The Politics of XRC and RC

mygotta

In light of the recent thread concerning the Jordan Star Card rookie

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=873492

It brought out the XRC factor that Beckett initiated in their guides. When I was younger, I just assumed it meant "Traded Rookie Card". I did not know till recently it actually stood for "Extended".

But what is the significance of making this distinction? A Rookie card is a rookie card, is it not? Personally, I think there should be one rookie card per year, despite the million sets that exist within one year. The first rookie card out should be the first by a particular company. Thats my opinion. But thats neither here nor there.

I have also read that the rookie logo is maintained by the players association and not MLB. Am I understanding this correctly? Which Topps and other companies virtually ignore (from what I read). Anyone have more info on the whys and whats and who's about all this? There seems to be more red tape in something that should relatively be a black and white issue.

digicat

Back in the day, the "XRC" was often applied to cards that were available in "extended" sets like Topps Traded, Fleer Update, Donruss Rookies, and Score Rookie/Traded. Basically, extentions of the normal base set for the year. Additional distinction was made that XRCs were available in factory set format only.

In 1989 when Upper Deck came out with their high-number series, Beckett initially used the XRC to ID all those extra rookies, but shortly there-after, decided to discontinue using the XRC disticntion starting with all the 1989 sets. But, any set prior to 1989 still got to keep the XRC notation.

In 1994 and 2001, Beckett brought back the XRC notation for the 1994 Stadium Club Draft and 2001 Upper Deck Prospect Premiers sets, since at the time of their release they were major league sets featuring ONLY minor leaguers in major league uniforms. So, Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard has an XRC in the 2001 set, but his RC is in a 2003 set. Go figure.

Personally, I prefer the XRC since it's the first card of a player in a major league set.



<< <i>I have also read that the rookie logo is maintained by the players association and not MLB. Am I understanding this correctly? Which Topps and other companies virtually ignore (from what I read). Anyone have more info on the whys and whats and who's about all this? There seems to be more red tape in something that should relatively be a black and white issue. >>



The "rookie card logo" thing started with the 2006 sets, and was a direct result of the MLBPA trying to tell the hobby what to do in a misguided attempt to "fix" the problem of card companies producing gobs and gobs of cards for minor leaguers (who aren't members of the MLBPA). So, the only way a "minor league" player can appear is in an "insert" set. Topps got around it by separating it's Bowman Chrome set into two "sets", a "base set" full of major leaguers, and a Prospects "insert set". Never-mind that the "insert set" is often bigger than the base set! Anyways, apparently creating this separation was a term of maintaining their MLBPA license.

Anyways, Beckett apparently happy to comply, and now only assign "RC" next to a guys name if it's an officially licensed rookie card. Earlier cards get no designation. Beckett explains that they don't recognized "insert cards" to be legitimate rookie cards.

Collectors are always free to do what they want, and the market reflects it with pricing.

However, if you want PSA to put together a registry set for you using rookie cards, they only use Beckett's guidelines.

billwaltonsbeard

Back in the day, the original description of what an 'XRC' vs. 'RC' was an RC was available in packs and XRCs were only available in more limited factory sets. I'm not sure if this is still applicable

digicat

<< <i>I'm not sure if this is still applicable >>



It's not. The 1994 Stadium Club Draft set and the 2001 UD Prospect Premiers set were both issued in pack form.