Extended rookie cards? Are they really rookie cards?

[@joshct9426]

I'm happy I found your channel this week. Subscribed after today after I watch three of your older videos. Your channel brings a lot of value to KZbin and the hobby and I appreciate your point of view.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Wow! Thank you so much for the kind words. It's really appreciated. I'm glad you enjoy it!

[@RipFan8]

Hi Bill. This is a very interesting topic and I really like your take on it. Thanks for sharing my friend.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

No problem, Stephen. Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad you found it interesting and hope you enjoyed it.

[@SouthernFriedCards]

Very informative video. I appreciate you sharing. I agree the XRC were always the hardest to get and the ones I was always trying to find.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I usually think the XRCs are the coolest.

[@chrisolivo6591]

Here is a crazy stat I didn’t realize until recently. 1986 Topps Traded is one of the most iconic sets of rookies that defined that era and our childhood. Yet not one of these rookies made the Hall of Fame: Barry Bonds Will Clark Bo Jackson Kevin Mitchell Bobby Bonilla Andres Galarraga Wally Joyner John Kruk Danny Tartabull Todd Worrell

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Great point. I was thinking about that as I was pulling the cards out. How awesome they were and how big some of those rookies were back then and how none of them are in the HOF. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@PickerJimS]

Yup the XRC were from the traded sets from the early to late 80’s that weren’t available in packs. Years ago we considered a players first card his rookie card. XRC is still a rookie card and Beckett still lists them as XRC.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Hey Jim. Beckett still lists them as an XRC? I had no idea it's been years since I've looked at one. In the example of Strawberry, do you consider his 83 Topps Traded and his 84 cards to all be rookies?

[@PickerJimS]

@@billyballgamesportscards this is what I consider a rookie card, some may argue with me: - Legitimate Set Release. - Issued via Pack and/or Factory Set. - 1st time inclusion in a Base Set that contains veterans. - Numbered normally within that Base Set. So to answer your question the 83 Strawberry is his first card(similar to 1st Bowman’s that we see these days) but the 84 is his rookie. With the example of the 85 Topps Mark McGwire that you used I would consider that a rookie card based on the criteria I listed above.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

@PickerJimS Fair enough. It's hard to argue that logic. I also think the traded cards aren't rookies, but they're really cool cards. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jim.

[@doug_sports_collector]

Informative video Bill, thanks for sharing!

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thanks, Doug. Much appreciated, my friend.

[@ken-pr2df]

Interesting topic!! So which cards are considered the rookie cards, the XRC or the following year or both?

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I think usually nowadays both years are considered rookie cards.

[@ken-pr2df]

Thanks for sharing the interesting video!! Enjoy your channel!! Keep up the great content!!

[@billyballgamesportscards]

​@ken-pr2df Many thanks, Ken!

[@Bostnfn]

This is a great video. I remember the '85 McGwire as always being considered his rookie card. I only remember the traded sets having XRC's. When I was younger I remember thinking that the XRC was like a special, more unique rookie card. I think the way that my friends and I defined it was that the XRC was their rookie before their rookie. It made sense as a 4th grader. I still consider both the extended and the next year's base to be rookies for the 80's players. The more the merrier I guess ~Allon

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I could be mistaken about the XRC designation for the 85 McGwire it was always his best card anyway, in my opinion. I usually just end up treating both years like rookies. Even though I still consider one to be an XRC.

[@paper_and_chrome]

Nice discussion. I collected cards in 80s as a kid and everyone around me always treated 85 Topps McGwire USA as the rookie card. So did card shops and their prices reflected it - it was the chase card. The 86 Topps Traded Bonds is now considered his rookie by the overwhelming majority of collectors and rightly so. I believe this has to do with the role Topps Update now plays in the hobby and treating its predecessor, Topps Traded, the same.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I definitely remember 85 being the card for McGwire. I usually want all of them anyway, so it doesn't matter to me. But I almost always thought the XRX was the coolest card. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@junkwax_genius]

Great video! The concept of “Is Rookie/Is NOT Rookie” has been a friendly debate on my channel over the last few weeks, with a particular viewer citing those old Beckett definitions. I have a broader interpretation. I’ve subscribed! Keep the conversation going!

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I always try to approach things from the perspective of it's your money and your collection, do what you want to. Here is the information and my opinion on it. What do you think? That's how I try to approach it. Thanks for watching and subscribing. I subbed to you as well.

[@thedrewavintagelegacy6455]

I remember when the XRC designation came into play and honestly it was too confusing for me and my friends that we basically ignored it. Then again we weren’t necessarily chasing the rookies either but rather just set building from packs and trades. This reminds me of when Beckett started using the term “semi-star” as a collective designation for pricing. Rather than list every player they had the big star individually then either semi-star or common and you go to the back of the magazine to see all the players that were considered to be semi-stars. I hated this at the time but knew it was to save printing space because there were so many sets being produced. The funny thing to me is I never hear anyone mention the term XRC anymore but do hear semi-star all theme and both were made up by Beckett for different reasons. Shows the influence that non card producing companies can have in the hobby.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Great points, Drew. Back then, I was probably not going to be able to get the XRCs anyway. I think because I usually wasn't able to get them, it made me want them more and think they were cooler. I forgot about semi-stars! And unlisted stars! Thanks for watching and commenting, Drew.

[@AfterHoursCollector]

Really interesting topic man. Seems like the market kinda sets what the big “RC” is. Like look at the Mantle.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

You're absolutely right about that, and that's the way it should be. I think all the XRCs are mostly treated like rookies, and I'm fine with that. An 83 Topps Traded Strawberry is the card I would want most of him anyway. But I usually end up wanting them all. Thanks for watching and commenting, Nate.

[@godisgreat8462]

Well done 👍

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thank you sir!

[@thewaxpackdad]

This is a great conversation and right in the middle of my collecting hey-day! It's funny because there are a lot of opinions on this subject. And I guess one might be biased from whatever generation you collect from. My belief is similar to Beckett - the first regular series card that can be found in a pack (that includes 1989 UD update etc). But if you feel like Barry Bonds 86 Topps Update is his "real" RC I'm not going to die on that hill. We all understand there are 2 schools of thought and both have valid arguments for and against. Thanks for the cool topic! I subbed - my channel rips 80's packs and I'm a rookie collector as well.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I consider the 86 Bonds to be an XRC and his rookies from 87. I think they are all cool cards, though, and usually want all of a players rookie cards and their XRCs. Thanks for watching and commenting. I think it's a great topic also. I also subbed to your channel. Thanks again.

[@The_Card_Squad]

Great video. I still see the 87 Bonds, 85 Clemens, etc, as rookies in my mind... because as a 90's kid who read the Beckett they had them listed as the player's rookie card. Nowadays...I feel like I have to have the XRC in order to feel like I have the player's true first mlb company issued card. Awesome video and thoughts.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm with you. I think the XRCs are often the coolest cards and most desirable. I want them, but I don't think they are true rookies.

[@happyblasters9781]

Another great video. Do you have every year Ken Griffey Jr. played? I am doing a Cal Ripken Jr. run. Only missing 3 years all of them are graded.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I wish. I have a lot, but I'm also missing a lot too. Especially from the mid to late 90s. They just put out so many cards back then and had so many inserts.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Congrats on your Ripken run, too, by the way. He was a beast!

[@KollectingKaos]

I remember we used to just say the first card of a player was THE Rookie, and then we would say Topps Rookie, Bowman Rookie, Fleer Rookie, etc.. On a different note, I picked up a digital Microscope because I may want to get some of my cards graded and it's a game changer, cards that I took out of a pack years ago carefully inserted in to penny sleeves and then top loaders show corner and edge damage. out of the fifty cards I looked at today, only 16 might be worth getting graded.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Yep, I remember that, too. The "first" rookie was what we thought was the coolest. I have seen people use those and have thought about picking one up but haven't. I kind of think it's absurd that we have to go to that level. I think if there is a defect that is not detectable with the human eye or maybe magnified 10x like they claim. To me, it's crazy to need to magnify a card 50x or 100x. That's not what grading was meant to be, in my opinion.

[@KollectingKaos]

@@billyballgamesportscards I can go up to 1600x, have not yet found anything worth going that high to look at though. I have one that I can attach to my phone also, took it to a comic shop and pulled it out to examine a comic that I thought looked a little strange, the color touch tat showed was unmistakable and the owner was pissed as he had paid more than he should have for the book and would be lucky to get his cost back out of it now.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

@KollectingKaos it's cool you were able to see that. I'm sure he wasn't happy when he found out, but I'd rather know personally.

[@stevezeppieri]

In my opinion…The “New XRC’s” are now SP’s or SSP’s in regards to RC’s that appear in a Topps flagship before their actual RC release in the following flagship series or update series. They squeeze them in on an extremely limited print run. A.k.a. Shohei in 2018 AND Julio Rodriguez in 2022 Topps series 2 when his RC is in 2022 Topps update series. I have no idea when this stopped or when it became accepted that the XRC from the past are the actual RC’s… but I’m glad it did.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I didn't even think about that with the newer rookie cards. I have no idea why Topps does that. It was the same thing with the Vladimir Guerrero Jr. NNO "short print" in series 2, then all his other rookies in update. He had a lot of different rookies in update, but they are less desirable than his series 2 short print. They are just diluting the rookie cards.

[@stevezeppieri]

@@billyballgamesportscards yes exactly. I forgot about Vladdy. Another perfect example

[@DKsMidLifeCardCrisis]

Perosnally i think its up to collector to determine what fits best in there PC. I have both the XRCs and RC in my collection . I think if your a RC collector from the 80s you need both. For my PC I also have the 87 McGwire as part of my Rookie collection. For my modern Rookie collection I like the first bowmans with the Rookies. 2nd year prospect cards I do not need. Great example would be Aaron Judge. I only keep his 2013 bowman and 2017 rookies. I also want to start adding topps now call up cards

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I pretty much want all their rookies and XRCs myself, but I've always thought the XRCs were the neatest cards. I absolutely agree with you that the collector should pick up the cards they like the most regardless. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@mikefata6692]

Here's a good one for ya. Jim Leyland is the only XRC from a topps traded set who is in the HOF. Also, that makes his 87 Topps an RC.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Haha 😄 that's a great point. He'll be the most valuable card in the set now!

[@bralspight265]

Tim Raines '81? @@billyballgamesportscards

[@Redneckclector]

I would say the market dictates the definition more than Beckett does and the market favors the XRC. When I was growing up the XRC were worth a lot more then too.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Without a doubt, the XRCs have always been worth more. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@samhiniang8590]

I love the minor leagues cards more then the XRC and RC cards, because there were less of them and they are just a nice portrait of the players. For example: 80 Ripken, 86 Randy Johnson, 87 Griffey...etc. However, I've always been set on accumulating HOF players from their RC year and everything back. But cards manufacturers got them chasing 1of1's and parallels of players in their 10th-20th year because they were printed on special cardboards with special ink. LOL

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I remember when they started selling packs of minor league cards. I always thought minor league cards were cool, but pulling them in packs and Kass producing them made them lose luster for me. The older ones like you mentioned are way cool. Those are great cards to me they weren't mass produced and are way harder to find. Great point. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@mikekeeler6362]

Different companies they get to put out their own rookie card so that's why you have rookie cards in different years of that player Mark McGwire 1985 Topps but he also had it in 87 Fleer and 1987 Donruss is rookie card

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I have always considered 87s to be his true rookie cards and 85 to be an XRC even though I think the 85 is his best card. Not that it matters what Beckett says anymore, but they don't have his 86s listed as rookie cards. They consider 85 to be his true rookie.

[@mikekeeler6362]

What do they consider the xrc since it is that players first card I don't think you can dismiss that

[@billyballgamesportscards]

For what player? I really like XRCs and think they are often the players' best card. I definitely don't dismiss them, and I don't think the hobby dismisses them either. They are often a players' most expensive cards.

[@mikekeeler6362]

They do that now I have a 2013 Bowman Chrome Nolan Arenado rookie card but now he also has rookie cards 2010 2011 and 2012 I think the different brands get to put out rookie cards

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I think with Arenado, his true rookie cards are 2013, and everything before that is a prospect card.

[@jon-eriksuermann9844]

If I remember from videos on the @rookiecardspecialist channel some of it has to do with how the cards were distributed. The traded and update sets were not in pack form, and that is a component of the definition.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I know that's what I always thought, too, but a lot of these "XRCs" have started gaining acceptance as rookie cards. It doesn't really matter to me either way. Like I said in the video, I always thought the XRCs were cool. I didn't see them as often. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@mikefata6692]

Yeah, XRC can be confusing for sure. It only applies if that player had no cards in the reg issues from the same year. So the 87 Traded McGriff isn't a rc as he had an 86 donruss. The 86 Traded Canseco isnt an xrc as he had reg issues from 86. But will clark is an xrc from that same 86 traded set as he had no reg issue 86 cards.

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I'm just happy it only happened for a few years!

[@vintagecardssteve8582]

The good old what is a rookie card? My thoughts are pretty much whatever the collector thinks is. Newer cards i never put bowman 1sts as rcs. That i stand by 100%. Lol. Nice RCs. Enjoyed

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Hey, thanks, Steve. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for the support.

[@mikekeeler6362]

But you have Fleer and Donruss who put out their own rookie cards on those players

[@billyballgamesportscards]

For sure. Ken Griffey Jr. for example, has Upper Deck, Bowman, Fleer, Donruss, Topps Traded, and Score Traded. All of them are considered rookie cards. Some even consider his Classic, his Donruss the Rookies, and Donruss Baseball's Best cards to be Rookies also.

[@mikekeeler6362]

It all happens because there are too many card companies making too many different brands if you eliminated everything and just had tops you would only have one rookie card but now players have four five six seven or more rookie cards

[@billyballgamesportscards]

No doubt it has been really crazy for a long time. With the modern stuff, there are so many different cards and parallels that it's really difficult to get them all. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@mikekeeler6362]

Nowadays it's even worse because tops put sound like 25 different sets that means a player can have 25 rookie cards

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I know it's crazy. Another reason I quit collecting the modern stuff. Now, if I really want the rookies of a certain player, I'll just buy them.

[@mikekeeler6362]

@@billyballgamesportscards yeah I just collect vintage you're better off with vintage you know when you get that player's rookie card that's the only one now a player can have 6

[@billyballgamesportscards]

@@mikekeeler6362 without a doubt.

[@Mrdoubtfire23]

And cards is so hard to follow they make crazy virility of them become more like a joke' my next go to is coins and stamps will have more value near future '

[@billyballgamesportscards]

They definitely started making too many sets and too many parallels for sure. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@kennethsalter9998]

....If the card doesn't show their rookie year stats=It should not be a real rookie!! I go after rookie cup cards all the time!! Most RCs today are printed the year -the player was playing before the season is over !! That should be a pre-rookie in my opinion!!

[@billyballgamesportscards]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I respect your opinion for sure. That would seem to me more like a second year card like a lot of the rookie cup cards are. Look at Ken Griffey Jr. for example. All the 89 cards are his rookies, and the backs don't have any major league stats. His 1990s would have his rookie stats on the back like his Topps rookie cup card. I think having their rookie cards be from the year they made their debut in the MLB is fine. Just my opinion, though. Thanks again.

[@kennethsalter9998]

@@billyballgamesportscards We have pre rookies like Bowman first ....they show no stats of the rookie year !! Then we have cards that come out and have a rookie stamp with no stats of the actual season !!! So in order to have a true rookie it should go along with the league qualifying rules of at bats and show the stats that verify they had enough at bats!! Then their would be no more questions 2 what a rookie card is and was!!

[@JamesMunge]

THIS WAS WHEN IT WAS BASICALLY A GOOD TIME HOBBY !! 2002 BEGINS THE ANOLOGICAL PROCESS OF INFLUENCER'S AND GRADE WARS !!?? IT CHANGED, WHEN LITTLE KIDS WERE PUSHED OUT OF A ONCE RESPECTED HOBBY !!??

[@billyballgamesportscards]

I think a lot of kids did get pushed out of the hobby because packs got so expensive. On the flip side of that, though, there are kids out there packing around cards worth huge amounts of money. Thanks for watching and commenting.