2023 Topps Finest Flashbacks question

[Turnitin2004]

So I am seeing some cards that look to be gold refractors /50 listed as common, but then also some gold refractors that are to /55 as rare. I've been trying to read the checklists but I cannot understand this.

This is for autographed cards. Specifically there are Kodai Senga and Adley Rutschman cards on eBay now that fit my previous description (they are not my cards).

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Turnitin2004

So I am seeing some cards that look to be gold refractors /50 listed as common, but then also some gold refractors that are to /55 as rare. I've been trying to read the checklists but I cannot understand this.

This is for autographed cards. Specifically there are Kodai Senga and Adley Rutschman cards on eBay now that fit my previous description (they are not my cards).

The autos don't follow a numbering system based on the rarity of the base cards. The "common" "uncommon" and "rare" designation just comes from the base card number. Cards 1-100 were common, 101-150 were uncommon, and 151-175 were rare.

The autos use the same designation on the back, based on the card number. But rarity isn't determined by it. There are no parallels of the autos other than superfractor 1/1s. So what the auto is numbered to is how many were signed. There isn't likely any rhyme or reason to it. The Carroll (common) is numbered to 80, Alonzo (uncommon) is numbered to 75, Rutschman (rare) is /55, Senga (common) /50, Walker (common) /100, Bench(rare) /100, Ortiz (rare) /100, and on and on. Some "rares" are /100, some are /55. Some commons are /100, and some are /75.

[Turnitin2004]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The autos don't follow a numbering system based on the rarity of the base cards. The "common" "uncommon" and "rare" designation just comes from the base card number. Cards 1-100 were common, 101-150 were uncommon, and 151-175 were rare.

The autos use the same designation on the back, based on the card number. But rarity isn't determined by it. There are no parallels of the autos other than superfractor 1/1s. So what the auto is numbered to is how many were signed. There isn't likely any rhyme or reason to it. The Carroll (common) is numbered to 80, Alonzo (uncommon) is numbered to 75, Rutschman (rare) is /55, Senga (common) /50, Walker (common) /100, Bench(rare) /100, Ortiz (rare) /100, and on and on. Some "rares" are /100, some are /55. Some commons are /100, and some are /75.

I could be wrong, but that seems incredibly stupid. I guess it's a semi niche product so it doesn't really matter, but as someone who did most of his collecting between 94-00 I enjoyed finest flashbacks. But that seems kinda silly. Thanks for the help!

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Turnitin2004

I could be wrong, but that seems incredibly stupid. I guess it's a semi niche product so it doesn't really matter, but as someone who did most of his collecting between 94-00 I enjoyed finest flashbacks. But that seems kinda silly. Thanks for the help!

Companies have had different players sign cards in different amount since the mid 90s. It's nothing new. Remember when the early 2000s pack odds would say "Group A" autos are 1:45 packs, "Group B" autos are 1:700 packs, etc...? And Group B or C would always be the best players? This is just really noticeable because all the cards are serial numbered.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by Turnitin2004

I could be wrong, but that seems incredibly stupid. I guess it's a semi niche product so it doesn't really matter, but as someone who did most of his collecting between 94-00 I enjoyed finest flashbacks. But that seems kinda silly. Thanks for the help!

Recycling the design saves time and money. I get it.

[Turnitin2004]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Recycling the design saves time and money. I get it.

I love they are re-using the design. What I am saying seems silly is having 1 card say common, but it could actually be rarer than a card that says rare. Unless I am understanding wrong. I don't completely mind the different number, just the weird use of rare and common.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by Turnitin2004

I love they are re-using the design. What I am saying seems silly is having 1 card say common, but it could actually be rarer than a card that says rare. Unless I am understanding wrong. I don't completely mind the different number, just the weird use of rare and common.

They reused the backside template for the autos. From a production perspective, it streamlines it. Agree it's a bit weird to have a lower numbered auto on the card designated common than one with the rare designation.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Turnitin2004

I love they are re-using the design. What I am saying seems silly is having 1 card say common, but it could actually be rarer than a card that says rare. Unless I am understanding wrong. I don't completely mind the different number, just the weird use of rare and common.

You just have to think of it like the word common and rare just refer to the design of the card, not to the rarity. There are 100 with the common design, 50 with the uncommon, and 25 with the rare. So the design of the card is designated common or rare. It's just the name of the design. It doesn't necessarily refer to how many autos there are.

[YouTheManNick]

They kinda botched the 2023 set. It's why the box price are so much cheaper than 2020-2022