[beasley2]

How can the 2000 Absolute Tom Brady RC Coaches Honor variation numbered to 300 be valued the same as the regular version numbered to 3000?

Is this a Beckett pricing error?

[gyoung]

...only thing I can think of is there may only be about a 1 Percent difference in production quantities? Year 2000

[djohn]

...only thing I can think of is there may only be about a 1 Percent difference in production quantities? Year 2000

Nope, as the OP said one version is serial numbered to 3000, and the other to 300. The reason is because the one numbered to 300 is a parallel and not a true rookie card as defined by Beckett. There is more demand for his true rookies than his parallels, and while it doesn't make much sense that a card numbered to 300 would be worth the same as one numbered to 3000, that's what Beckett will tell you is the reason why.
Personally, I would rather have the more limited one, and I think Beckett's pricing is a joke for instances like this.

[c squared]

From what I have observed in recent years, the true rookie designation still matters, but seems to mean less and less with high-caliber players from that era. It was definitely not the case 15 years ago, but scarcity seems to be driving value more directly than the base set/subset/parallel/insert.

For example, Ultimate Victory parallels of the 2000 Brady RC typically outsell the base #/2000.

[jplarson]

What's odd is that Brady is the only one that has the base and /300 variant the same price. Looking at the insert set here - 2000 Absolute Coaches Honors - RCs have a .8x - 2x multiplier and every other rookie (including Urlacher) does reflect the 2x value. I would doubt that the most popular card of the release would be the exception. If it's based on market data, I don't see how seller would let this go for the same price as the base card.