PSA Hockey Hall of Fame Rookie Card Set Registry question

sportscardtheory

http://www.psacard.com/PSASETREGISTRY/Composite.aspx?c=4276

http://www.psacard.com/PSASETREGISTRY/SetComposition.aspx?c=5961

Why is a current or future HOFer's best rookie card not used in these sets? For example, Teemu Selanne's best RC is the 1991-92 Upper Deck French, not the regular Upper Deck, Nicklas Lidstrom's best RC is either the 1991-92 Pinnacle French or the 1991-92 Parkhurst French, NOT the 1991-92 Upper Deck (which there is a French version of as well). I just don't get it. It seems like they always just use the player's Upper Deck rookie no matter what. These Registry Sets are supposed to the player's BEST POSSIBLE rookie card, not just an Upper Deck American RC if they have one. No consistency here at all. What gives?

ThoseBackPages

They tend to use "Basic Set" cards when selecting cards for these sets.

"French" cards are a parallel to the Basic UD issue.

sportscardtheory

<< <i>They tend to use "Basic Set" cards when selecting cards for these sets.

"French" cards are a parallel to the Basic UD issue. >>



They are not parallels though. They are issued just as OPC cards are, in packs. Why use OPC and Score Canadian but not the Upper Deck/Pinnacle/Parkhurst/Score/Pro Set equivalent if needed? They use the 1990-91 Score Canadian as Brodeur's best RC. No consistency there. And that still doesn't explain using one of Lidstrom's worst RCs instead of the ones that are much more valuable and tougher to find, even in American versions.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>

<< <i>They tend to use "Basic Set" cards when selecting cards for these sets.

"French" cards are a parallel to the Basic UD issue. >>



They are not parallels though. They are issued just as OPC cards are, in packs. And that still doesn't explain using one of Lidstrom's worst RCs instead of the ones that are much more valuable and tougher to find. >>



i hear what you're saying. its a vicious pool that Registry Set People swim in. if you would like a "why's that?" question, take Baseball for example... O-Pee-Chee Baseball is not part of any Basic Players Set, but 1985,86,87 and 88 Leaf ARE part of the Players Basic Set.

sorry, but i have to laugh at "Valuable and tougher to find" when it comes to any UD release

sportscardtheory

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>They tend to use "Basic Set" cards when selecting cards for these sets.

"French" cards are a parallel to the Basic UD issue. >>



They are not parallels though. They are issued just as OPC cards are, in packs. And that still doesn't explain using one of Lidstrom's worst RCs instead of the ones that are much more valuable and tougher to find. >>



i hear what you're saying. its a vicious pool that Registry Set People swim in. if you would like a "why's that?" question, take Baseball for example... O-Pee-Chee Baseball is not part of any Basic Players Set, but 1985,86,87 and 88 Leaf ARE part of the Players Basic Set.

sorry, but i have to laugh at "Valuable and tougher to find" when it comes to any UD release >>



Try finding Lidstrom's 1991-92 Pinnacle French, Parkhurst French and even Upper Deck French versions as compared to the regular Upper Deck RC. It's not even close. There were only 5,000 cases made of 1991-92 Parkhurst French. That should be a $20+ Lidstrom RC. It's EXTREMELY rare compared to the millions of Upper Deck RCs he has out there.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>Try finding 1991-92 Pinnacle French, Parkhurst French and even Upper Deck French versions as compared to the regular Upper Deck RC. It's not even close. There were only 5,000 cases made of 1991-92 Parkhurst French. That should be a $20+ Lidstrom RC. It's EXTREMELY rare compared to the millions of Upper Deck RCs he has out there. >>



you and i both know that there were more then that produced.

i agree with what you are saying when you started this thread, just shedding light on to why it is the way it is.

sportscardtheory

<< <i>

<< <i>Try finding 1991-92 Pinnacle French, Parkhurst French and even Upper Deck French versions as compared to the regular Upper Deck RC. It's not even close. There were only 5,000 cases made of 1991-92 Parkhurst French. That should be a $20+ Lidstrom RC. It's EXTREMELY rare compared to the millions of Upper Deck RCs he has out there. >>



you and i both know that there were more then that produced.

i agree with what you are saying when you started this thread, just shedding light on to why it is the way it is. >>



Of 1991-92 Parkhurst French? I doubt it. Even singles are few and far between. Besides, it was a stated production number. It's even stated as such in the big Beckett. Try finding a 1991-92 Parkhurst French Lidstrom RC as compared to his regular Upper Deck American RC. It's like a 1,000 to 1.

ThoseBackPages

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Try finding 1991-92 Pinnacle French, Parkhurst French and even Upper Deck French versions as compared to the regular Upper Deck RC. It's not even close. There were only 5,000 cases made of 1991-92 Parkhurst French. That should be a $20+ Lidstrom RC. It's EXTREMELY rare compared to the millions of Upper Deck RCs he has out there. >>



you and i both know that there were more then that produced.

i agree with what you are saying when you started this thread, just shedding light on to why it is the way it is. >>



Of 1991-92 Parkhurst French? I doubt it. Even singles are few and far between. Besides, it was a stated production number. It's even stated as such in the big Beckett. Try finding a 1991-92 Parkhurst French Lidstrom RC as compared to his regular Upper Deck RC. It's like a 1,000 to 1. >>



You have more faith in stated numbers then i do, obviously.

i would not doubt that his UD outnumbers the Pinnacle French at 1000:1 but keep in mind, enough people have to care that that is the case for it to make a difference.

O-Pee-Chee Baseball was printed at about 5% the amount that it's Topps counterpart, but not many seem to care. Throw into that mix that non-sheet cut Gems are a true PITA to obtain, and that makes even less people care about them (and to me, THAT is the reason that they are not included in Basic Sets)

sportscardtheory

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Try finding 1991-92 Pinnacle French, Parkhurst French and even Upper Deck French versions as compared to the regular Upper Deck RC. It's not even close. There were only 5,000 cases made of 1991-92 Parkhurst French. That should be a $20+ Lidstrom RC. It's EXTREMELY rare compared to the millions of Upper Deck RCs he has out there. >>



you and i both know that there were more then that produced.

i agree with what you are saying when you started this thread, just shedding light on to why it is the way it is. >>



Of 1991-92 Parkhurst French? I doubt it. Even singles are few and far between. Besides, it was a stated production number. It's even stated as such in the big Beckett. Try finding a 1991-92 Parkhurst French Lidstrom RC as compared to his regular Upper Deck RC. It's like a 1,000 to 1. >>



You have more faith in stated numbers then i do, obviously.

i would not doubt that his UD outnumbers the Pinnacle French at 1000:1 but keep in mind, enough people have to care that that is the case for it to make a difference.

O-Pee-Chee Baseball was printed at about 5% the amount that it's Topps counterpart, but not many seem to care. Throw into that mix that non-sheet cut Gems are a true PITA to obtain, and that makes even less people care about them (and to me, THAT is the reason that they are not included in Basic Sets) >>



I'm a mass buyer on all the French version's of Lidstrom RCs and the Parkhurst is EASILY his hardest to find RC. The Pinnacle French is very tough too, but easier to find than the Parkhurst French. I know what you are saying though. I just hate inconsistency in the Set Registries. BTW, your Registry sets are awesome. I especially enjoy your Post-war HOF Baseball set. I'm piecing one together, but am only like 95th or something on the registery. Nice job, man! That's a huge amount of value you have there. I hope you have or will have kids to pass those on to. lol