Posts: 5,741
Threads: 84
Joined: Jun 1999
11-14-2011, 12:54 AM
RE: Are Finest Atomic Rookies considered "rookies"
The line between what "true" RC is and isn't is getting awfully blurry. Supposedly, it is the first card that is included in the base set, that is not a subset, yet in the 2008 Upper Deck Heroes set, there were several players with more than one RC listed --
2008 Upper Deck Heroes #151 Jake Long RC
2008 Upper Deck Heroes #152 Jake Long RC
There are some that ONLY apprear as a subset of the base set, but I don't have an example right off hand. All I know is, it happened with a Packer player because I used to collect them. The line is so blurry now.
![[Image: sds_zpsc4ba5032.jpg]](http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p92/jstump37/sds_zpsc4ba5032.jpg)
You are already missed
Posts: 1,232
Threads: 116
Joined: Mar 2005
11-14-2011, 08:37 AM
RE: Are Finest Atomic Rookies considered "rookies"
(11-14-2011, 12:54 AM)all day baby Wrote: The line between what "true" RC is and isn't is getting awfully blurry. Supposedly, it is the first card that is included in the base set, that is not a subset, yet in the 2008 Upper Deck Heroes set, there were several players with more than one RC listed --
2008 Upper Deck Heroes #151 Jake Long RC
2008 Upper Deck Heroes #152 Jake Long RC
There are some that ONLY apprear as a subset of the base set, but I don't have an example right off hand. All I know is, it happened with a Packer player because I used to collect them. The line is so blurry now.
Yeah, I remember back in the 1990s when I collected more only the first card in the set numerically was listed as a rookie.
...although, I am thinking of a specific one now that isn't that way. Shaq's 1992-93 Stadium Club rookie is #247. However his Member's Choice card appears earlier in the set and is not considered a rookie.
There is a God and his name is Billy Joel
