RC vs XRC

[rnocards]

Hi,

What do you guys usually prefer? Rookie Cards (RC) or Extended Rookie Card (XRC)?

I like both, and have both, but I probably would prefer the RC of a major manufacturer. But, I also like XRC because I get to have an older known depiction of a player.

So, for example, LaDainian Tomlinson, has several major 2001 RCs, but he also has a 2000 Leaf XRC, the only manufacturer that had it in 2000. I have both, and value both, but would like to know what you guys prefer.

Thanks.

[Jeter1020]

I personally like traditional rookie year cards. 2000 for Brady, 2020 for Hurts etc.

Even in baseball where they have first year bowman. So first year of minors and then they have rookie cards (first year in majors). I want the rookie cards. First year playing on a professional team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JWBlue]

Originally Posted by Jeter1020

I personally like traditional rookie year cards. 2000 for Brady, 2020 for Hurts etc.

Even in baseball where they have first year bowman. So first year of minors and then they have rookie cards (first year in majors). I want the rookie cards. First year playing on a professional team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the baseball 1st Bowman cards had players wearing minor league uniforms instead of air brushed professional team uniforms how much less would they be worth? Would they be on par with Topps Pro Debut?

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by rnocards

Hi,

What do you guys usually prefer? Rookie Cards (RC) or Extended Rookie Card (XRC)?

I like both, and have both, but I probably would prefer the RC of a major manufacturer. But, I also like XRC because I get to have an older known depiction of a player.

So, for example, LaDainian Tomlinson, has several major 2001 RCs, but he also has a 2000 Leaf XRC, the only manufacturer that had it in 2000. I have both, and value both, but would like to know what you guys prefer.

Thanks.

Tomlinson as drafted 2001. So unless you're talking a college card, what you're talking about is a "draft redemption". It was a silly idea to add these redemptions for the "1st Round Pick of the San Diego Chargers in 2021", for instance. So the actual cards would have been printed in 2001.Fortunately that idea faded over time because if it didn't, no doubt we'd see stupid years like, the 1st Round Pick of the Cleveland Browns in 2030 being inserted in today's product.

The last XRC's that I recall are from the 2010 Donruss Rookies Factory Set. It was a small 100 card factory set that came with an autograph.I believe those are still called XRC's. It would be cool to see a Topps Traded Chrome set with rookies missed during the regular releases in full uniform. One card that I would like to have seen better images of is the 2011 Topps Chrome JJ Watt and 2014 Topps Chrome Aaron Donald.

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by Archangel1775

Tomlinson as drafted 2001. So unless you're talking a college card, what you're talking about is a "draft redemption". It was a silly idea to add these redemptions for the "1st Round Pick of the San Diego Chargers in 2021", for instance. So the actual cards would have been printed in 2001.Fortunately that idea faded over time because if it didn't, no doubt we'd see stupid years like, the 1st Round Pick of the Cleveland Browns in 2030 being inserted in today's product.

The last XRC's that I recall are from the 2010 Donruss Rookies Factory Set. It was a small 100 card factory set that came with an autograph.I believe those are still called XRC's. It would be cool to see a Topps Traded Chrome set with rookies missed during the regular releases in full uniform. One card that I would like to have seen better images of is the 2011 Topps Chrome JJ Watt and 2014 Topps Chrome Aaron Donald.

Yeah, in regards to the Tomlinson, it was a draft class redemption series that bridged the 2000 and 2001 seasons. TCDB and SCI refer to it as an XRC, which is why I called it that as well.

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/si...nian-Tomlinson

https://www.sportscardinvestor.com/c...-stars-xrc-306

[Gary]

Depends on the situation....The 84 and 85 USFL sets are XRC but the true rookie for those players....Same for Star Co basketball 83-86......the 85 big mac is a XRC in the true sense as he didn't play in the pros......though i prefer it to the 87 RC stuff i wouldn't argue with anyone who says the 85 topps card is not a RC or even XRC being its a USA baseball team/uniform.

XRC imo should be reserved for odd ball issues....its used so much now that it carries no real importance most just say there all RC's at this point.at 62 after 50+ years of collecting i still use the terms i grew up with,RC is the first card put out by a lic manufacture in a pro uniform...back then the RC was the first card out not an all star card or ll card ect........ (unless it was the only card for that player in the set)..now every card for a player no matter what it is has the RC symbol....some have 10-15 RC's now.

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by Gary

Depends on the situation....The 84 and 85 USFL sets are XRC but the true rookie for those players....Same for Star Co basketball 83-86......the 85 big mac is a XRC in the true sense as he didn't play in the pros......though i prefer it to the 87 RC stuff i wouldn't argue with anyone who says the 85 topps card is not a RC or even XRC being its a USA baseball team/uniform.

XRC imo should be reserved for odd ball issues....its used so much now that it carries no real importance most just say there all RC's at this point.at 62 after 50+ years of collecting i still use the terms i grew up with,RC is the first card put out by a lic manufacture in a pro uniform...back then the RC was the first card out not an all star card or ll card ect........ (unless it was the only card for that player in the set)..now every card for a player no matter what it is has the RC symbol....some have 10-15 RC's now.

I noticed when it comes to Jordan, the TCDB site used to refer to the 84 star as his XRC, while his 86 Fleer as the RC. But, recently, they changed it... where it now says 84 Star is his RC, and does not attach any rookie status, neither RC nor XRC, to the 86 Fleer. I just thought this was odd... because so many collectors in the hobby view the 86 Fleer as his RC.

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/si...Michael-Jordan

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/si...Michael-Jordan

[Archangel1775]

Originally Posted by rnocards

I noticed when it comes to Jordan, the TCDB site used to refer to the 84 star as his XRC, while his 86 Fleer as the RC. But, recently, they changed it... where it now says 84 Star is his RC, and does not attach any rookie status, neither RC nor XRC, to the 86 Fleer. I just thought this was odd... because so many collectors in the hobby view the 86 Fleer as his RC.

Dont read to far into it. tcdb is similar to wikipedia, members given the admin rights to do so, can change it.

[Gary]

Originally Posted by rnocards

I noticed when it comes to Jordan, the TCDB site used to refer to the 84 star as his XRC, while his 86 Fleer as the RC. But, recently, they changed it... where it now says 84 Star is his RC, and does not attach any rookie status, neither RC nor XRC, to the 86 Fleer. I just thought this was odd... because so many collectors in the hobby view the 86 Fleer as his RC.

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/si...Michael-Jordan

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/si...Michael-Jordan

imo the sites all have their own take on it so i wouldn't view that one site as some sort of authority.....depending on the sport/year/card/person the RC/XRC thing is going to mean different things.....never used to be that way but times change,cards used to be cardboard pictures now their a form of currency.

no judgement on it ether way just saying things change.some will see it as bad others good....personally i see it both as good and bad.the 86 Jordan debate is over the "hobby" decided decades ago the 86 Fleer was his RC.....i personally do not agree but that doesn't change the fact the overwhelming amount in the hobby says 86 Fleer.......i own both anyway so i just roll with it.

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by Gary

imo the sites all have their own take on it so i wouldn't view that one site as some sort of authority.....depending on the sport/year/card/person the RC/XRC thing is going to mean different things.....never used to be that way but times change,cards used to be cardboard pictures now their a form of currency.

no judgement on it ether way just saying things change.some will see it as bad others good....personally i see it both as good and bad.the 86 Jordan debate is over the "hobby" decided decades ago the 86 Fleer was his RC.....i personally do not agree but that doesn't change the fact the overwhelming amount in the hobby says 86 Fleer.......i own both anyway so i just roll with it.

Wow... that is awesome! I wish one day I'll be able to grab either one, though the 84 star is extremely more expensive.

[rnocards]

What do you think about something like this?

The RC designation on this item, 2001 Quantum Leaf #210, is not just for the base card itself, but also for a graded series program of 1 out of 50, that Beckett apparently had with Leaf.




TCDB mentions the base as a RC, but also mentions this graded series itself as a RC, even though there is nothing on the card itself that distinguish it from a base card, not even a serial number "x/50" or PR of 1 of 50, that you get with limited number cards to distinguish them from a base.



The color parallels are not designated as RC, but a graded series PR50 is designated as a RC? Does anyone understand the reasoning here?

Also, if this Beckett card above was to be re-holdered for some reason, there is a potential loss of that slab label notation "Graded Series 1 of 50", since that card was graded back in 2001 (coinciding with LT rookie year), and a modern re-holder would presumably eliminate that connection to that early Beckett/Leaf graded series program. If that were to happen, then that card would no longer satisfy this strange RC designation of a graded series. It would just be the base RC designation at that point.

Do you accept such RC designations, distinct from the base, or would you rather see it expanded further to include the parallels?

[goodole13]

Originally Posted by rnocards

What do you think about something like this?

The RC designation on this item, 2001 Quantum Leaf #210, is not just for the base card itself, but also for a graded series program of 1 out of 50, that Beckett apparently had with Leaf.




TCDB mentions the base as a RC, but also mentions this graded series itself as a RC, even though there is nothing on the card itself that distinguish it from a base card, not even a serial number "x/50" or PR of 1 of 50, that you get with limited number cards to distinguish them from a base.



The color parallels are not designated as RC, but a graded series PR50 is designated as a RC? Does anyone understand the reasoning here?

Also, if this Beckett card above was to be re-holdered for some reason, there is a potential loss of that slab label notation "Graded Series 1 of 50", since that card was graded back in 2001 (coinciding with LT rookie year), and a modern re-holder would presumably eliminate that connection to that early Beckett/Leaf graded series program. If that were to happen, then that card would no longer satisfy this strange RC designation of a graded series. It would just be the base RC designation at that point.

Do you accept such RC designations, distinct from the base, or would you rather see it expanded further to include the parallels?

They did the same thing with 2001 UD Graded.
BGS and Upper Deck labeled it as 2001 UD Graded "Rookie Series."

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by goodole13

They did the same thing with 2001 UD Graded.
BGS and Upper Deck labeled it as 2001 UD Graded "Rookie Series."

Yeah, I noticed that too.



Interestingly though, TCDB didn't use the "RC" designation on any of those, referencing Tomlinson.



But, while those had the /500 serial number printed on the cards, the BGS slab labels did not reflect the limited 500 number as part of this rookie series. Whereas, in the previous Leaf example, no mention of a print run of 50 was on the cards, but BGS mentions on the slab that 50 of them have been graded as part of a graded series.

Stuff like that just confuses me sometimes, and complicates my collecting rules... including these discrepancies between TPGs and online lists.

[goodole13]

Not all 500 were part of the Rookie Series. I think I have a spread sheet somewhere showing how many of the 500 were encapsulated as Rookie Series.
I have the Rookie Series auto and a regular auto graded by BGS (old label). They're the same card.

[rnocards]

Originally Posted by goodole13

Not all 500 were part of the Rookie Series. I think I have a spread sheet somewhere showing how many of the 500 were encapsulated as Rookie Series.
I have the Rookie Series auto and a regular auto graded by BGS (old label). They're the same card.

That's interesting. So... that 9.5 Rookie Autographs must have been graded later than the Rookie Series Autograph, even though it's the same card s/n 500?

Beckett is good about adding their grading date on their online certs.

[goodole13]

Originally Posted by rnocards

That's interesting. So... that 9.5 Rookie Autographs must have been graded later than the Rookie Series Autograph, even though it's the same card s/n 500?

Beckett is good about adding their grading date on their online certs.

Correct. Some were inserted in packs. Some came graded.

The Rookie Series auto was graded August 9, 2001.

The regular auto was graded March 19, 2002.

[goodole13]

Here are the Rookie Series population reports.

[daveyc1]

I will take the XRC's of reggie white, steve young, jim kelly, mark mcgwire, puckett and clemens all day

[IpcSteveYoung]

I accept Young in the XRC over the Buccaneers uniform any day, just sounds weird to consider the USFL as XRC. And it’s no knock against the Bucs, but his time there was when I was born so it has zero nostalgia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk