1989 Score Supplemental Football Forum

In 2017 I bought a box of Select football and got a redemption card for the third QB selected in the 2018 Draft.  I sent it into Panini and sometime after the draft I got a 2017 Select #303 XRC Josh Allen card.  Josh Allen "official" RC are from 2018.  XRC is a designation of a card that was produced prior to the player official RC season.  It aint a joke because I just sold that card ungraded for $600, a 10 or 9.5 sells for $10000+

This would have been my exact point. All terms we use are arbitrary. There is no trading card police/government to make these things "law" so someone makes up a term and the hobby/industry either accepts it or doesn't.

You don't have to like a term — be it XRC, RC, 1st Bowman, etc — but if it becomes a term that the "hobby" uses then it is really burying your head in the sand not to acknowledge it. Obviously, as with anything in life, anyone is free to dislike the term(s).

As an aside, I thought the term XRC was originally coined in relation to the '84-85 Star basketball cards which were released in team sets where you knew what players were in each team set. Ie buy the Bulls team set get the Jordan card. Thus it was decided (Beckett) that the 1986-87 Fleer was the "true" RC as this was a nationally released set with cards randomly distributed in the packs.

Of course feel free to point out where I am wrong or what erroneous nomlaculture I have used!

That was one reason they introduced it. It was also for the Traded/Update set cards that were issued before any other cards (like the 1984 Fleer Update Clemens, Gooden, & Puckett).

So am I seeing you agree with the term XRC Dan? That it is an allowable acronym within the structure of the TCDB? I thought it was a no go.

I said nothing about the inclusion of it here. I was strictly speaking of why Beckett introduced the term to the hobby way before this site ever existed (heck, that was before the internet existed). But I have not expressed an opinion about it - one way or the other.

Ok thank you Dan. I'm not sure if I have ever heard your personal position on the XRC term. As one so deeply engrained into the workings of the site I thought you might have some insight into the term. I have gone to the section where the acronyms are listed and XRC is NOT part of the designated abbreviations/acronyms used on this site. There are too many people not reading this manual and its has been buried too deep into the site (Admin could fix this) that the new run of people joining either dont read, cant find or dont care. Those who choose can use it but if I see an XRC used it WILL be removed. I don't do "Beckett" terms. And as one person has said previously here I don't just do what the hobby decides is "good" ..... if that were the case OMG it would be living H___L on this site. Peace.

There are a lot of terms in the master glossary for TCDB that are not listed in the document or even in what was called "THE List". There are a couple levels of the "A/As" (Abbreviations/Acronyms) that are used here:

1 - "Reserved" A/As - such as RC, SNxxx, PRxxx, ECH, VAR, COR, ERR, UER - these each have one meaning, and one meaning only, and when used in any set, the site auto-defines it for us

2 - "Preferred" A/As - Meaning that if we were wanting to use an A/A for "Strength & Conditioning Coach", the preferred A/A is "SCO", however, SCO can be used for other meanings (I can't think of an example right now, but you get the idea).

3 - "Set Specific" A/As - these are the ones that exist in only a set (or a couple here and there), but are not a universal thing. An example of that might be where a set has "Lamp Lighting Defensemen" as subset in the base set. Not sure if "LLD" is used anywhere else, but this would be appropriate for this set.

The above is site fact. The below contains my opinions (as well as some fact).

That said, XRC, as reviled as it is amongst some, its use in the hobby pre-dates this site, and there are plenty of people in the hobby that know the term, use the term, and might be a bit befuddled by the lack of such a term. As I gave in my example of the 1984 Fleer Update set, do we rip out the XRCs and leave them blank? Do we call them RCs? If so, what then happens to what the hobby has called RCs from the subsequent year? Do we have 2 years of RCs? Or do we ignore what the hoby has said for 35+ years.

I don't think it's as simple as eradicating all XRCs from the site, nor does that do any service to the hobby. There needs to be some sort of a "plan" for the XRC removal, and it needs to go before Admin before any action is taken.

I am not a fan of the blind removal of XRC. If there is a well-planned "exit strategy" and Admin is good with it, I'd be happy to help make that plan happen. Otherwise, I'm okay with XRC living on.

I understand why it was introduced (as the traded/update sets weren't as widely available as the base sets) . I was more interested in the inconsticency of (I'm using Rodney Peete as my exampe) Peete's Pro-Set and Topps traded being RC while all of the "Rookies" in the Score supplemental being XRC

XRC is NOT part of the designated abbreviations/acronyms used on this site - There's a time and a place for it (such as the Josh Allen example in this thread) but those cases are few and far between 

XRC has also been historically used on the '84 and '85 USFL sets, but I haven't seen it applied that way to cards for other pro leagues, e.g. WLAF or KHL.

I'd like to add an argument for removal of all "XRC" references.**

Since it is a Beckett created term, couldn't it be considered a Beckett proprietary (trademarked, copyrighted) term?  Thus justifying it's removal from our database?  

**with the exception where it is part of the card number/name.

And like I said prior, either a card is an RC or it's not.