Beckett Message Boards

You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Looking at Topps Inception cards, every Cam Newton card I have seen has the "RC" stamp on it. The base auto card, which is numbered in the set as card #'d 135, has the RC stamp on it. But then so does every other insert and parallel I've seen. Even saw a Jumbo Jersey Relic card that was numbered out of /158, but the card number was JR-CN - and it had the RC stamp on it. Is this not an insert card? Can it possibly carry a RC distinction? Will Beckett also classify this as a RC? Sorry if this sounds like a newbie question, but I've been steering clear of Topps for quite some time (until a moment of weakness today). Thanks.
Look up the cards in the database. The first card that you see that has RC under it IS the true RC. Look at the card #. Any other cards that are of the same # that have a lower serial number or a mem card or and auto card with the same #, are ALL the true RC's. Then there will be some more inserts with a different card # in the set and they ARE from a rookie year but they are not the true RC. There is only 1 for each player from each set and brand. I know this is up for debate and i love all my first year cards from certain players, the difference is the value, the true RC will always be worth more. A common player you might not see a significant difference, but a superstar, the difference will be huge.
i hate the "true RC" crap. In my opinion if the card is from the players rookie year its a rookie card. some may disagree but all this "true RC" stuff just makes collecting more complicated than it should be
(08-14-2011 01:18 PM)rogue655 Wrote: [ -> ]i hate the "true RC" crap. In my opinion if the card is from the players rookie year its a rookie card. some may disagree but all this "true RC" stuff just makes collecting more complicated than it should be

agreed
(08-14-2011 01:18 PM)rogue655 Wrote: [ -> ]i hate the "true RC" crap. In my opinion if the card is from the players rookie year its a rookie card. some may disagree but all this "true RC" stuff just makes collecting more complicated than it should be

But with the amount of cards produced of players today, Rc cards wouldn't be worth crap and a whole area of collecting would be gone without the true rc. I collect true rc's of 49ers and not much else because there are a lot more "other" cards out there.
(08-14-2011 01:47 PM)nthnoak Wrote: [ -> ]But with the amount of cards produced of players today, Rc cards wouldn't be worth crap and a whole area of collecting would be gone without the true rc. I collect true rc's of 49ers and not much else because there are a lot more "other" cards out there.

maybe i directed my anger in the wrong place... i like RCs but the fact that they produce so many different kinds of cards that there needs to be a "true RC" and Non RCs really complicates things...
(08-14-2011 01:18 PM)rogue655 Wrote: [ -> ]i hate the "true RC" crap. In my opinion if the card is from the players rookie year its a rookie card.

+1
What's confusing with Inception is the fact that ALL of these different cards have the RC stamp:

[Image: cn1.jpg][Image: cn2.jpg]
[Image: cn3.jpg][Image: cn4.jpg]
[Image: cn5.jpg][Image: cn6.jpg]
[Image: cn7.jpg]

To me, the first card which is #135 in the base set is the only one that technically should carry the RC distinction. The second card pictured is set numbered JR-CN (jumbo relic) and to me, is clearly an insert. All 6 other cards have similar letter numbering and to me, are inserts. For as long as I've been collecting, insert sets were never considered RC's. There's always been discussion about parallels. A lot of true rookie card collectors do not consider a Bowman gold #/50 to be a true rookie card. Yet we've seen Superfractor RC's demand some of the highest dollar amounts of any issued card for a rookie player. I understand the argument there. Do you consider ALL of tehse to be true rookie cards worthy of carrying the RC stamp?
I never understood the whole "true RC" thing. Me personally I would MUCH rather have the harder to find/Rare numbered Parallel. Back in the day at least the was a reason to discuss the whole true RC vs. parallel/ insert rookie year card. But seriously, today there are way to many Parallels and inserts to say that none of these cards are RC's
Rookie year + main set = rookie, by beckett definition, but that doesn't mean much, or how Flopps stamps their cards, it would all be a matter of perspective. Doesn't change anything anywhos.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's