[briankort]

So if you search any player's rookie year on Beckett, all of their cards show up and some of them have the RC attribute assigned to them. But not all cards.

For instance the 1991-92 Upper deck set has 3 Larry Johnson cards, but only one of them has the RC attribute, Card #2. But card 445 (Top Prospect) and 480 of the same set are not marked with a RC attribute.

You could do the same for Lebron. He has the Topps chrome card and then the refractor, black refractor, gold refractor and xfractor. The base chrome cards is the only one with the RC attribute.

I know many collectors say all of the cards are rookie cards, but what do you uys think? Are there true RC's or is every card from a players rookie year a RC?

[pjrussell529]

A true RC is typically considered the card in the base set. The subsets, inserts, and parallels are not consideered true RCs. Many collectors will consider these RCs which is what makes it difficult to do a RC search on ebay. I myself go by the Beckett definition. But I will collect any others. However if you look at some of the Panini sets they do have several RC designations for the same player. 2009-10 Panini has 2-3 RCs for some players. There are all part of the base set and are not subsets. All are valued the same. But if it's from someones RC years you can consider it whatever you want. Hope that sheds some light.

[altz11]

I also consider the base card to be the "true" rookie.

[folkertino]

I think I did a thread on this a couple of years back. One would think a rookie card is the first base card in an NBA product of a player in his rookie year. However, by that definition the 1986-87 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan RC is not really a rookie card as MJ played in the season prior to that. To illustrate that this isn't a real rookie card: Geert Hammink's first NBA card was the 1994-96 Collector's Choice #369 which isn't marked as a rookie card as he debuted in 1993-94 season...

[briankort]

the 1986-87 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan RC is not really a rookie card as MJ played in the season prior to that.

The 1986-87 Fleer is kind of a bad example only because there weren't any name brand cards, Like Topps from 1982-1985 so all of the new players all had RC's in the 86-87 Fleer set. Hence, the greatness of this set.

STAR is not considered by Beckett and most people as having True RC's, but that doesn't stop them from having value.

[therobertogato]

Not to be a full Beckett homer but when I was a kid, a Beckett magazine was like gold so, in my old age I follow their status for "true" rookie cards. For my Rookie of the year collection I'm going with "true" rookies, thus not too many high $ items and no autos or memorabilia cards. I have a couple that are place setters until I get a true rookie.

[vgqv]

If I remember right, if there's a veteran(s) in the same subset with rookies for that season then those cards aren't considered to be "true rookie" cards despite the cards being in a product released during their rookie season. I don't agree with that because why should a veteran being in an autograph or memorabilia subset with rookies nullify the cards of the rooks from being "true rookies"?

IMO, if the card was made during the player's rookie season then I consider it to be a true rookie card. However, if the rookie were to miss his entire rookie season then I think no cards should be made until he plays. So, his rookie cards would be made with the following season's rookie draft class. E.g. There'd be no Joel Embiid cards yet since he's missed his rookie season and it looks as if he'll miss his sophomore season too.

[briankort]

Thanks for the responses. I guess what confuses me is a player like Albert King. Search Beckett for his RC. According to Beckett he doesn't have a RC. Yet he played in the league for 9 years. So did they just mess up and forget to mark the 86-87 fleer as his RC or is there some other explanation why this and no other card is his RC?

[rjcj2017]

I think I did a thread on this a couple of years back. One would think a rookie card is the first base card in an NBA product of a player in his rookie year. However, by that definition the 1986-87 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan RC is not really a rookie card as MJ played in the season prior to that. To illustrate that this isn't a real rookie card: Geert Hammink's first NBA card was the 1994-96 Collector's Choice #369 which isn't marked as a rookie card as he debuted in 1993-94 season...

No, because prior to, like, 1989 Pro Set and Score football, pretty much nobody had a card produced in their rookie seasons, in any sport. This wouldn't make any sense.

It's a player's first licensed base card from a licensed set, pretty much.

[briankort]

I contacted Beckett about the Albert King 86-87 Fleer and asked them why this was not marked as his rookie card. They said they had made a mistake and would fix it in a day or so.

I think that regardless of what year a player came into the league, his first card from any set should be his RC. If there is more than one set like there is today than the base card from every set produced in the year where his first card came out, should all be RC's. Parallel's, variants, etc. are not true RC's. This doesn't mean they don't have any value. In most cases they are worth a lot more. But they are just a copy, or add on to the base card of the set.