Hey MRI Dave, I have the Hutson scan you wanted to see. I still am to stupid to figure out how to post it here from Photobucket. I did post a nice scan on Net 54 though.
Hey MRIDave, I finally have that Hutson scan you wanted to see, but I am to stupid to figure out how to post it here from Photobucket. Let me know the procedure and I'll do it, and also I have some other HOF scans. I did post a nice one of Baugh to Hutson on Net 54 a little while ago.
<< <i>Hey MRIDave, I finally have that Hutson scan you wanted to see, but I am to stupid to figure out how to post it here from Photobucket. Let me know the procedure and I'll do it, and also I have some other HOF scans. I did post a nice one of Baugh to Hutson on Net 54 a little while ago. >>
VERY nice cards Mac, very nice! Ive been wondering if we would ever get to see that Hutson -10.
PSA using Beckett as a reference. If we liked Beckett, wouldn't we be using their service to grade cards?
Sounds like the same idiotic stuff the company I work for does. Sounds to me like another bad decision made by an executive that has no idea what he is doing.
The whole Beckett price fixing crap has turned so many of us off to them already why would PSA want to be in bed with them?
The whole Beckett price fixing crap has turned so many of us off to them already why would PSA want to be in bed with them? >>
I wondered the same thing. The way I understand it, PSA was having issues with collectors disagreeing on what cards go in the Rookie Card sets. Much like we had right here in this thread. Instead of going through the motions of polling everyone anytime a card change was requested they wanted a source to go by that was cut and dry, end of story, final answer.
Concept is a good one, because for much too long, PSA has changed the rules on what is allowed, what isn't, etc, etc. BUT, and this is a big but, they did not chose a reliable source. Why not use their own POP reports? Why not poll the members collecting the set and let the majority decide? To choose Beckett, which has always been unreliable in identifying, pricing and grading cards to me was not the best choice. I understand why they made it, but like you don't understand why they'd choose Beckett. My best guess is that there aren't any other comparable reference books out there. This one in particular, you just look up a guys last name and it (supposedly) lists all possible rookies for that player.
Anyway, no use in fighting it..Same as change to the half point scale, changes to the Registry format, changes to grading and shipping prices..It is what it is..We can either choose to follow along or we can go our own way.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
If the Cardinals win are you gonna have to have that sig. line for the whole summer?
>>
Actually Tom, thats NOT very funny But it is funny you should ask!
Jasen and I never really talked about that when we did the bet, probably because no one in their wildest dreams would have ever thought that the Cards would be in the dance.
I figure the bet was that whoever won the lowly NFC West div got to put a sig line on the other person, I told Jasen that it would come down when the Cards were out of the playoffs. If they should somehow happen to WIN the super bowl, well, a bets a bet, the sig line Jasen chooses for me, stays up until regular season starts next year.
Jasen did ask if I would post a picture of him wearing just a Cardinals helmet and holding up one of those foam finger thingy's, but what he was pointing the #1 foam finger at was inappropriate (and too small to see)
I havent discussed this with Nike, but Im sure it will be to his liking.
Does anyone have an idea what card we should use for the Seau? I received the email from Gayle, but I am unsure whish card is the most valuable or desirable.
<< <i>Does anyone have an idea what card we should use for the Seau? I received the email from Gayle, but I am unsure whish card is the most valuable or desirable. >>
Vince, I went with the Action Packed R/U. They come from the same set as the Leroy Butler and Shannon Sharpe and seem to be the most valuable. Here are the stats:
Junior Seau
1990 (# 38) Action Packed Rookie Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $19.46
Junior Seau
1990 (# U102) Fleer Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $14.95
Emmitt Smith has the most PSA graded, so shows a larger sampling. HUGE difference..
Emmitt Smith RC
1990 (# 34) Action Packed Rookie Update
PSA 10 avg price $130.01
Emmitt Smith
1990 (# U40) Fleer Update
PSA 10 avg price $28.03
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
This whole issue regarding what constitues a true rookie card is completely retarded. If we (the collectors of the set) want to use a particular card (e.g. Score Supplemental) then let it f'ing be. At what point does collecting become what the collectors want? I have gone through the same issue w/ the Dan Marino master set where PSA has imposed their will upon us - even though EVERY person collecting the set disagreed. The whole issue has disgusted me SO much that I have stopped collecting the set (for now).
Now, we're all stuck w/ the Score Supplemental Seau and Kennedy cards (which weren't cheap by the way) and have to spend more money to buy cards that PSA deems worthy. It many ways, its issues like this that take the wind out of my sails w/ the registry.
Just my two cents.
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Now, we're all stuck w/ the Score Supplemental Seau and Kennedy cards (which weren't cheap by the way) and have to spend more money to buy cards that PSA deems worthy. It many ways, its issues like this that take the wind out of my sails w/ the registry. >>
Assuming mr warner........I won't spell his first name jasen...is a hof'er I know its been said...but one more time for the brain dead....whats the card to have. please not let it be the 1999 score supplemental so I can buy it and then throw it in the common bin.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>Assuming mr warner........I won't spell his first name jasen...is a hof'er I know its been said...but one more time for the brain dead....whats the card to have. please not let it be the 1999 score supplemental so I can buy it and then throw it in the common bin. >>
1999 Pacific #343
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
For anyone interested, I have completed my work on HOF starting lineups from 1950-present. Broken down by Offense and Defense..Here are the teams with the most HOFers in their starting lineups in any given year:
Offense: (5) 1950 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Dante Lavelli Otto Graham Marion Motley (5) 1951 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Dante Lavelli Otto Graham Marion Motley (5) 1954 San Francisco 49ers-Hugh McElhenny Joe Perry YA Tittle Bob St.Clair John H. Johnson (5) 1955 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Mike McCormack Dante Lavelli Otto Graham (5) 1959 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Gene Hickerson Mike McCormack Bobby Mitchell Jim Brown (5) 1960 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg (5) 1961 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg (5) 1961 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker Joe Perry (5) 1962 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg (5) 1962 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker Joe Perry (5) 1964 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey (5) 1965 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey (5) 1966 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey (5) 1971 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell (5) 1972 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell (5) 1973 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell (5) 1973 Miami Dolphins-Larry Little Bob Griese Larry Csonka Paul Warfield Jim Langer (5) 1974 Miami Dolphins-Larry Little Bob Griese Larry Csonka Paul Warfield Jim Langer (5) 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth (5) 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth (5) 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth (5) 1981 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth (5) 1982 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
Defense: (5) 1961 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1962 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1963 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1964 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1965 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1966 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1967 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1968 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (5) 1969 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood (4) 1960 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Emlen Tunnell (4) 1968 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1969 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1970 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1971 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1972 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1973 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1974 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas (4) 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert (4) 1980 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
As you can see, there has never been a team with 6 HOFers in its starting lineup on one side of the ball. I think this hurts the following players chances of ever being elected to the HOF:
Mac Speedie (1950-51 Browns) Billy Wilson (1954 49ers) Jerry Kramer (1960-61 Packers) Bob Kuechenberg (1973-74 Dolphins) Ken Stabler (1973 Raiders) Dave Robinson (1964-69 Packers)
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jason, was that the card we used in the All-Time QB set when Warner was in it? >>
Yep, same card.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Is there any debate over whether or not Warner's Pacific rookie is his most valuable (for registry purposes) rookie card? Sorry if this question has been asked before. I seem to remember someone saying that now only was Warner erroneously placed in the QBs set, but that the wrong card was used. I really have no idea on this one though as I haven't followed Warner's rookie card prices at all.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>Is there any debate over whether or not Warner's Pacific rookie is his most valuable (for registry purposes) rookie card? Sorry if this question has been asked before. I seem to remember someone saying that now only was Warner erroneously placed in the QBs set, but that the wrong card was used. I really have no idea on this one though as I haven't followed Warner's rookie card prices at all. >>
I don't know of any that outsell the Pacific card which runs $100-$125 in PSA 10...I don't rememebr any discussions on any other cards when he was (rightfully) removed from the QB set. Although I think he has become a borderline HOFer with this 3rd Super Bowl, he still doesn't belong anywhere near the All-Time QB set.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
That Pacific card, IMO, is hideous......Probably the worst looking card in our set. It too bad this card can't make the cut (not sure about print run, but doubt its over 1K). Very nice looking card IMO...
That card is autographed, so it's out. Personally, I don't care how ugly a card is, if it's the key rookie, it's the one that belongs in a set. This should never, ever be about personal preference. There are instances where 2 cards of equal value can be used as an either/or, but that's a different story.
Also, my erroneous remark for Warner is that he was in the QBs set way back when, when he didn't belong. He was indeed rightfully removed from it. Although I don't agree that he doesn't belong anywhere near the QBs set now. I think he's getting pretty close actually.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>If you guys are complaining about ugly cards. What about Jim Taylor's Rookie? It is not even him. Now that is ugly. >>
And in a Cardinals uniform to boot! lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That card is autographed, so it's out. Personally, I don't care how ugly a card is, if it's the key rookie, it's the one that belongs in a set. This should never, ever be about personal preference. There are instances where 2 cards of equal value can be used as an either/or, but that's a different story.
Also, my erroneous remark for Warner is that he was in the QBs set way back when, when he didn't belong. He was indeed rightfully removed from it. Although I don't agree that he doesn't belong anywhere near the QBs set now. I think he's getting pretty close actually. >>
Absolutely agree. The best wya, and really the only way, we've been successful in deciding these debates over card preference is to use most valuable. That takes the guyess work out. At least until you have cards that are equal in value as you stated.
Looking at the All-Time QB set, if I had to rank the 3 closest ACTIVE QBs to warrant addition, it would be:
Warner McNabb Brees
That being said, all 3 still need significant additions to their career resumes before I would vote for them. I mean, there are HOF QBs who aren't even on the set...
Dutch Clark Benny Friedman Ace Parker Bob Waterfield
So, to me, this set has a higher standard to where these are almost first ballot HOF kinda guys...You look at the HOFers on the set, and the guy who took the longest to elect was Len Dawson (waited 7 years)..The 4 HOFers above Parker and Freidman got in as Senior Candidates. Clark and Waterfield both got in fairly quickly and IMO should probably be listed on the set. Although all 4 played mostly in the pre-modern era, which QBs didn't pass much and are hard to judge as QBs we know of today. Favre, Manning and Brady are all first ballot guys as well.
The wildcard in the set is Ken Stabler. Now that he will be moving to the Senior candidate pool, I honestly don't think he belongs anymore. Had he made the HOF as a modern candidate, then yes I think he should stay. But if we are going to have Stabler, than there is a precedent to add all of the 4 above as well as go ahead and add Warner.
I DO NOT like to see cards removed from sets like this though. The card has been on the set for 6+ years now, and right or wrong shouldn't be removed. But having him listed DOES open the possibilty of QBs who maybe aren't all-time greats being added in the future.
Of course, in the end, the collectors of the set would make the final call on what gets added.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
----The politicking is going on hard for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's 17 finalists. As one of the 44 voters, I'm getting e-mailed and pushed hard for many candidates. One of the interesting first-timers we'll take a long look at is defensive tackle Cortez Kennedy, a great player on some bad Seattle teams; he was defensive player of the year in 1992 (amazing, considering the Seahawks were 2-14) and made eight Pro Bowls in 11 years. I've always thought of him as Warren Sapp with much better run-playing ability.
"He's the best player in Seahawks history,'' said longtime Seattle scout and current Saints GM Mickey Loomis. (He might get an argument from the Largent-philes there, but it's close.) "There ought to be a place in the Hall of Fame for the best player in a franchise's history. I think he gets hurt because he wasn't on a lot of great teams, and he didn't play in New York or LA.''
Sometimes the New York thing hurts a player. But in Kennedy's case, I'm happy he'll get his case heard in front of the electors. He deserves it.-----
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That card is autographed, so it's out. Personally, I don't care how ugly a card is, if it's the key rookie, it's the one that belongs in a set. This should never, ever be about personal preference. There are instances where 2 cards of equal value can be used as an either/or, but that's a different story. >>
I guess it depends on who's definition of "key rookie" you want to use. My definition is "Most valuable rookie card". That equates to (IMO) the best rookie card. When I first started collecting (for the second time) in 2000 or so, my goal was to get the "best" rookie card of each player. When talking about my cards to other "non-collectors", I want to say that I have so and so's best rookie. THere's now way you could pull out that Pacific Warner and make that statement. Same goes for just about any player who had a RC after 2000.
I still dont understand the argument that "It has an autograph so I can't go into our set". The way I look at it, that is the reality of the modern card market. Most of the current players have autographs on their "best" rookie cards.
This all goes back to the point that I've made several times "Collect what you want and not what PSA tells you". And Jason's famous line..."That is why there is a HOF rookie set and a HOF players set that you may put any card in" (Sorry if I didn't quote you exactly right but it's in the ballpark)
That being said, I highly doubt that, once these current players within the "rookie card argument" start getting enshrined, I will be adding them to my HOF set. I would much rather own, for example, a SP authentic Ed Reed, a SP authentic LT, a playoff contenders Warner etc..........
You forgot that there is also a HOF RC AUTOGRAPH set..Specifically meant for autographed cards.
I'm also after the "best" rookie card of each player. But I don't and never will believe that autographed/game used/jersey card stuff is any different than any other parallel or insert card. Yes I know some of them are supposed to be "base" set cards, but that's because the idea of what a base set is has disappeared along with the gum in packs...
When you have cards numbered down to 100 or 500 in base sets, I mean they are nothing more than glorified inserts. Even though some (VERY FEW) autographed base set cards have 1,000+, I just don't understand how they differ from the high dollar inserts of the 90's. Those cards are more valuable then the base set cards, and i don't know anyone who's after each guys best "insert" card.. Do we want this set to turn into something unattainable? With cards numbered to 25 or 50, so no way all of us could ever complete the set in any grade? I certainly don't want that.
It all boils down to what each collector believes. Unfortunately, the definition of the "true rookie card" has now been left to Beckett to decide here on the Registry. No doubt in the future, we won't get a vote or any say into what is added to these sets. At least that's the way it seems to be going.
Everyone here is free to collect whatever they want, independent of the Registry. I own quite a few cards that do not have a specific set to be put in. But I also enjoy having a concrete goal/set of specific cards that we as a group can focus on and chase. If that means I have to purchase a card or two that i don't necessarily like or agree with, then I'm ok with that to. Because lets be honest, the amount of debatable cards in the grand scheme of this set (present and future) is very small. 95% of the cases, the "best" rookies are cut and dry. The worst thing PSA could do IMO is to make a bunch of either/or selections on the set. I much rather prefer ONE specific card for each player.
S owhen i tell someone I have a complete collection of HOF RC's of each player, they don;t have to take my word for it, because the PSA website will tell them for me. It's no different than collecting raw or graded. Some guys prefer raw and there's nothing at all wrong with that. But if a guy with a raw HOF RC collection for sale tells you he has a completely MINT collection, you'd probably want more than just his word to tell you so. And again, that's where PSA comes in. There really is no other use other than to provide third party opinion on your cards AND your sets.
If you don't want, value or need that third party authentication of not only your grades, but also your set completion, then you're probably wasting your time on the wrong message board. My advice would be to simply not use PSA's service or Registry.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Not sure where you see the HOF RC auto set. There is an HOF auto set. Any auto'd card allowed. Kinda like the plan HOF set that is out there. >>
That's the one I am talking about. My mistake, the HOF autograph player set. Which is meant specifically for autographed cards.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That Pacific card, IMO, is hideous......Probably the worst looking card in our set. It too bad this card can't make the cut (not sure about print run, but doubt its over 1K). Very nice looking card IMO...
>>
1999 Bowman's Best #110 Kurt Warner RC $10.00 1999 Collector's Edge First Place #201 Kurt Warner RC/ 500 $80.00 1999 Collector's Edge Masters #157 Kurt Warner RC $20.00 1999 Collector's Edge Odyssey #123 Kurt Warner RC $10.00 1999 Crown Royale #116 Kurt Warner RC $15.00 1999 Donruss #188 Kurt Warner RC $12.00 1999 Fleer Focus #40 Kurt Warner RC $8.00 1999 Leaf Rookies and Stars #288 Kurt Warner RC $20.00 1999 Pacific #343 Kurt Warner RC/ T.Horne $12.00 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD #146 Kurt Warner AU/ 1825 RC $200.00 1999 Playoff Momentum SSD #144 Kurt Warner RC $12.00 1999 Score Supplemental #S57 Kurt Warner RC $8.00 1999 SkyBox Molten Metal #93 Kurt Warner RC $10.00 1999 Upper Deck Encore #139 Kurt Warner RC $12.00
Here's what I got from the Beckett site as far as Warner RCs. Looks like, unbelievably, that the Contenders RC is numbered to 1825!
It's not as unbelievable as you might think. Except for the 3 SPs #/500, all of the 2000 SPx auto/jersey rookies are #/2000. IIRC, 1999 SPx auto rookies are #/1999.
<< <i>That's some great info on HOF starters by team Jason. Thanks for sharing it!
Looks like the 1961 and 1962 Green Bay Packers come in at 1st with 10 HOFers starting. Amazing ... >>
Yeah, its pretty crazy..I think they do have the possibilty of getting Kramer in one day and getting to 11..Also the Steelers could still get LC Greenwood in to get to 10..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Was looking through the new PSA rookie card bible that they are going by exclusively and found another possible issue for us...
The USFL cards aren't the only XRC's listed....Check out the 2000 Leaf Rookies and Stars set...Ladanian Tomlinson, Drew Brees, and a score of other big name 2001 rookies have XRCs in the 2000 Leaf R & S set...I could see someone complaining or asking PSA to make a change in the future and I'd venture to bet they wouldn't shoot it down, but rather send a poll.
So what's everyones take on those XRCs?
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Guys, we need to calibrate our card choices on these new cards. I am still trying to justify paying more for a Tom brady RC than I did for a Jim Brown RC PSA 8. While I think Brady is a great QB, Paying more for his card than arguably the best running back ever (50 yr old card - 164 PSa 8 with only 5 higher) doesn't make much sense to me. If Peyton's card keeps going, it will be there as well.
Unfortunately Bill, that's where the modern card business has gone. I'm not sure how we could exclude the SP Authentic Manning and/or Brady RCs..In fact, my guess is PSA wouldn't allow a lesser card of Manning or Brady. Those 2 cards in particular are THE most popular football rookies of the last 10 years. In fact, if memory serves we had discussions here prior to the Manning card being added to the All-Time QB set. The question being would we want individually numbered cards or not. The overwhelming majority said yes to the individually numbered...We've tried, well I have tried I know, to get PSA to agree to a NO LOWER THAN number. Which they have not done. We've also discussed that here with the majority agreeing that /999 was the absolute lowest. So that will eliminate (hopefully) the cards numbered to /500 or /100 or /25, etc...When we put this set together 6 years ago, we voted on the card we would allow and/or not allow. The majority voted to keep the autographed/game used/jersey cards out as well as the oddballs, regional brands, insert cards, etc. and stick with base set issues (minus the autographed base set issues..lol). But as we've seen, the only guarantee is that things will continue to change and morph as we get new collectors with new ideas they want to push. For me, as long as the MAJORITY of set collectors want a specific card, I am fine with whatever that card is. The sets are big enough now that 99.9% of the cases, the majority choice will be a good one.
Frank, I can't profess to knowing anything about these 2000 XRCs. Dave dug up some good info, but I guess the question is, where is the value vs. the 2001 Topps Chrome..Tomlinson specifically...
My personal preference is for the Topps Chrome already in the set. I can't imagine these Leaf sell higher, but I've never tracked them at all. The worst part is, these are friggin redemption cards..But since Beckett has decided to call them XRC's and list them in their idiotic rookie card encyclopedia, PSA WILL recognize these as possible rookies for the HOF RC set once Tomlinson or anyone else from the set are elected.
Next week, I am going to try and get the Modern and Senior sets linked up a little better with the HOF RC set. When we first put those sets together and I submitted to Cosetta, I explained exactly what the purpose was. For these sets to ALREADY IDENTIFY the cards that will be added to the HOF RC set. When the Class of 2009 is announced, there should be no vote, no poll, it should be seamlessly deleting the new members cards from the Modern and/or Senior sets and adding that exact card to the HOF RC set. That was the intent of creating those sets. But being told that a card (Seau) that was on the modern set would not be eligible for the HOF RC set went totally against that intent. That shouldn't even be an option. I even wrote that EXACTLY on the Set write ups:
"As these players are elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, their card will be deleted from this Registry set and added directly to the NFL Hall of Fame Rookie Players set."
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Do you think PSA will move to a model whereby any rc can be added for modern cards? My greatest fear is that PSA will come implement an idiot rule wherby any of the top 5 cards for sale Ben Roethensberger (sp?) can be added to the future HOF / HOF set. I hate the fact that the magic cards are acceptable for Creekmur and Stautner and think it sets a very bad precedent going forward.
To address another discussion thread, I wouldn't mind if an autographed rookie card is added to the HOF rc set. Personally, I want the BEST rc of each player...and it's hard to deny that SP Authentic has been the top set for the past 10+ years. As much as old time collector's may not like autographed rookie cards, it is what the hobby has moved towards since 2001.
The unintended consequence of shunning the best rc's of certain players (which are autographed) is that it leads us down the path of subjectivity when trying to determine the best "non-autographed" card to be added.
Rgs.
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Comments
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Hey MRIDave, I finally have that Hutson scan you wanted to see, but I am to stupid to figure out how to post it here from Photobucket. Let me know the procedure and I'll do it, and also I have some other HOF scans. I did post a nice one of Baugh to Hutson on Net 54 a little while ago. >>
VERY nice cards Mac, very nice! Ive been wondering if we would ever get to see that Hutson -10.
thanks for posting those MRI Dave
joe
If the Cardinals win are you gonna have to have that sig. line for the whole summer?
Sounds like the same idiotic stuff the company I work for does. Sounds to me like another bad decision made by an executive that has no idea what he is doing.
The whole Beckett price fixing crap has turned so many of us off to them already why would PSA want to be in bed with them?
<< <i>
The whole Beckett price fixing crap has turned so many of us off to them already why would PSA want to be in bed with them? >>
I wondered the same thing. The way I understand it, PSA was having issues with collectors disagreeing on what cards go in the Rookie Card sets. Much like we had right here in this thread. Instead of going through the motions of polling everyone anytime a card change was requested they wanted a source to go by that was cut and dry, end of story, final answer.
Concept is a good one, because for much too long, PSA has changed the rules on what is allowed, what isn't, etc, etc. BUT, and this is a big but, they did not chose a reliable source. Why not use their own POP reports? Why not poll the members collecting the set and let the majority decide? To choose Beckett, which has always been unreliable in identifying, pricing and grading cards to me was not the best choice. I understand why they made it, but like you don't understand why they'd choose Beckett. My best guess is that there aren't any other comparable reference books out there. This one in particular, you just look up a guys last name and it (supposedly) lists all possible rookies for that player.
Anyway, no use in fighting it..Same as change to the half point scale, changes to the Registry format, changes to grading and shipping prices..It is what it is..We can either choose to follow along or we can go our own way.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Hey Joe,
If the Cardinals win are you gonna have to have that sig. line for the whole summer?
Actually Tom, thats NOT very funny
Jasen and I never really talked about that when we did the bet, probably because no one in their wildest dreams would have ever thought that the Cards would be in the dance.
I figure the bet was that whoever won the lowly NFC West div got to put a sig line on the other person, I told Jasen that it would come down when the Cards were out of the playoffs. If they should somehow happen to WIN the super bowl, well, a bets a bet, the sig line Jasen chooses for me, stays up until regular season starts next year.
Jasen did ask if I would post a picture of him wearing just a Cardinals helmet and holding up one of those foam finger thingy's, but what he was pointing the #1 foam finger at was inappropriate (and too small to see)
I havent discussed this with Nike, but Im sure it will be to his liking.
joe
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>Sweet. Did you check out the Four Horseman and Jim Thorpe scans on the same Net 54 thread? >>
Yes, very nice.
When are you going to list your set?
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Does anyone have an idea what card we should use for the Seau? I received the email from Gayle, but I am unsure whish card is the most valuable or desirable. >>
Vince, I went with the Action Packed R/U. They come from the same set as the Leroy Butler and Shannon Sharpe and seem to be the most valuable. Here are the stats:
Junior Seau
1990 (# 38) Action Packed Rookie Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $19.46
Junior Seau
1990 (# U102) Fleer Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $14.95
Emmitt Smith has the most PSA graded, so shows a larger sampling. HUGE difference..
Emmitt Smith RC
1990 (# 34) Action Packed Rookie Update
PSA 10 avg price $130.01
Emmitt Smith
1990 (# U40) Fleer Update
PSA 10 avg price $28.03
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Now, we're all stuck w/ the Score Supplemental Seau and Kennedy cards (which weren't cheap by the way) and have to spend more money to buy cards that PSA deems worthy. It many ways, its issues like this that take the wind out of my sails w/ the registry.
Just my two cents.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>Now, we're all stuck w/ the Score Supplemental Seau and Kennedy cards (which weren't cheap by the way) and have to spend more money to buy cards that PSA deems worthy. It many ways, its issues like this that take the wind out of my sails w/ the registry. >>
I know its been said...but one more time for the brain dead....whats the card to have.
please not let it be the 1999 score supplemental so I can buy it and then throw it in the common bin.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>Assuming mr warner........I won't spell his first name jasen...is a hof'er
I know its been said...but one more time for the brain dead....whats the card to have.
please not let it be the 1999 score supplemental so I can buy it and then throw it in the common bin. >>
1999 Pacific #343
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Offense:
(5) 1950 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Dante Lavelli Otto Graham Marion Motley
(5) 1951 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Dante Lavelli Otto Graham Marion Motley
(5) 1954 San Francisco 49ers-Hugh McElhenny Joe Perry YA Tittle Bob St.Clair John H. Johnson
(5) 1955 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Frank Gatski Mike McCormack Dante Lavelli Otto Graham
(5) 1959 Cleveland Browns-Lou Groza Gene Hickerson Mike McCormack Bobby Mitchell Jim Brown
(5) 1960 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg
(5) 1961 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg
(5) 1961 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker Joe Perry
(5) 1962 Green Bay Packers-Jim Ringo Bart Starr Paul Hornung Jim Taylor Forrest Gregg
(5) 1962 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker Joe Perry
(5) 1964 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey
(5) 1965 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey
(5) 1966 Baltimore Colts-Raymond Berry Lenny Moore Johnny Unitas Jim Parker John Mackey
(5) 1971 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell
(5) 1972 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell
(5) 1973 Oakland Raiders-Gene Upshaw Jim Otto Fred Biletnikoff Bob Brown Art Shell
(5) 1973 Miami Dolphins-Larry Little Bob Griese Larry Csonka Paul Warfield Jim Langer
(5) 1974 Miami Dolphins-Larry Little Bob Griese Larry Csonka Paul Warfield Jim Langer
(5) 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
(5) 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
(5) 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
(5) 1981 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
(5) 1982 Pittsburgh Steelers-Mike Webster Lynn Swann Terry Bradshaw Franco Harris John Stallworth
Defense:
(5) 1961 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1962 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1963 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1964 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1965 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1966 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1967 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1968 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(5) 1969 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Herb Adderley Willie Wood
(4) 1960 Green Bay Packers-Henry Jordan Willie Davis Ray Nitschke Emlen Tunnell
(4) 1968 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1969 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1970 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1971 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1972 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1973 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1974 Kansas City Chiefs-Buck Buchanan Bobby Bell Willie Lanier Emmitt Thomas
(4) 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1977 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
(4) 1980 Pittsburgh Steelers-Joe Greene Jack Ham Mel Blount Jack Lambert
As you can see, there has never been a team with 6 HOFers in its starting lineup on one side of the ball. I think this hurts the following players chances of ever being elected to the HOF:
Mac Speedie (1950-51 Browns)
Billy Wilson (1954 49ers)
Jerry Kramer (1960-61 Packers)
Bob Kuechenberg (1973-74 Dolphins)
Ken Stabler (1973 Raiders)
Dave Robinson (1964-69 Packers)
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jason, was that the card we used in the All-Time QB set when Warner was in it?
<< <i>1999 Pacific #343
Jason, was that the card we used in the All-Time QB set when Warner was in it? >>
Yep, same card.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Is there any debate over whether or not Warner's Pacific rookie is his most valuable (for registry purposes) rookie card? Sorry if this question has been asked before. I seem to remember someone saying that now only was Warner erroneously placed in the QBs set, but that the wrong card was used. I really have no idea on this one though as I haven't followed Warner's rookie card prices at all. >>
I don't know of any that outsell the Pacific card which runs $100-$125 in PSA 10...I don't rememebr any discussions on any other cards when he was (rightfully) removed from the QB set. Although I think he has become a borderline HOFer with this 3rd Super Bowl, he still doesn't belong anywhere near the All-Time QB set.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Also, my erroneous remark for Warner is that he was in the QBs set way back when, when he didn't belong. He was indeed rightfully removed from it. Although I don't agree that he doesn't belong anywhere near the QBs set now. I think he's getting pretty close actually.
<< <i>If you guys are complaining about ugly cards. What about Jim Taylor's Rookie? It is not even him. Now that is ugly. >>
And in a Cardinals uniform to boot! lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Latest Auction Prices for: PSA 10 - Average Price: $1,466.65 >>
Thank you very much.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>That card is autographed, so it's out. Personally, I don't care how ugly a card is, if it's the key rookie, it's the one that belongs in a set. This should never, ever be about personal preference. There are instances where 2 cards of equal value can be used as an either/or, but that's a different story.
Also, my erroneous remark for Warner is that he was in the QBs set way back when, when he didn't belong. He was indeed rightfully removed from it. Although I don't agree that he doesn't belong anywhere near the QBs set now. I think he's getting pretty close actually. >>
Absolutely agree. The best wya, and really the only way, we've been successful in deciding these debates over card preference is to use most valuable. That takes the guyess work out. At least until you have cards that are equal in value as you stated.
Looking at the All-Time QB set, if I had to rank the 3 closest ACTIVE QBs to warrant addition, it would be:
Warner
McNabb
Brees
That being said, all 3 still need significant additions to their career resumes before I would vote for them. I mean, there are HOF QBs who aren't even on the set...
Dutch Clark
Benny Friedman
Ace Parker
Bob Waterfield
So, to me, this set has a higher standard to where these are almost first ballot HOF kinda guys...You look at the HOFers on the set, and the guy who took the longest to elect was Len Dawson (waited 7 years)..The 4 HOFers above Parker and Freidman got in as Senior Candidates. Clark and Waterfield both got in fairly quickly and IMO should probably be listed on the set. Although all 4 played mostly in the pre-modern era, which QBs didn't pass much and are hard to judge as QBs we know of today. Favre, Manning and Brady are all first ballot guys as well.
The wildcard in the set is Ken Stabler. Now that he will be moving to the Senior candidate pool, I honestly don't think he belongs anymore. Had he made the HOF as a modern candidate, then yes I think he should stay. But if we are going to have Stabler, than there is a precedent to add all of the 4 above as well as go ahead and add Warner.
I DO NOT like to see cards removed from sets like this though. The card has been on the set for 6+ years now, and right or wrong shouldn't be removed. But having him listed DOES open the possibilty of QBs who maybe aren't all-time greats being added in the future.
Of course, in the end, the collectors of the set would make the final call on what gets added.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
----The politicking is going on hard for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's 17 finalists. As one of the 44 voters, I'm getting e-mailed and pushed hard for many candidates. One of the interesting first-timers we'll take a long look at is defensive tackle Cortez Kennedy, a great player on some bad Seattle teams; he was defensive player of the year in 1992 (amazing, considering the Seahawks were 2-14) and made eight Pro Bowls in 11 years. I've always thought of him as Warren Sapp with much better run-playing ability.
"He's the best player in Seahawks history,'' said longtime Seattle scout and current Saints GM Mickey Loomis. (He might get an argument from the Largent-philes there, but it's close.) "There ought to be a place in the Hall of Fame for the best player in a franchise's history. I think he gets hurt because he wasn't on a lot of great teams, and he didn't play in New York or LA.''
Sometimes the New York thing hurts a player. But in Kennedy's case, I'm happy he'll get his case heard in front of the electors. He deserves it.-----
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That card is autographed, so it's out. Personally, I don't care how ugly a card is, if it's the key rookie, it's the one that belongs in a set. This should never, ever be about personal preference. There are instances where 2 cards of equal value can be used as an either/or, but that's a different story. >>
I guess it depends on who's definition of "key rookie" you want to use. My definition is "Most valuable rookie card". That equates to (IMO) the best rookie card. When I first started collecting (for the second time) in 2000 or so, my goal was to get the "best" rookie card of each player. When talking about my cards to other "non-collectors", I want to say that I have so and so's best rookie. THere's now way you could pull out that Pacific Warner and make that statement. Same goes for just about any player who had a RC after 2000.
I still dont understand the argument that "It has an autograph so I can't go into our set". The way I look at it, that is the reality of the modern card market. Most of the current players have autographs on their "best" rookie cards.
This all goes back to the point that I've made several times "Collect what you want and not what PSA tells you". And Jason's famous line..."That is why there is a HOF rookie set and a HOF players set that you may put any card in" (Sorry if I didn't quote you exactly right but it's in the ballpark)
That being said, I highly doubt that, once these current players within the "rookie card argument" start getting enshrined, I will be adding them to my HOF set. I would much rather own, for example, a SP authentic Ed Reed, a SP authentic LT, a playoff contenders Warner etc..........
I'm done rambling.....LOL...
dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
You forgot that there is also a HOF RC AUTOGRAPH set..Specifically meant for autographed cards.
I'm also after the "best" rookie card of each player. But I don't and never will believe that autographed/game used/jersey card stuff is any different than any other parallel or insert card. Yes I know some of them are supposed to be "base" set cards, but that's because the idea of what a base set is has disappeared along with the gum in packs...
When you have cards numbered down to 100 or 500 in base sets, I mean they are nothing more than glorified inserts. Even though some (VERY FEW) autographed base set cards have 1,000+, I just don't understand how they differ from the high dollar inserts of the 90's. Those cards are more valuable then the base set cards, and i don't know anyone who's after each guys best "insert" card.. Do we want this set to turn into something unattainable? With cards numbered to 25 or 50, so no way all of us could ever complete the set in any grade? I certainly don't want that.
It all boils down to what each collector believes. Unfortunately, the definition of the "true rookie card" has now been left to Beckett to decide here on the Registry. No doubt in the future, we won't get a vote or any say into what is added to these sets. At least that's the way it seems to be going.
Everyone here is free to collect whatever they want, independent of the Registry. I own quite a few cards that do not have a specific set to be put in. But I also enjoy having a concrete goal/set of specific cards that we as a group can focus on and chase. If that means I have to purchase a card or two that i don't necessarily like or agree with, then I'm ok with that to. Because lets be honest, the amount of debatable cards in the grand scheme of this set (present and future) is very small. 95% of the cases, the "best" rookies are cut and dry. The worst thing PSA could do IMO is to make a bunch of either/or selections on the set. I much rather prefer ONE specific card for each player.
S owhen i tell someone I have a complete collection of HOF RC's of each player, they don;t have to take my word for it, because the PSA website will tell them for me. It's no different than collecting raw or graded. Some guys prefer raw and there's nothing at all wrong with that. But if a guy with a raw HOF RC collection for sale tells you he has a completely MINT collection, you'd probably want more than just his word to tell you so. And again, that's where PSA comes in. There really is no other use other than to provide third party opinion on your cards AND your sets.
If you don't want, value or need that third party authentication of not only your grades, but also your set completion, then you're probably wasting your time on the wrong message board. My advice would be to simply not use PSA's service or Registry.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Not sure where you see the HOF RC auto set. There is an HOF auto set. Any auto'd card allowed. Kinda like the plan HOF set that is out there. >>
That's the one I am talking about. My mistake, the HOF autograph player set. Which is meant specifically for autographed cards.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>That Pacific card, IMO, is hideous......Probably the worst looking card in our set. It too bad this card can't make the cut (not sure about print run, but doubt its over 1K). Very nice looking card IMO...
1999 Bowman's Best #110 Kurt Warner RC $10.00
1999 Collector's Edge First Place #201 Kurt Warner RC/ 500 $80.00
1999 Collector's Edge Masters #157 Kurt Warner RC $20.00
1999 Collector's Edge Odyssey #123 Kurt Warner RC $10.00
1999 Crown Royale #116 Kurt Warner RC $15.00
1999 Donruss #188 Kurt Warner RC $12.00
1999 Fleer Focus #40 Kurt Warner RC $8.00
1999 Leaf Rookies and Stars #288 Kurt Warner RC $20.00
1999 Pacific #343 Kurt Warner RC/ T.Horne $12.00
1999 Playoff Contenders SSD #146 Kurt Warner AU/ 1825 RC $200.00
1999 Playoff Momentum SSD #144 Kurt Warner RC $12.00
1999 Score Supplemental #S57 Kurt Warner RC $8.00
1999 SkyBox Molten Metal #93 Kurt Warner RC $10.00
1999 Upper Deck Encore #139 Kurt Warner RC $12.00
Here's what I got from the Beckett site as far as Warner RCs. Looks like, unbelievably, that the Contenders RC is numbered to 1825!
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
That's some great info on HOF starters by team Jason. Thanks for sharing it!
Looks like the 1961 and 1962 Green Bay Packers come in at 1st with 10 HOFers starting. Amazing ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>That's some great info on HOF starters by team Jason. Thanks for sharing it!
Looks like the 1961 and 1962 Green Bay Packers come in at 1st with 10 HOFers starting. Amazing ... >>
Yeah, its pretty crazy..I think they do have the possibilty of getting Kramer in one day and getting to 11..Also the Steelers could still get LC Greenwood in to get to 10..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The USFL cards aren't the only XRC's listed....Check out the 2000 Leaf Rookies and Stars set...Ladanian Tomlinson, Drew Brees, and a score of other big name 2001 rookies have XRCs in the 2000 Leaf R & S set...I could see someone complaining or asking PSA to make a change in the future and I'd venture to bet they wouldn't shoot it down, but rather send a poll.
So what's everyones take on those XRCs?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Link to a LT.........
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Is this really where we want to go?
Frank, I can't profess to knowing anything about these 2000 XRCs. Dave dug up some good info, but I guess the question is, where is the value vs. the 2001 Topps Chrome..Tomlinson specifically...
My personal preference is for the Topps Chrome already in the set. I can't imagine these Leaf sell higher, but I've never tracked them at all. The worst part is, these are friggin redemption cards..But since Beckett has decided to call them XRC's and list them in their idiotic rookie card encyclopedia, PSA WILL recognize these as possible rookies for the HOF RC set once Tomlinson or anyone else from the set are elected.
Next week, I am going to try and get the Modern and Senior sets linked up a little better with the HOF RC set. When we first put those sets together and I submitted to Cosetta, I explained exactly what the purpose was. For these sets to ALREADY IDENTIFY the cards that will be added to the HOF RC set. When the Class of 2009 is announced, there should be no vote, no poll, it should be seamlessly deleting the new members cards from the Modern and/or Senior sets and adding that exact card to the HOF RC set. That was the intent of creating those sets. But being told that a card (Seau) that was on the modern set would not be eligible for the HOF RC set went totally against that intent. That shouldn't even be an option. I even wrote that EXACTLY on the Set write ups:
"As these players are elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, their card will be deleted from this Registry set and added directly to the NFL Hall of Fame Rookie Players set."
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Do you think PSA will move to a model whereby any rc can be added for modern cards? My greatest fear is that PSA will come implement an idiot rule wherby any of the top 5 cards for sale Ben Roethensberger (sp?) can be added to the future HOF / HOF set. I hate the fact that the magic cards are acceptable for Creekmur and Stautner and think it sets a very bad precedent going forward.
To address another discussion thread, I wouldn't mind if an autographed rookie card is added to the HOF rc set. Personally, I want the BEST rc of each player...and it's hard to deny that SP Authentic has been the top set for the past 10+ years. As much as old time collector's may not like autographed rookie cards, it is what the hobby has moved towards since 2001.
The unintended consequence of shunning the best rc's of certain players (which are autographed) is that it leads us down the path of subjectivity when trying to determine the best "non-autographed" card to be added.
Rgs.
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg