Eichel and Hischier FWA's: RC or no?

[WatchMyBreaks]

So here's what I've been thinking through. Upper Deck (especially with SP Authentic) has for the last few years been inserting the cards that weren't signed in previous years into the newer products (famously the Matthews FWA with inscriptions in last year's SPA). I'm not sure on the argument with those, but I'm assuming they're considered to be Rookie Cards still (although I get the inscriptions aren't "rookies" per say, they are still linked to the right set). Here's where I think the final argument rests though in the case of the Hischier and Eichel cards in this year's SPA.

They are not rookies because they already had their "rookie cards" in the right sets. It shouldn't be much of an argument. The 2019 copyright on the bottom of the cards is enough for me to say that this is not a rookie card. Similar to reprints of retro rookie cards, the copyright date shows that it isn't the rookie.

Maybe some of those thoughts were a little bit of rambling, but hopefully that helps clarify some things here.

--Andrew

The inscription FWA were just held back. They didn't have Matthews sign 51-999 of the regular FWAs and have him sign the first 50 for the next season. They were held back to be inserted later because UD knew 17-18 was a weak rookie class, especially with the first overall pick not signing for them.

The Eichel card isn't a rookie, was never intended to be inserted into the product and is a way for UD to buy this year's product.

 

[debtriddin]

Hi

Don’t consider them to be rookie cards. Having said that I will collect them Because they are part of the extended set. Just my feelings towards them. Others may think otherwise.

Cheers Mike

 

[creasecollector]

Not a RC but I can see people doing that on eBay to get more attention.

This for sure.

 

[mastermind]

I feel it's a pretty black and white answer in that they have true rookie cards in their respective sets already, so no, these FWAs should be considered as inserts only. Having said that, it's a cool addition for FWA set collectors as they fit right in.

 

[gomaz]

I thought they just took the original Eichel Future Watches and had him sign them and put them in this year’s product? But is that incorrect? Did they actually print new cards for him
to sign? If the former, yes RC’s, if the latter, not RC’s.

 

[WatchMyBreaks]

I thought they just took the original Eichel Future Watches and had him sign them and put them in this year’s product? But is that incorrect? Did they actually print new cards for him
to sign? If the former, yes RC’s, if the latter, not RC’s.

 

[gomaz]

Definitely not a rookie card.

 

[LOTSOS]

Leaf had a send in program just as LOTSOS described. Hate on Leaf all you want, but I don't see how a program through UD now - just for that card alone, mind you - would be any better than Leaf's - though they would place a sticker on the back, but then again, wouldn't UD have to as well? Just because it's the licensed company with the program doesn't make his signature any different!

It would be better for one reason. Free. As a service to its loyal customers they should do it for free excluding shipping. Leaf was charging $100 a pop.

 

[TMCards]

Some people might not consider them to be true rookies because they were printed and signed in 2019 instead of 2015 but they will definitely sell like true rookies.

 

[WatchMyBreaks]

To be fair, only two have sold on eBay so far and they're selling for the same price as Max Domi's FWA.

 

[LOTSOS]

To be fair, only two have sold on eBay so far and they're selling for the same price as Max Domi's FWA.

Sure they'll sell but not for nearly as much as people are asking. I've paid top dollar for many of his cards. This one will not get the same treatment. I'll snag one on the cheap down the road when the next hot release comes out.

 

[Hama]

To be fair, only two have sold on eBay so far and they're selling for the same price as Max Domi's FWA.

There is a scarcity issue with Domi... there isn't even close to 999 in circulation for his FWA. He was a redemption that seems to have been in short supply and I don't think there was any numbered beyond 150 that made pack out. From all appearances right now, it does appear most if not all of the 999 Updates have been packed out based on the early distribution of serial numbers. I will gladly wait it out before I pick up my copy

 

[Burner]

I think too many people in the hockey world are too stuck to an outdated definition of what a rookie card should be which is based on a guide that nobody takes seriously anymore.

Who cares if it doesn't meet one certain criteria of many? As far as I'm concerned any Future Watch (update or not) is a rookie card.

By definition, is a Cup /99, Ultimate /99 or Ice /99 rookie not a rookie card? What about the Future Watch Patch? Young Guns High Gloss? A YG inserted in another product? The Matthews FW that was inserted over 2 years? Malkin FW was inserted over 2 years as well no? Who cares... why does the hockey world care so much about a stupid definition of what a true rookie should be? Collect what you like, don't let Becket or anyone else tell you what you should collect.

 

[charnick]

It would be better for one reason. Free. As a service to its loyal customers they should do it for free excluding shipping. Leaf was charging $100 a pop.

Considering they’re pulling this gimmick to sell more product in the first place, there’s no reason to believe they’d ever offer something like that for free! Leaf was overcharging for sure, because they could, but free?

Sure they'll sell but not for nearly as much as people are asking. I've paid top dollar for many of his cards. This one will not get the same treatment. I'll snag one on the cheap down the road when the next hot release comes out.

Damn straight. I don’t mind some of the overpaying I’ve done on him over the years, I know we both have some gems, but it also stinks seeing the value of my PC sink compared to the original purchase prices. Not making that mistake again.

 

[KAB-1993]

So If you don't classify them as rookies, I guess according to your criteria the same can be said for the Young Guns that have been inserted in the SP Authentic products the last couple of years. If they were out pulled out of the either Upper Deck sets that year then they aren't real rookies?

Completely different. These are update rookies inserted into product in the SAME YEAR, not 3 years later. Not to mention these were not printed in 15-16 and held as an update for 18-19, even that I would have been okay with. These players have non-auto'ed FW cards #/999 and now an Auto'ed (printed 3 years later) #/999, its a whole different printing. Not a rookie card. The update YG's are printed and also an extension of this years' YG's, therefore a proper rookie card.

 

[KAB-1993]

I think too many people in the hockey world are too stuck to an outdated definition of what a rookie card should be which is based on a guide that nobody takes seriously anymore.

Who cares if it doesn't meet one certain criteria of many? As far as I'm concerned any Future Watch (update or not) is a rookie card.

By definition, is a Cup /99, Ultimate /99 or Ice /99 rookie not a rookie card? What about the Future Watch Patch? Young Guns High Gloss? A YG inserted in another product? The Matthews FW that was inserted over 2 years? Malkin FW was inserted over 2 years as well no? Who cares... why does the hockey world care so much about a stupid definition of what a true rookie should be? Collect what you like, don't let Becket or anyone else tell you what you should collect.

There is nothing outdated about the way rookie cards are classified... Cards produced in his rookie year, pretty simple. These cards are not, therefore by black and white definition (which it is) it is NOT a rookie card. The Matthews inscribed FWA cards were in fact printed in his rookie year, just signed late and held for the next year's product due to lack of interest. Same with other cases.

The way you're trying to define rookie cards is like saying "Why can't Crosby win the Calder in the 2009 season?".

 

[30ranfordfan]

I think too many people in the hockey world are too stuck to an outdated definition of what a rookie card should be which is based on a guide that nobody takes seriously anymore.

Who cares if it doesn't meet one certain criteria of many? As far as I'm concerned any Future Watch (update or not) is a rookie card.

By definition, is a Cup /99, Ultimate /99 or Ice /99 rookie not a rookie card? What about the Future Watch Patch? Young Guns High Gloss? A YG inserted in another product? The Matthews FW that was inserted over 2 years? Malkin FW was inserted over 2 years as well no? Who cares... why does the hockey world care so much about a stupid definition of what a true rookie should be? Collect what you like, don't let Becket or anyone else tell you what you should collect.

Why wouldn't those Cup, Ultimate, or Ice cards be RCs ?

If we want to start a thread about "who cares what Beckett thinks?" sign me up. I'm all for it - because I agree, for the most part. I'm just not sure what that has to do with this topic..... as anytime "the hobby" (on a large scale) has decided that the definition Beckett uses for a RC is wrong, Beckett will adapt what their definition is to meet with what's accepted by the majority.

They once had the "rule" about having at least 99 copies. Nobody took that seriously, they eventually removed it. 05-06 had a bunch of people screaming that a Crosby McDonald's RC should be a RC, and Beckett changed their "rule" against regional distribution.

I don't know anyone who has ever considered an HG or FWA Patch to be a "Rookie Card" - but I also don't know anyone who thinks the lack of an 'RC' tag matters there.

If next season, Upper Deck decides that one of the biggest crimes in the hockey card world is that Jonathan Quick never had auto'd RCs - and the print new SPA Future Watches, serial number them to /999, make the front of the cards identical to the original, and make the back look "like it would have" (with the COA) - should we accept that as a Rookie Card, more than a decade after the fact?

 

[Cardboardkid]

Absolutely without a doubt a Rookie Card!!

Here’s a version of a Schultz UD YG rookie card as well..

 

[creasecollector]

Absolutely without a doubt a Rookie Card!!

Here’s a version of a Schultz UD YG rookie card as well..

No hate whatsoever, but why do you consider that Schultz card a rookie card? I'm genuinely curious. Nice card by the way.

 

[charnick]

Absolutely without a doubt a Rookie Card!!

Here’s a version of a Schultz UD YG rookie card as well..

No hate whatsoever, but why do you consider that Schultz card a rookie card? I'm genuinely curious. Nice card by the way.

hoping that was /sarcasm!