1996 SPX Basketball
 

Does the Premier 1996 SPX Basketball Box have a Kobe Bryant card

[QUOTE=Orna1818;19576508]Does the Premier 1996 SPX Basketball Box have a Kobe Bryant card[/QUOTE]

No..hes in the 97 set for the first time

[QUOTE=Chris P;19576566]No..hes in the 97 set for the first time[/QUOTE]

So is his 1997 SPx is a RC then?

:coffee:

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19576876]So is his 1997 SPx is a RC then?

:coffee:[/QUOTE]

SPX is weird to me bc initially UD released them single year only...but theres 1997 SPX and 1997-98 SPX. I don't think the 97 is technically a rookie (just like the 96 KG isn't technically a rookie) but i don't know the exact release dates of the product

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19576876]So is his 1997 SPx is a RC then?

:coffee:[/QUOTE]

Of course not. That product was released after the season, after the playoffs I think.

So these current products that are being released way after the season ends, sometimes after the following season begins are not RCs???

I'm not trying to be difficult and I get what you're saying about 97 SPx but something to consider.

I think there are still 2022-23 hockey products that have not been released yet?

The 97 SPX has his lower merion stats right? I know a lot has changed but back then, that’s usually an indicator of a RC.

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19576876]So is his 1997 SPx is a RC then?[/QUOTE]
His RC are in 1996. All 1997 cards of him are second year. Repeat that to yourself as necessary

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19577764]So these current products that are being released way after the season ends, sometimes after the following season begins are not RCs???

I'm not trying to be difficult and I get what you're saying about 97 SPx but something to consider.

I think there are still 2022-23 hockey products that have not been released yet?[/QUOTE]

The release schedule now is a mess. Topps and Panini put RC on every freaking card. None of that matters to past releases and cards.

Meh, it's his first year SPX. Good enough for me.

[QUOTE=Bergkamp11;19579039]His RC are in 1996. All 1997 cards of him are second year. Repeat that to yourself as necessary[/QUOTE]

not that straight forward most cards are two years 96-97. this one is just 97...not 97/98

I think if the set was released today it would 100% be a rookie for a late or end of year set. Those days it wasn't considered as such. I personally do consider it a rookie and I feel it has garnered more of that over time. Collect as you wish.

I couldn’t care less about rookie cards and rookie card designations.

The real tragedy about 1997 SPx is that their gold parallels look like ass compared to the 1996 versions.

[QUOTE=Antman5;19578982]The 97 SPX has his lower merion stats right? I know a lot has changed but back then, that’s usually an indicator of a RC.[/QUOTE]

So, when I came back into the hobby one of the things that blew me away was the way these monopoly companies were continuing to release cards with the same season association long after the season had ended - going into the next season in fact.

I'd be curious what others who were paying attention all along know that I don't but my thoughts:

1. I don't believe Upper Deck chose the 1997 designation. I think that's just what Beckett insisted - influenced by Upper Deck's competitors in all likelihood.

2. Had Beckett not insisted on listing SPx as 1997, and not calling the rookies of '96-97 "RC", it is entirely possible that the SPx RCs would have become the most sought after RCs of that iconic class. I mean, SPx was priced higher up front, and was certainly quite limited in production compared to probably all the other major releases of the time. It'd frankly be weird if the '96-97 SPx RC wasn't the iconic RC for Kobe & co.

3. If the SPx RCs did indeed become the prestige investor class RC, then it's entirely possible Topps Chrome never catches on at all, Topps continues to focus its premium attention on Finest, and everyone else embraces the extremely technical cards Upper Deck was producing as the signifier of the next-level premium.

4. While the dominance of autos & patches was always going to be the final destination for the super-premium, we could literally be in a hobby today where the entire notion of shiny parallel rainbows is never really a thing.

Anyway, given that definitions for RC release schedule is no longer followed in any similar way to what it was in the '90s, I've long wondered if we might see a set like SPx take off. The Hobby has always said these were not RCs, but there reasons for insisting upon this don't make any sense from a modern lens.

[QUOTE=Tallboy;19584935]So, when I came back into the hobby one of the things that blew me away was the way these monopoly companies were continuing to release cards with the same season association long after the season had ended - going into the next season in fact.

I'd be curious what others who were paying attention all along know that I don't but my thoughts:

1. I don't believe Upper Deck chose the 1997 designation. I think that's just what Beckett insisted - influenced by Upper Deck's competitors in all likelihood.

2. Had Beckett not insisted on listing SPx as 1997, and not calling the rookies of '96-97 "RC", it is entirely possible that the SPx RCs would have become the most sought after RCs of that iconic class. I mean, SPx was priced higher up front, and was certainly quite limited in production compared to probably all the other major releases of the time. It'd frankly be weird if the '96-97 SPx RC wasn't the iconic RC for Kobe & co.

3. If the SPx RCs did indeed become the prestige investor class RC, then it's entirely possible Topps Chrome never catches on at all, Topps continues to focus its premium attention on Finest, and everyone else embraces the extremely technical cards Upper Deck was producing as the signifier of the next-level premium.

4. While the dominance of autos & patches was always going to be the final destination for the super-premium, we could literally be in a hobby today where the entire notion of shiny parallel rainbows is never really a thing.

Anyway, given that definitions for RC release schedule is no longer followed in any similar way to what it was in the '90s, I've long wondered if we might see a set like SPx take off. The Hobby has always said these were not RCs, but there reasons for insisting upon this don't make any sense from a modern lens.[/QUOTE]

The first SPx basketball cards featured moving holograms for a lot of players and starting in 1996-97, they incorporated etched foil. And these were for base cards!

If they were made as inserts today, they would be highly sought after. Some ppl might be turned off by them being die-cut, but they're pretty awesome.

Upper Deck choose the single year designation. Check out the boxes, packs and cases.

1996 SPx
[url]https://www.tcdb.com/Packaging.cfm/sid/2545/1996-SPx[/url]

[url]https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/stackhouse-holoview-heroes/[/url]

1997 SPx
[url]https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/1997-upper-deck-spx-basketball-set-info/[/url]

All of Kobe's rookie cards were released in 1996, under 1996-97 products. 1996 SPX was released in early 1996.

This product was released in 1997, after all of Kobe's rookie year products were released in 1996 and after 1996 spx was released. Didn't make any sense to label it a 1996 product for ANY reason.

Therefore it's a 1997 product and appropriately catalogued as so. It's a second year Kobe card.

But I can see how pandemic boi pumpers want to make it out as an spx "rookie" first second year card.

Another reason why Basketball products back then were designated with both years of the season was likely due to the release of two series for products. Usually series 1 was released from August -October and Series 2 was released in January or February. When a single series product such as 1997 SPx was released after the Finals, well nobody was going to designate it as 1996-97. Since it didnt have two series and it had references to games that happened during the season.

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19577764]So these current products that are being released way after the season ends, sometimes after the following season begins are not RCs???

I'm not trying to be difficult and I get what you're saying about 97 SPx but something to consider.

I think there are still 2022-23 hockey products that have not been released yet?[/QUOTE]

Has the same consecutive year panini product ever been released TWICE in the same calendar year?

If not, then the distinct year release still stands true.

It's not like both 1996 spx and 1997 spx were both released in 1996. One was released in 1996, one was released in 1997.

The Kobe is a second year card.

However, upper deck got around this pattern and released 1997-98 spx the same year as 1997 spx, just to capitalize on the duncan rookie craze. That was the exception to the rule, not the 1997 spx kobe release.

[QUOTE=mc1;19584971]Another reason why Basketball products back then were designated with both years of the season was likely due to the release of two series for products. Usually series 1 was released from August -October and Series 2 was released in January or February. When a single series product such as 1997 SPx was released after the Finals, well nobody was going to designate it as 1996-97. Since it didnt have two series and it had references to games that happened during the season.[/QUOTE]

That is an excellent point.

[QUOTE=Tallboy;19584935]
1. I don't believe Upper Deck chose the 1997 designation. I think that's just what Beckett insisted - influenced by Upper Deck's competitors in all likelihood.

2. Had Beckett not insisted on listing SPx as 1997, and not calling the rookies of '96-97 "RC", it is entirely possible that the SPx RCs would have become the most sought after RCs of that iconic class. I mean, SPx was priced higher up front, and was certainly quite limited in production compared to probably all the other major releases of the time. It'd frankly be weird if the '96-97 SPx RC wasn't the iconic RC for Kobe & co.

[/QUOTE]

Of all the things you can fault Beckett for..... I don't think this is one of them.... :coffee:



[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53929674570_d7c7f3d3a5.jpg[/img][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53928319757_66dabbe44e.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Asian62150;19584945]The first SPx basketball cards featured moving holograms for a lot of players and starting in 1996-97, they incorporated etched foil. And these were for base cards!

If they were made as inserts today, they would be highly sought after. Some ppl might be turned off by them being die-cut, but they're pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]

I honestly believe another factor here was that the audience wasn't quite ready to pay up front as much as Upper Deck was asking for.

The same was true earlier for Sportflics in baseball and Action Packed in football. Maybe if there had been just the right design these programs would have kickstarted a new premium era, but in all 3 cases there were powerful people in the Hobby tsk-tsking the idea of paying so much more per card.

I would say that basically until the Exquisite era with a) serial numbers, b) autos, c) memorabilia, and d) the internet, these "collecting is first about the kids" type arguments helped slow down the premium-price-ization of the products, and also resulted in some premium experiments effectively getting punished for daring to fly to close to the sun.

Now ftr, just my own druthers:

I just don't think lenticular cards work so Sportflics was just plain a misguided idea. I actually find them physically unpleasant to look at in a way I never feel with vintage cards (which can be ugly in design of course, but it's not the same feeling).

As for the embossed technology of Action Packed, the way they first implemented it was too heavy-handed and I think that's part of what damaged the launch. While embossed cards have never become a dominant thing, I do think you can do some cool things with the approach.

The hybrid photo/hologram with die cuts tech of SPx were always amazing, but one issue for me was always the fact that we're not talking about a poster, we're talking about a standard-sized card. It's already small, now we're going to chop out even more with the die cut, and cram multiple different sections into the thing.

Technically it's even more impressive they could do all of this in a card-sized object, but aesthetically, I like a larger player image.

Still, lots to appreciate about what they did.

[QUOTE=JimCa;19585069]Of all the things you can fault Beckett for..... I don't think this is one of them.... :coffee:



[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53929674570_d7c7f3d3a5.jpg[/img][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53928319757_66dabbe44e.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Well, I stand corrected.

This raises the question of why they would do this if they didn't have to. It's not like Upper Deck hadn't already desperately looked to win the RC race in basketball and hockey. Why release a product that if you label it one way has RCs but choose to do it another way?

[QUOTE=hermanotarjeta;19584976]Has the same consecutive year panini product ever been released TWICE in the same calendar year?

If not, then the distinct year release still stands true.

It's not like both 1996 spx and 1997 spx were both released in 1996. One was released in 1996, one was released in 1997.

The Kobe is a second year card.

However, upper deck got around this pattern and released 1997-98 spx the same year as 1997 spx, just to capitalize on the duncan rookie craze. That was the exception to the rule, not the 1997 spx kobe release.[/QUOTE]

The idea that there was a Duncan rookie craze then is so strange to me given that

a) he was even better than expected
b) collectors have never seemed to care one bit about him
c) it had already been established that small players seemed to be more popular than bigs

Not saying you're wrong here - I had left the Hobby by 1997-98, so I don't know and I can see how a company might choose to do this - but the idea that you don't go all in for Iverson but do for Duncan just seems like bad business. (Saying this as someone who would rank Duncan way ahead of Iverson as a player to be clear.)

I feel like part of what had to be going on was that the popularity of the 1996 draft class in the hobby during '97-98 (led by Chrome Kobe) made it clear that it was a mistake to release any product without any RCs simply because of timing & labeling.

[QUOTE=mc1;19584971]Another reason why Basketball products back then were designated with both years of the season was likely due to the release of two series for products. Usually series 1 was released from August -October and Series 2 was released in January or February. When a single series product such as 1997 SPx was released after the Finals, well nobody was going to designate it as 1996-97. Since it didnt have two series and it had references to games that happened during the season.[/QUOTE]

Well, it was always jus bizarre that it only included stats up through '95-96 in a 1997 release. Not only was that abnormal, it's not anything that I think any designer would ever think was a good thing - leaving out the most relevant stats but including a bunch of less relevant years. A 1997 standard release card should either include '96-97 stats, or not have any stats at all.

It always felt like a collection of '96-97 cards that - for whatever reason - then got labeled as a "1997 set" instead.