Deciding on NFL HOF RC set

JasP24

We have 2 glaring issues remaining for this set before it can get loaded in all its correctedness.

#1- 1950 Topps Felt Backs or 1951 Bowman

#2- USFL Jim Kelly or 1987 Topps Jim Kelly

Everything else is perfect. BJ wants a consensus on it.

My vote is 1951 Bowman and USFL cards, BUT, i am willing to concede my USFL vote in order to keep the 1951 Bowman instead of the Felt Backs. The felt backs are just TOO oddball to be included. Just because Topps made them doesnt make them a regular base card issue. NONE have been graded for HOFer Stautner and Creekmur which proves even more thatthey are not a regular base card. If we use that standard, then the USFL must go as well.

Lets get a decision for BJ tonight.

JasP24

Davemri

I also agree on 1951 Bowman and USFL cards.

dave

NFLHOFCollector

OK Jason, I will concede on the 1950 felts if you concede on the usfl's. Is that settled?

Robert.....

JasP24

Yep, settled. i will e-mail BJ.

JasP24

NFLHOFCollector

cool

JasP24

Talked to BJ, she said she will have the corrected list up and running sometime tomorrow.

Look forward to it,
JasP24

AlanAllen

I still disagree on the feltbacks. EVERY major souce lists those as their rookie cards! Just because they're hard to find is no reason to exclude them. Hell, even PSA does not list the '51 Bowmans as rookies, how can they possibly be included in a rookie card list? We're sitting here trying to decide what the RCs are of these guys, when it's been decided in the hobby for 50 years. I understand the debate on Kelly, but I truly don't understand why there is even an argument on the feltbacks.

Joe

NFLHOFCollector

to me there is no argument. I think the feltbacks are the true rookies, but I want the usfl's to stay out of the NFL's HOF RC set with a passion, so I compromised. I will still collect the felts for myself........

JasP24

The issue I have with the Felt Backs is that they are not a regular base issue card. They are an oddball card. The fact that PSA does not even LIST them in the SMR is enough for me. So beckett does list them, well they also list the USFL cards as well. If we are collecting TRUE rookies, then wouldn't the USFL cards be the TRUE first card of that player?

If we are collecting the FIRST card of a player, then I should hurry out to get Deion Sanders FSU card. It came out BEFORE his 1989 Score and is his FIRST card. If we are collecting the first REGULAR NFL issue card of each HOF player, then it's 1951 Bowman, 1987 Topps and 1989 Score.

Regular base issue NFL cards is what this list consists of. And I just don't see how the Felt Backs fall into that category. Being priced in Beckett means nothing as it pertains to this list.

JasP24

AlanAllen

It's not that they are priced in Beckett, it's that Beckett, SCD, and PSA (by elimination) defines those as their RCs. We are attempting to change their defined RCs, and it's mystifying to me. For some players, as we saw in the other thread, there is considerable disagreement in the hobby over which card is the player's true RC. For Creekmur and Stautner, there is NO disagreement in the hobby, just between a few people on this message board. Every published source recognizes the feltbacks as the RCs. None that I've ever seen recognize the Bowmans as RCs. Like it or not, the feltbacks are considered a mainstream (albeit rare) issue. The 55 Topps All-Americans feature college players and has many recognized RCs. The feltbacks are no different in status, just rarer. My point is we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. For 50 years the feltbacks have been considered Creekmur and Stautner's RCs. We don't have to guess, we don't have to try to figure out a methodology for deciding what an RC is.

We're just going around in circles here so I'll shut my hole

Joe

JasP24

Joe, I definitely see your point. I understand that these cards have been recognized as the "rookie" card of Creekmur and Stautner. I think the definition of "rookie card' is what is in question. Here is the basic definition of what I consider to be a rookie:

The year in which a licensed card producer releases a card that focuses on major-league level sports. This means that I do not consider minor league sets to have rookies, nor are inserts or parallels rookies.

Here is PSA definition:

rookie card
A players first year of cards, whether or not it is his rookie season. Players may have one or dozens of rookie cards, depending on how highly touted he was as a youngster and in which year his rookie card was issued.

If we go by that then we should include the Felt Backs AND the USFL cards.

Here's a great example. What is Tiger Woods Rookie card? Do we just look in a Beckett and see what they have an (R) beside? Is the Sports Illustrated card his rookie? It was the first card produced.

Here's another question:

What exactly is an XRC or Extended Rookie Card?

This term was created to recognize an early card from a player that appeared in a non-traditional set. I believe the Felt Backs as well as the USFL card fall into this category. I don't have a problem including the Felt Backs(an XRC), but we must also include the USFL cards.

The best definition I've seen after doing a little research on it is from the Upper Deck website. Here is their definition.

A rookie card is defined as a debut card of an athlete in a set that is licensed by the governing body of both the actual league and its player's association. I feel that the 1950 Topps Felt Backs do not meet this qualification, nor does the USFL.

I hope we can get the NFL HOF player list up today which is condusive to everyone. I would like to get everyones approval who plans on submitting to this Registry. Me and Robert agreed to disagree, so we came to a compromise. Joe, I hope we can find some common ground as well.

JasP24

AlanAllen

No hard feelings at all bro, I'm just stating my opinion forcefully cuz it's the only way I know how . Take care, and at least we can be happy that ONE of us will get his way .

Joe

JasP24

No hard feelings, no way. Debate is what this Board is here for! LOL

Bottom Line, what can we do to compromise this situation? BJ plans on listing this set today, and i would like to have a set that is the best for everyone.

We need a concensus and the only thing I can think of is to vote. I vote 51 Bowman and USFL, BUT I will change my vote to either 51 Bowman NO USFL, or 50 Felts AND USFL.

Let me know where you stand, you were a major contributor to getting this set listed.

JasP24