Interesting comments. I find that most people who don't agree with Beckett do so out of there own need to justify trying to sell their cards for more than book value, identify them as something they aren't or they are trying to justify over paying for their cards. I've been in this hobby as a collector and seller since 1977 (mostly hockey cards) before there even was a Beckett and we all knew what a rookie card was back then. Beckett has basically done exactly what we did to determine whether a card was a rookie card or not. It has ALWAYS been a player's first appearance in a regular card set release and that was one of the reasons for the FTC designation. While a player came out in 69-70 O-Pee-Chee as a Rookie Card and not in the Topps set (as OPC was a larger set than Topps) his appearance in 70-71 Topps wasn't designated a RC but a FTC (first Topps card). Not an XRC or added rookie. We've gone by these established rules since before most people in this hobby got involved but they keep wanting to change the rules to suit themselves. Card companies haven't helped by slapping RC on everything in sight and that has led to a lot of confusion in the hobby. Regardless of whether a card is plastered ten times with RC that doesn't make it a rookie card. You have to remember that the card companies look for anyway to make their product look better and justify selling boxes for outrageous amounts of money. I will never agree to anyone saying a card not recognized by Beckett (otherwise known as the bible) as a Rookie Card is a rookie card.
frozenheroes@live.ca