1969 Topps Football Forum

So there is an inaccuracy report (IR) in currently regarding this card in particular:

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/79203/cid/5632036

That's the 4-in-1 of Dave Herman. It happens to precede his "debut" in a flagship set by 2 years:

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/3222/cid/810404 (1971 Topps #124)

Currently, as per the usual, the 1971 has the RC tag. The IR is requesting that we move the RC tag and put it on the 1969 4-in-1.

Checking in with a couple of our colleague web sites, COMC lists the 1971 as the RC and the 1969 as a PRC (Pre-Rookie Card; no, not a path we're going down) and Beckett doesn't list any of Dave Herman's cards as his RC.

Please, weigh in, experts. :)

It has always been my understanding that inserts are never considered rookies.  That's why you don't see any parallels of rookie players actually listed as RC's.  I would say the '71 should be kept as his RC.

I don't believe a card you don't even get as your own should be considered a RC. The first actual, real card all your own should be it. 

Generally, NO to inserts or parallels being considered rookies, but there are exceptions. For instance, 1996-97 Stadium Club NBA, did not include any rookies in the base set. They were only done as inserts, and as such, they are the defacto RCs for that set. Same with 1996-97 Bowman's Best. The veterans and rookies share the same basic design elements but are numbered separately. That makes them an insert (even though the two checklists are combined here) they are still considered RC. 

I agree that the insert card should NOT be a RC. It should be noted (in Note2) that it is his first card though.

Tony Dungy would be a perfect example.  He's on the 1979 team leaders/checklist. But never had a "rookie card" until the 2000's (as a coach).

Guidelines states an insert isn't a RC so.... With that said there are a whole cr**load of recent parallel sets, mostly recent years, that need the RC designator removed. The good ole copy-and-paste trick without making the edits trick. Maybe one day I'll find the time to edit some of those down.....

I know in baseball at least, Topps has polluted the waters by slapping the 'RC' logo on parallels/inserts/etc.

I'm also a "no" on inserts aren't RC's. 

Isn't it funny how through the years , it seems the old rules have bent and been changed to appease the $$ hounds of this business.

Pick up an early 90's beckett , 1 where they used to define what an RC is then fast forward to today nearly every insert from a players' RC year now has the RC designation on it . 

If my memory still serves me(not that i'm too set in my ways despite being too old) the players first base card from a base set was considered his true RC , then we get all these Bowman sets that say no they can't be RC's when most often a Bowman card will precede their Topps cards ...... I don't mind going along with whatever is decided and we can debate it all to no end and each have valid takes Ummm serial #'d to 99 or less patch auto RC as a valid RC Nah?