[folkertino]

I bet I caught your attention with that question, lol.

Reason why I'm asking is because I can't really figure out why some cards are considered a RC and others aren't, and then again why some are considered XRC.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge a rookie is a player in his first year of professional basketball. In trading cards that is understood as the NBA - fair enough. (well not really, but never mind).

By that definition a rookie card should be a card from a set that is published in the year that the depicted player is playing his first season in the NBA. You still with me?

Applying that definition 1988-89 Fleer #43 Dennis Rodman RC shouldn't be a RC as Rodman's rookie year was 1986-87. I suppose therefore that this card is considered his RC as it is his career's first trading card, even though other sets came out in preceding seasons.

But then, similarly, 1994-95 Collector's Choice #369 Geert Hammink is NOT considered a RC. His rookie season was 1993-94, but this is his first trading card.

Should both be considered a XRC? Or just regular cards?

Another example.

Nando de Colo was drafted by the Spurs in 2009-10. He actually went to Spain to continue his development and never played for them (he will as of the upcoming season). A card of his came out though: 2009-10 Upper Deck Draft Edition #65 Nando De Colo. It is not listed as a RC, but 2009-10 Upper Deck #237 Ricky Rubio SP RC IS considered a RC. And that bearing in mind that Rubio also went back to Spain, only to actually start his NBA career in the 2011-12 season.

Any thoughts? Is there an explanation to this or am I being too OCD here trying to find a set of parameters that is just not there?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[jchavestx]

If the player's first card was/is only available in team sets, complete sets, redemption sets (numbered in line as part of the base set) in an officially licensed NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL product then that would be considered his Extended Rookie Card or XRC because it wasn't available thru traditional means.

If the player's first card was/is available in packs (hobby or retail) by an official NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL product then that would be considered his Rookie Card or RC. Also, the player does not need to be in uniform on his first card for it to be considered his rookie card. Alot of cards like from draft night happen to be the players rookie card (such as Larry Johnson's RC from 1991-92 Upper Deck or Mariano Rivera's RC from 1992 Bowman Baseball).

Hope this helps

EDIT:

I'd also like to point out that MLB has adopted more stringent rules on what is considered a player's rookie card. After a certain year (I think 2003 or 2004) then the rookie card would have to have the official MLB "RC" tag on it.

[xstreaminsanity]

In regards to the Nando de Colo card vs. the Upper Deck Rubio SP RC, it's because Upper Deck Draft Edition is not an NBA licensed product. I don't believe any card in that product is labeled as a rookie.

As far as the Geert Hammick, I'll see what I can find out for you. Have you emailed basketballmag@beckett.com? I think that's the right email.

[got watcha want]

If you are using the beckett database for a guidline to define a RC card.... then know that no one definition applies to the term RC or XRC. You will find inconsitancies no matter the definition when you look throughout the guide.

Considering the Jordan Fleer RC and the Jordan Star XRC as examples.. my own definition of a RC card is whatever the mainstream collectors in the hobbby consider a RC card makes it a RC card. That is the only definition that really works because it is so vague.

[jonathani]

my own definition of a RC card is whatever the mainstream collectors in the hobbby consider a RC card makes it a RC card. That is the only definition that really works because it is so vague.

Good rule, as that is what generally determines value to us, as collectors.

JonathanI

[folkertino]

my own definition of a RC card is whatever the mainstream collectors in the hobbby consider a RC card makes it a RC card. That is the only definition that really works because it is so vague.

lol, thanks for that. I might adopt that guideline