Help figuring out what constitutes a rookie (and what version is best to keep) from 1990-1992 sets

[zackmak]

I have a few 1990-91 sets and a few 1991-92 sets and of course there are a bunch of rookies. My questions are:

1. It seems like Beckett and other checklists put the ‘RC’ label on any card of a player if it’s their first appearance on an officially licenced card. It doesn’t matter if it’s a picture of them on draft day, playing in an international tournament, shown as a future star or prospect, simply shown on a card with other players (eg. capturing a special moment, or a checklist), playing as a junior, or, playing in their NHL jersey (of course).

With multiple sets in the SAME year showing that player under different circumstances...which is considered the ‘truest’ rookie card? Who determines this - Beckett or collectors? And does the truest rookie card always mean the most expensive/valuable? Or, are they ALL rookies, and Beckett just adds value to them based on popularity?

2. Similarly, what if one company’s set featured a player as a junior in their set, and the NEXT year, that same company - OR, a NEW company - shows him as a drafted player with an NHL jersey on, or even on the ice playing with their NHL team: Which is the ‘real’ rookie? Or, do we have to wait for Beckett to decide that for us?

3. Is Beckett the ‘bible’ - or realistically, the ‘only’ guide - that will give you the order of most popular rookie cards of the same player (based on value, of course)?

Between those two set years, there are obviously many rookies to collect. Granted, they are not worth as much because of the era they were produced in, but nonetheless, I want to keep the top 25-30 rookies. But I only want to keep ONE rookie version. Which versions should I keep? Has there ever been another thread that covered this?

Thanks everyone for the help. It was much easier when it was only OPC and Topps the years before!!!

 

[sdpdesign]

Tradionally, before the “one game” rule was established, the RC was considered the first card appearance of that player. This could have been as a junior, such as the junior championship tournament which displays a lot of drafted or undrafted talent. These would include players like Potvin, Niedermayer, Koivu, Kariya, and a multitude of other prospect players as long as it was part of a major set. Minor sets, or short lived sets aren’t considered RC’s unless that is the only place that player has ever had a card.

The trend since the “one game” rule, which established that a skater must skate in at least one game and a goaltender must be a dressed back-up for the NHL in order to warrant an issued card, is to have players in sets such as ITG’s H&P or BTP, UD’s Prospects or AHL, not be called RC’s since they have not played in their 1st NHL game. This would follow suit with BAP/ITG Ultimate Mem sets where they have the prospect. Most recent example of this would be Cody Hodgson who was a features prospect w/i UM but didn’t play in the NHL for a couple of years due to development and injury, finally making it 3-4 yrs after being drafted.

Now with that said, others may chime in and be more correct, but this is my super basic understanding that I have acquired over the years.

 

[CeddieB]

What sdpdesign said is correct.

Personally, I consider parallels to be RC’s as well in my PC, even if Beckett doesn’t designate them so.

I also think anything (excluding inserts) that year is a RC, again even if Beckett doesn’t agree. For instance, I think Andrei Trefilov appeared in UD Series I with the Russian team and in UD Series II as a Flame - I would pick the Flames card for my Flames RC PC.


As for those early 1990’s sets, I prefer if the player is in their NHL uniform, but I also have a strong preference for the UD sets; the quality was just so much higher than most others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CeddieB]

Apparently this app on my phone does not like apostrophes.

What sdpdesign said is correct.

Personally, I consider parallels to be RC’s as well in my PC, even if Beckett doesn’t designate them so.

I also think anything (excluding inserts) that year is a RC, again even if Beckett doesn’t agree. For instance, I think Andrei Trefilov appeared in UD Series I with the Russian team and in UD Series II as a Flame - I would pick the Flames card for my Flames RC PC.


As for those early 1990’s sets, I prefer if the player is in their NHL uniform, but I also have a strong preference for the UD sets; the quality was just so much higher than most others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zackmak]

Thanks for the information and confirmation guys. Too bad that rule never came into play when all these companies came aboard. The early 90's cards are a mess!!! I ALSO prefer a rookie to have their NHL jersey on (as opposed to a junior, international, etc.). But unfortunately, the 90-92 sets are a mish-mash.

Basically, with those two years being filled with companies like OPC, UD, Score, Pinnacle, Premier, etc. etc....is the GENERAL rule of thumb that:

1. For the year 1990-91, OPC Premier trumps UD for rookie values? After UD, the remaining sets' rookie values are essentially the same?

2. For the year 1991-92, UD trumps every other card companies' rookie values? After UD, the remaining sets' rookie values are essentially the same?

3. The only exceptions are Score with their Brodeur and Lindros rookies? Are there any other players that have higher rookie values in a set that is not Premier or UD?

Also, hoping someone can give some input on the questions I asked originally.

 

[sdpdesign]

Thanks for the information and confirmation guys. Too bad that rule never came into play when all these companies came aboard. The early 90's cards are a mess!!! I ALSO prefer a rookie to have their NHL jersey on (as opposed to a junior, international, etc.). But unfortunately, the 90-92 sets are a mish-mash.

Basically, with those two years being filled with companies like OPC, UD, Score, Pinnacle, Premier, etc. etc....is the GENERAL rule of thumb that:

1. For the year 1990-91, OPC Premier trumps UD for rookie values? After UD, the remaining sets' rookie values are essentially the same?

2. For the year 1991-92, UD trumps every other card companies' rookie values? After UD, the remaining sets' rookie values are essentially the same?

3. The only exceptions are Score with their Brodeur and Lindros rookies? Are there any other players that have higher rookie values in a set that is not Premier or UD?

Also, hoping someone can give some input on the questions I asked originally.

I think you nailed it on the head for those years as RC go. I think Lindros had the exclusive with Score his RC year coming out from juniors. The world junior set from those years are loaded with great players so don’t knock them even if you don’t like the fact that they don’t have the team jersey. Many of them were drafted or about to be drafted.

CeddieB’s example of Trefilov being in S1 & then again in S2 is a rarity. Most only had one card in S1 or S2. Many who had a late start like St.Louis, had their cards placed in S2 with little fanfare since they were never featured as a YG. There are plenty of others that are like that.

Kariya was actually featured in the international insert set for 90-91 update and that card is not considered his RC like his 91-92 WJC card is. He never had a YG.

 

[30ranfordfan]

I think Beckett's interpretation of what a rookie card really just reflects the hobby in general. They will change if the masses want it (Crosby McDonalds RC comes to mind).

If a player has a card in an NHL licensed base set, regardless of jersey or type of card, that's accepted as his rookie.

91-92 Upper Deck is the only set i recall where you could argue players have two RCs. Canada Cup cards in series 1, plus others in the set too. I've heard the argument that Lidstom's CC in UD1 is the rookie card, and his YG in series 2 is not, since Series 1 came out first. Honestly, it doesnt matter much to me.... I'd be comfortable calling both a RC.

Ziggy Pallfy is a real neat one. Has a Canda Cup and a Star Rookie card in Series 1. Is the lower numbered one the RC? The Islanders one? Both? I'd say both.

Values... For 90-91 I'd take Premier, then UD, then anything else. Other years.... UD first, then probably Stadium Club, Pinnacle, or Premier... then the rest.

Lots of instances where a guy only has 1 RC though. Pro Set in 90-91 is filled with those....and you already mentioned Score: Lindros, Brodeur, Kolzig, Stu Barnes, i think a few others.

 

[TADontAsk]

For what it's worth, Beckett has missed assigning a number of RCs. In putting together my NJ Devils rookie card checklist, I noticed that they never had one assigned to Jim McKenzie, and had missed a Mike Peluso. Someone at Beckett.com had seen a thread of mine here discussing just that, and actually went ahead and made the changes on their site. I also posted about missing RC designations in 90-91 UD, and they looked into it and made those changes too, but then the moderator must have left and every other suggestion has been ignored since, lol.

But all I'm trying to say is don't take their information as 100% set in stone. They don't go back and check the older stuff.

 

[sdpdesign]

Just an fyi, Beckett does have a disclaimer in their books about accuracy as they only know what the manufacturer has told them, so when a set is known to be produced, the pre-checklist may be different than the actaul printed run checklist. This happens with RC and inserts too often...and, hey, they’re human and miss designations. This is where they have us “Beckett readers” contact them to let them know. I think that they had a change of staff a few years ago and they have fewer people on hand to concentrate on certain aspects of the books.

 

[capsfan30]

It didn't just stop in 91-92. The latest that I can think of would be 2000-01, with Black Diamond, Ice, and Upper Deck all having international cards labeled as RC's.

There may even be some after that, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[zackmak]

Some good information! One thing I'm quickly learning about accepted rules, and 'rule of thumb' in the trading card business...is that rules are made to be broken.

I always thought that the 1990-91 OPC Premier set had the more valued rookies because it came out after UD Low Series 1, Pro Set Series 1, and Score, and thus was able to put out select star rookies photographed during an NHL game in their team jerseys (eg. Sundin, Fedorov, Jagr, etc) - as opposed to the less desirable 'draft'or 'international/junior-jersey' cards the competitors initially had. Plus, it beat out the regular OPC set, Topps, and Bowman because Premier was simply a better quality card.

But, I just found out, the main reason OPC Premier succeeded was because collectors found out the set was short-printed - unlike the other sets, which were over-printed - so prices skyrocketed due to demand. Apparently, Premier ended up printing more due to demand...but the values stuck, evidently.

From what people have posted, the frustrating thing from these early 90's sets is:

* sometimes a rookie player card shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS accepted as the more expensive rookie card even though another company's set - from the same year - has that same player shown playing in their NHL jersey (i.e. '91 UD Lidstrom Team Sweden)

* sometimes a rookie player card shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS NOT accepted as a rookie card, like what the poster said below about Kariya. Oddly enough, the market would rather call a future card of his a 'rookie' card...even though it was ALSO a card that showed him in his international jersey?? Yet the market has no problem accepting '90 Score Brodeur and Lindros; or, '91 Selanne Team Sweden.

Kariya was actually featured in the international insert set for 90-91 update and that card is not considered his RC like his 91-92 WJC card is. He never had a YG.

And also the '90 OPC Fedorov from the Red Army set. Because it was an 'insert', according to Beckett notes.

* and, sometimes a rookie player shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS accepted as a rookie card, and the market would rather NOT make their future 'NHL-jersey-wearing' card their rookie...EVEN THOUGH it was in the SAME SET! Eg. '91 UD Low Series 1 Lidstrom 'Team Sweden' card vs. '91 UD High Series 2 Lidstrom 'Young Guns' card.

I think Beckett's interpretation of what a rookie card really just reflects the hobby in general. They will change if the masses want it (Crosby McDonalds RC comes to mind).

If a player has a card in an NHL licensed base set, regardless of jersey or type of card, that's accepted as his rookie.

91-92 Upper Deck is the only set i recall where you could argue players have two RCs. Canada Cup cards in series 1, plus others in the set too. I've heard the argument that Lidstom's CC in UD1 is the rookie card, and his YG in series 2 is not, since Series 1 came out first. Honestly, it doesnt matter much to me.... I'd be comfortable calling both a RC.

Ziggy Pallfy is a real neat one. Has a Canda Cup and a Star Rookie card in Series 1. Is the lower numbered one the RC? The Islanders one? Both? I'd say both.

Since there are so many opinions on what is acceptable, or even 'correct' with RC, why doesn't the industry or even Beckett just lay down the law once and for all to keep everything in line, and reflect that in the values? They might have tried, but apparently, it's still happening:

It didn't just stop in 91-92. The latest that I can think of would be 2000-01, with Black Diamond, Ice, and Upper Deck all having international cards labeled as RC's.

There may even be some after that, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Out of curiosity, why is the first Crosby McDonalds card getting a push to make it the more valuable rookie card, instead of his YG rookie card? Is it because the McD card came out first to the market?

Is having a set come 'first to the market' a reasonable solution to what should be considered the most valuable 'rookie' card, be it a McDonalds card, etc.? Or even if it's an insert? And it shouldn't matter if the 'first to market' set is low end, or high end...it's whoever is first to distribute.

Actually, I'm surprised Beckett doesn't list distribution/street dates of sets in their pricing books. Is there a sportscard website that gives this information? I couldn't find anything online.

Either way, I'm sure all of the "rules" will continue to get broken, as proven by posters in this thread. And we'll always need Beckett to tell us what's best to grab, and what we should dismiss (value-wise, of course).

 

[30ranfordfan]

Some good information! One thing I'm quickly learning about accepted rules, and 'rule of thumb' in the trading card business...is that rules are made to be broken.

Yes they are!

But, I just found out, the main reason OPC Premier succeeded was because collectors found out the set was short-printed - unlike the other sets, which were over-printed - so prices skyrocketed due to demand. Apparently, Premier ended up printing more due to demand...but the values stuck, evidently.

Premier more valuable in 90-91 due to smaller print runs. Yes.

From what people have posted, the frustrating thing from these early 90's sets is:

* sometimes a rookie player card shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS accepted as the more expensive rookie card even though another company's set - from the same year - has that same player shown playing in their NHL jersey (i.e. '91 UD Lidstrom Team Sweden)

* sometimes a rookie player card shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS NOT accepted as a rookie card, like what the poster said below about Kariya. Oddly enough, the market would rather call a future card of his a 'rookie' card...even though it was ALSO a card that showed him in his international jersey?? Yet the market has no problem accepting '90 Score Brodeur and Lindros; or, '91 Selanne Team Sweden.

And also the '90 OPC Fedorov from the Red Army set. Because it was an 'insert', according to Beckett notes.

* and, sometimes a rookie player shown from The Draft, or shown in their international/junior jersey IS accepted as a rookie card, and the market would rather NOT make their future 'NHL-jersey-wearing' card their rookie...EVEN THOUGH it was in the SAME SET! Eg. '91 UD Low Series 1 Lidstrom 'Team Sweden' card vs. '91 UD High Series 2 Lidstrom 'Young Guns' card.

I think you're making some of the differences in the rules out to be slightly more complicated than they actually are.

The jersey they're wearing... action shot vs Draft picture... none of that matters. Team Canada, Oshawa Generals, Red Army, Detroit Red Wings, Action or Pose: None of that is of consequence with what constitutes a rookie card.

Is it an NHL licensed set? Is this a BASE SET? Is it the player's first card in this type of set? (Well, first year that they got a card like this... they can have multiple RCs in the same season).

The Federov Red Army card is not a RC, because (as you mentioned) it's an insert. It's not part of the base set, therefore not a RC.

The Karyia - That came in 91-92. There was a Czech Republic (or was it still Czechoslovakia??) released UD set, 100 cards, for the World Junior Championships. Most of the players with WJC Cards in 91-92 UD Series 2 - they use the same photos (the front of the card is basically identical, it uses that same design).

I suspect that this Czech-language set had no NHL license, and it also doesn't meat a "widely distributed" requirement that also denies RC status mail in boxset cards like 91-92 Parkhurst Bill Guerrin & Ray Whitney (listed as 'XRC').

Brodeur & Lindros are easy. As I said: The jersey (and pose) doesn't matter one bit. Those are their first cards in NHL licensed sets, so they're rookie cards. Score was the only one who thought to include Brodeur that year... and they signed Lindros to an exclusive deal, which let them make all sorts of cards of him prior to joining the NHL 2 years later. (The PA also banned future deals like this).

The Lidstrom UD Rookies are one of the few that gets dicey. If the Sweden card in Series 1 doesn't exist, then the YG in Series 2 is called a rookie card by everyone - because it fits the definition to a tee. A card in Series 1 leaves some people believing that only it should be a RC. I don't really have a problem with either argument - and it's basically a one off in the history of hockey cards, so I don't think it's actually that important to be right. Just get an OPC Premier or Pankhurst, and be sure you picked up the right one

I did mention Palffy earlier too - and his card muddies the waters even more. Same issue as Lidstrom, but they're both in Series 1. Again... I think you can argue that BOTH are rookie cards... and it doesn't really matter. The list of players with multiple rookie cards in the same set, is fewer than 10.

Since there are so many opinions on what is acceptable, or even 'correct' with RC, why doesn't the industry or even Beckett just lay down the law once and for all to keep everything in line, and reflect that in the values? They might have tried, but apparently, it's still happening:

Beckett - to some degree - has tried to dictate what a rookie card is. Some follow their definition, some don't.

For the 90s, and most of the 00's, a rookie card had to meet this criteria:

- NHL Licensed set
- First year that the player had cards in an NHL licensed set
- Must be part of the base set (i.e. NOT parallels or inserts)
- Must be from a widely distributed set (i.e. not regionally distributed, not mail order)
- Must have at least 99 copies

For years, the early 00's Titanium RCs #ed to a player's jersey # - They were not recognized by Beckett as RCs... those most collectors I ever talked to did recognize them as such. When Panini brought back the jersey #ing in Titanium, and Upper Deck followed suit doing it in SPGU - Beckett dropped that requirement... and I'm pretty sure changed the old Pacific stuff to read as RCs too.

"Widely Distributed" had always kept cards from sets like McDonald's (now Tim Horton's), Update Box Sets, Walmart Exclusive Ovation from being called "Rookie Cards". The Crosby McDonald's RC changed that. Beckett initially didn't call it a Rookie Card, and people were mad. I suspect a lot of that had to do with the fact that people wanted to own a Crosby RC, and spend $10 or less on it... but the hobby said it's a RC, so Beckett tagged it as such. Other McDonald's cards - that would otherwise qualify as a RC - are also tagged as RC now. I assume this is true of Tim Horton's cards too.

Out of curiosity, why is the first Crosby McDonalds card getting a push to make it the more valuable rookie card, instead of his YG rookie card? Is it because the McD card came out first to the market?

Is having a set come 'first to the market' a reasonable solution to what should be considered the most valuable 'rookie' card, be it a McDonalds card, etc.? Or even if it's an insert? And it shouldn't matter if the 'first to market' set is low end, or high end...it's whoever is first to distribute.

This is the first I've ever heard that someone thinks the McDonalds card should be considered more valuable. *IF* you place any value on the first one to be released... then yes, that's McDonalds, but that might be a reason to own it over a Victory or MVP rookie, not the YG.

There's probably something like 25k YGs in circulation, and 250k McDonald's cards.

Actually, I'm surprised Beckett doesn't list distribution/street dates of sets in their pricing books. Is there a sportscard website that gives this information? I couldn't find anything online.

Either way, I'm sure all of the "rules" will continue to get broken, as proven by posters in this thread. And we'll always need Beckett to tell us what's best to grab, and what we should dismiss (value-wise, of course).

I don't think licensed manufacturers can keep track of their own distribution dates these days... nor stick by them. You'll read "October 3rd" as a release day, then read about a delay, and when it finally drops on October 24 - no product info is ever updated. I think this would be very tough info for Beckett to keep track of (accurately). Granted, they could just start tracking it "today" and have accurate info going forward.

I suspect they don't worry about it, because few people care. Release dates don't matter much. We'll have four or five 18-19 releases out before the final 17-18 release.

 

[zackmak]

Thanks 30ranfordfan for the further breakdown of those areas I touched on. The more info on something, the better I can make informed decisions and perceptions.

So, I guess if McDonalds, and Tim Horton cards can now have the 'RC' attached to them, I guess that would also apply to some of those UD, Pinnacle (and other NHL licensed companies) cards that were distributed on the back panels of cereal boxes, Kraft mac n' cheese boxes, Jello boxes, under the lids of Kraft peanut butter lids, etc.

Just like the McDonalds cards having way more circulation than mainstream card set releases, I would imagine the same can be said for the above 'mass produced' products. But like you implied, there's a 'value' ranking for all rookie cards of the same player, so those 'food' product cards would never out-rank the standard release stuff. And it's up to the collector to do their homework and see what the market thinks of each release.

Another unknown, though: How does Beckett create the values of every card? Do they expect shop owners to notify them up and tell them what's 'hot' and 'cold', and what people have been paying for each popular card? Does Beckett send out a survey to card sellers across North America? How big a sample size does Beckett need to finally say they have a good idea of value? Does Beckett go off Ebay completed sales, nowadays? When McDavid YG came out, did Beckett just put up a random number for his value, to start...and who tells them what's appropriate, or that it should be $50 vs. $55 vs $60?

Clearly, Beckett steers the market, no? If they come out and say a Parkhurst rookie from the 90's is more valuable than the UD version of the same year, won't collector's focus on getting the Parkhurst rookie?

Also, I know Leaf/In The Game did not/does not have a licence to produce NHL cards...but did they have an exclusive license to produce CHL/minor league/international cards, while Upper Deck did not? I see ITG having all these pre-draft cards (memorabilia included) of Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid. etc....but no other company did these. Does it have to do with that whole 'Score-Lindros exclusivity thing from 1989+', and since then the NHL doesn't allow licensed companies to produce those type of cards WITHIN their NHL set? But what if it's a separate set that covers junior players? One would think UD would have jumped at the chance to cover Crosby, etc. from the junior years. I would think Leaf/ITG made some good money from those cards, of those players just because they are so exceptional, and they were the only ones that had memorabilia cards of them.

Though, now that I remember, UD did make a 1999-00 set called 'Prospects' which was in partnership with the CHL, since it only showed players in their junior team jerseys.

That Prospects set also had a retro Gretzky (card #1) from when he played for the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, yet the card shows him with a blank jersey. If UD had the CHL license - and they had Gretzky exclusively, also - why did they airbrush the Greyhounds logo out?

 

[30ranfordfan]

Thanks 30ranfordfan for the further breakdown of those areas I touched on. The more info on something, the better I can make informed decisions and perceptions.

So, I guess if McDonalds, and Tim Horton cards can now have the 'RC' attached to them, I guess that would also apply to some of those UD, Pinnacle (and other NHL licensed companies) cards that were distributed on the back panels of cereal boxes, Kraft mac n' cheese boxes, Jello boxes, under the lids of Kraft peanut butter lids, etc.

I can follow your logic there, but I think there's a big difference between something like Kraft Dinner, and Tim Horton's cards. One is a pack, one is the back of a box. One you MUST buy food with, the other is simply cheaper if you buy food. They also differ from boxsets, so something like Ovation (at least I don't think so) has never been regarded as a RC either.

As far as I know - Most consider McDonalds and/or Tim Horton's cards (that otherwise fit the definition) to be RCs, but the rest, they do not.

Just like the McDonalds cards having way more circulation than mainstream card set releases, I would imagine the same can be said for the above 'mass produced' products. But like you implied, there's a 'value' ranking for all rookie cards of the same player, so those 'food' product cards would never out-rank the standard release stuff. And it's up to the collector to do their homework and see what the market thinks of each release.

Yeah, I don't think "who" released them is the important thing. It's not even a quantity thing that makes one absolutely more valuable than the other.... but desirability. More desirable = more valuable. Often rarity will factor into that.... hence why 90-91 OPC Premier get a bump in value vs UD... but in 91-92 when they're not nearly as rare, they don't.

Another unknown, though: How does Beckett create the values of every card? Do they expect shop owners to notify them up and tell them what's 'hot' and 'cold', and what people have been paying for each popular card? Does Beckett send out a survey to card sellers across North America? How big a sample size does Beckett need to finally say they have a good idea of value? Does Beckett go off Ebay completed sales, nowadays? When McDavid YG came out, did Beckett just put up a random number for his value, to start...and who tells them what's appropriate, or that it should be $50 vs. $55 vs $60?

I'm reasonably certain Beckett just uses a formula, with some input from actual sales data. Why a card is worth $50, and not $55 or $60? Because similar cards of similar players sold for $50. If an Eichel YG books for $X, and I estimate that McDavid will be twice as in demand, it books for $2X, if I think Matthews will be about 50% more demand it books for $1.5X, etc.

Clearly, Beckett steers the market, no? If they come out and say a Parkhurst rookie from the 90's is more valuable than the UD version of the same year, won't collector's focus on getting the Parkhurst rookie?

I doubt it. I think such a small percentage of collectors actually treat Beckett with much seriousness anymore. If they told me that a 91-92 UD Lidstrom was worth $5, and the Parkhurst was worth $10: Honestly, I'm still just going to pick up the one I like better.

Also, I know Leaf/In The Game did not/does not have a licence to produce NHL cards...but did they have an exclusive license to produce CHL/minor league/international cards, while Upper Deck did not? I see ITG having all these pre-draft cards (memorabilia included) of Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid. etc....but no other company did these. Does it have to do with that whole 'Score-Lindros exclusivity thing from 1989+', and since then the NHL doesn't allow licensed companies to produce those type of cards WITHIN their NHL set? But what if it's a separate set that covers junior players? One would think UD would have jumped at the chance to cover Crosby, etc. from the junior years. I would think Leaf/ITG made some good money from those cards, of those players just because they are so exceptional, and they were the only ones that had memorabilia cards of them.



Though, now that I remember, UD did make a 1999-00 set called 'Prospects' which was in partnership with the CHL, since it only showed players in their junior team jerseys.

That Prospects set also had a retro Gretzky (card #1) from when he played for the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, yet the card shows him with a blank jersey. If UD had the CHL license - and they had Gretzky exclusively, also - why did they airbrush the Greyhounds logo out?

Yeah, so ITG & Leaf have both done lots of Junior cards, with autos & memorabilia (though UD has gotten into it now too). Why didn't UD? Well, I think for the same reason that ITG stopped making licensed NHL cards: They didn't have a license.

Once upon a time, UD did have a license with them (of some kind). With national federations too - hence the inclusion of lots of WJC cards in the 90s.

Looking at stuff from the 00's (and 10's). McDavid jerseys /autos (and Crosby) from sets like ITG Heroes & Prospects, still sell very well.... and for sure, ITG sold stuff like crazy those years, as they had a jump on UD for making cards of those players.

The important thing there, is NHL licensed sets. If that Score Lindros rookie in 90-91 existed... but as part of an OHL (or CHL) set - it wouldn't be a rookie card; it's a rookie card because it's in an NHL licensed set, despite being shown as a member of the Generals. Same thing with all the WJC & POE rookie cards from most the 90s. Look at the checklist for 96-97 UD. There are "star rookies" (this was during the time when UD didn't actually make cards called "Young Guns") that includes guys like Steve Sullivan.... there are base cards that are also RCs (just no special label) like Mike Greir... and then there are program of excellence cards, with the likes of Joe Thornton & Patrick Marleau: Showing them as members of Team Canada, when they were 17.

Today - there is no reason that UD can't include a card of a guy wearing a Team Canada jersey, or even his OHL sweater (they do have that license) but they can ONLY include him if he's a member of the NHLPA (or alumni) if they're putting them into an NHL licensed set. 17 years old, and not in the PA yet? Can't be part of an NHL set anymore.

 

[MR.M's Cards]

With the exception of crosby, I wouldnt think mcdonalds or tim hortons would have any rookies due to the fact the cards come out before the season starts and therefore access to rookies is pretty much non existent. Holdovers from the previous season likely wouldnt make the cut for these sets checklists.

 

[30ranfordfan]

I think that is true of Tim Horton's, but McDonalds (if I remember correctly) were mid-season releases (I want to say January).

In addition to Crosby.... I want to say Peter Sejna, Matt Stajan, Vaclav Prospal, and Robbie Schremp all have "McDonald's Rookie Cards".

I feel like there might have been another.

You're right though. If the Tim Horton's set included a player like Casey Middlestat - it would be considered a RC... but Tim Horton's isn't a deep enough set to include holdover rookies. If the release date was pushed back a few months - I'd expect that a top rookie (or two, or three) would get included.

With the exception of crosby, I wouldnt think mcdonalds or tim hortons would have any rookies due to the fact the cards come out before the season starts and therefore access to rookies is pretty much non existent. Holdovers from the previous season likely wouldnt make the cut for these sets checklists.

 

[zackmak]

Some great food for thought from everyone that contributed to this thread. Thank you!

Today - there is no reason that UD can't include a card of a guy wearing a Team Canada jersey, or even his OHL sweater (they do have that license) but they can ONLY include him if he's a member of the NHLPA (or alumni) if they're putting them into an NHL licensed set. 17 years old, and not in the PA yet? Can't be part of an NHL set anymore.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that rule apply to the Gretzky Greyhounds-logo-missing card in the 1999-00 UD Prospects set, (while all the other junior players show their full jerseys). Or is this just a one-off oddity unexplained?

 

[MR.M's Cards]

I collected Mcdonald's from 2005 on, never considered their earlier releases like the various pacific sets. From 2005 on they were released pre xmas for sure as I always got a ton for xmas, although in some cases after the season started if schremp got in the crosby was a late addition to the set and not on the original checklist until after he played his first game

I think that is true of Tim Horton's, but McDonalds (if I remember correctly) were mid-season releases (I want to say January).

In addition to Crosby.... I want to say Peter Sejna, Matt Stajan, Vaclav Prospal, and Robbie Schremp all have "McDonald's Rookie Cards".

I feel like there might have been another.

You're right though. If the Tim Horton's set included a player like Casey Middlestat - it would be considered a RC... but Tim Horton's isn't a deep enough set to include holdover rookies. If the release date was pushed back a few months - I'd expect that a top rookie (or two, or three) would get included.

 

[30ranfordfan]

Some great food for thought from everyone that contributed to this thread. Thank you!



Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that rule apply to the Gretzky Greyhounds-logo-missing card in the 1999-00 UD Prospects set, (while all the other junior players show their full jerseys). Or is this just a one-off oddity unexplained?

I have no explaination for that one.

 

[30ranfordfan]

I collected Mcdonald's from 2005 on, never considered their earlier releases like the various pacific sets. From 2005 on they were released pre xmas for sure as I always got a ton for xmas, although in some cases after the season started if schremp got in the crosby was a late addition to the set and not on the original checklist until after he played his first game

Yeah, I think you're right about the pre-Xmas release... come to think of it, the McDonalds Crosby RC was the first Crosby RC on the market (which was pointed out earlier in this thread).

I might have missed another name or two, but I'm pretty sure it was a just a few Pacific cards... plus Crosby and Schremp from UD.