1991-92 Upper Deck Hockey Forum

Beckett has long decreed that a base card in series two is not a RC...but it should be. Take 2000-01 and 2001-02 Upper Deck NBA as an example. Series 1 has a Star Rookie subset where the players are generally shown in posed photos or Summer League photos. Series 2, they are mixed into the base set, not sequestered in a subset, with action photos from actual NBA games. But because they had a card is series one, these are not considered rookie cards because Beckett said so. How does that make sence? In my personal collection files they get the RC tag, and I prefer having them in my collection because they have actual photos anyway. The first series Star Rookie subset is short printed, although not as bad as the current hockey short printing.

Please see 2015 Topps 616 (issued in Series 2) as an example of a fairly highly collectible series 2 RC.

Additionally, every year there have been multiple series of cards, there have been RCs in each series.

If that was the case, the Nolan Ryan RC wouldn't be. As well as a host of other very notable RCs.

This information about only a series 1 card can be a RC is INCORRECT.

I should have made clear, that it's the same player in both series 1 and 2 that I was referring to. They have multiple base cards in the set.

Alton Ford is probably a bad example to use because his series 2 card is also a posed photo, but I just uploaded both cards this week so I knew they were both scanned. On the left is card #187, on the right is #358. Only the card on the left is considered a RC due to Beckett.

I'm on board even more since it goes against Beckett ............. bring on the multiple RC!! =D