General Forum

What are your thoughts when it comes to cards that are not actually the true RC when a player has multiple cards in the same base set?

A couple examples that come to my mind off the top of my head are the the series 2 1992-93 Ultra Alonzo Mourning,  the "Top Prospects" subset card for Terrell Brandon in 1991-92 Upper Deck, the Trevor Story "Rookie Debut" Card in 2016 Topps Update, and the Shohei Ohrani Rated Rookie in 2018 Donruss Optic that is the last card in the checklist.  

None of these are actually officially RCs as Mourning has a base card in Series 1 , Terrell Brandon has a different base card earlier on the checklist, Trevor Story has a different non subset base card in the same checklist, and Shohei Ohtani has a different Rated Rookie earlier in the checklist.

Now, value of cards doesn't really matter to me in regards to selling and making money because I have never sold any of my cards and I don't really plan on it.  But when it comes to monetary value, it is pretty cool to have an idea of roughly how much cards are worth in the market simply for the fact of knowing you have something in your collection that people actually seek.  

Now none of these cards are worth untold riches anyways, but what I would like to know in this long winded post is what does the market have to say about these (non) rookie cards.  Is there normally a significant price and demand difference for a card that is basically a rookie card (Topps even put RC on the Story card) but isn't officially a RC by hobby standards?

Would most people consider that Trevor Story for example just another common base card or would they hold it in the same or similar regards to his actual base RC from the same set?  

There may not be much difference in values for the specific examples you cited, but historically rookie-year "subset" cards were only worth a fraction of the commonly accepted "rookie card" from the same set. A couple examples with current lowest prices on COMC:

1985-86 O-Pee-Chee #9 Mario Lemieux starts at $200

1985-86 O-Pee-Chee #262 Mario Lemieux League Leader starts at $25

1984-85 O-Pee-Chee #67 Steve Yzerman starts at $43

1984-85 O-Pee-Chee #385 Steve Yzerman Leaugue Leader starts at $9

And once upon a time David Robinson's 89-90 Hoops #138 sold for $50-$60 while his 89-90 Hoops #310 sold for about $8. (Nowadays you can probably buy the complete set for ten bucks.)

To me modern RCs value comes down to the set they're part of. And with the influx of parallels and inserts it really becomes muddied. 

I'm sure everybody will think this is blasphemy... 
but I'm not even sure why modern rookie cards are still considered to be more important/valuable.  it just kinda feels like an antiquated mindset.  It made logical sense in the OLD days because kids didn't take care of their rookie cards- so that made them really hard to find years later.  Kids back then actually preferred to keep the established players who they already recognized.  But recent generations have held on to everything, so rookie cards aren't truly rare anymore- We just put this arbitrary additional value on them nowadays.  

But I digress.

If players have multiple base cards in the same set, I consider them both rookie cards. A perfect example is 2001-02 Upper Deck. All the first round draft picks had a short printed subset Star Rookie card in series 1. In series 2 they had regular base cards, not part of the Star Rookie subset. Yet, the hobby (Beckett) considers the series 1 cards RC cards and not series 2...even though by the rules they made up a subset card cannot be a RC. 

Personally, I'd rather have the series 2 cards. A game action shot always is better than a suit or summer league shot. And those are better than college shots. 

I don't tag a true subset as an RC, like in 1992-93 Upper Deck. Although they are issued in the rookie year, they are their own separate thing. I have a column set aside in my Excel files for denoting subsets or RC. 

Personally, I don't consider it a RC unless it was actually issued in their rookie year. For instance...Darrel Armstrong entered the NBA in 1994-95. His first card was 1996-97. Beckett, COMC and here list that as his rookie card, but in my collection records he does not have a rookie card. Unfortunately, because panini decided to be stupid, it means that NONE of the 2011-12 rookies actually have a rookie card.

The RC designation is important because I'm documenting the history of the sport. Denoting an RC on a first year player's base cards allows me to see easily when a player entered the league. With stars, I generally know that. With guys who didn't make it, or guys who entered the league in a time period I was not watching, it prevents me from having to go look it up. And my collection is over 3000 NBA players alone. I can't remember all that information. For players who I have a lot of, it helps me keep track of what I need vs. what I have. For example, my all time favorite player, Elton Brand, I know I need three of his RC left to have them all. I can simply select all his cards in my Excel chart, sort by the Note column, and see exactly which ones I have.

Especially for the players who entered the league in 2007 through 2010, it helps me keep track of my progress in getting the cards I missed out on when I was away from the game. That progress is slower than I'd like but hopefully someday I'll be able to correct my mistake.

Billy, Panini didn't "just decide" not to include rookies in their 2011-12 products. They weren't allowed to because the NBA lockout meant that none of the rookies had signed contracts by the deadline for inclusion. It was the same thing for NHL sets the following year. Rookies are the lifeblood of the hobby and Panini's and Upper Deck's inability to include them in those two years likely cost both companies many thousands of dollars.