|
2016-17 Ultimate - RCs?
|
Hi,
Anyone know why the AU versions (#'d /299) are not classified as "RC"? The non-auto, non-serial #'d versions are RC, but the auto versions are not. Thanks, Dana  (07-12-2017, 01:38 PM)shierydana Wrote: Hi,Trilogy is listed the same way. the non auto rc that come first in the set are marked as RC, but the auto ones that come after that are not. Can only have 1 RC in each product would be my guess.  (07-12-2017, 06:57 PM)hckydv7 Wrote: Trilogy is listed the same way. the non auto rc that come first in the set are marked as RC, but the auto ones that come after that are not. Can only have 1 RC in each product would be my guess.It's because UD chose to number the Ultimate Introductions ahead of the autos thus making those the RC's. I don't like it, but I can't do anything to change it.
Pretty disappointing, especially since last year's Ultimate /299 were considered RCs.
At least it's not like Topps and baseball who will have 15 RCs or more for one player. I prefer fewer to more. Whatever Beckett tells me that RC is (or are), I'll collect it (or some). And I never shoot the messenger. I might complain, but I know it's not Beckett's fault the card companies are weird sometimes and always out to make that extra buck.
I appreciate Chicago players that begin competing within the city's sports organizations and stay with these teams throughout their careers.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
