC. In 1981, Topps issued it's first "Traded" set in box form (only method of distribution), and any rookies in that set get XRC (thanks Beckett), even though that set continues the numbering (all other Traded/Update sets from Topps since then has some combo of numbers and letters using T, U, or UH in the numbering).

I think the card shop guy was a little off in his RC rules.