John Smoltz 1988 Fleer Update Glossy his true Rookie card?

[championMan]

Hof Collector told me that the best RC of John Smoltz is 1988 Fleer Update Glossy.

This is the only MLB license card Smoltz release during 1988. In addition, the glossy was less produced than the regular version. But Beckett list 1989 as John RC without (!). I am kind of new to this, what is XRC?

The picture of the card was also Smoltz 1st debut game against the Mets. Did U know his first strikeout was Darryl Strawbery?

 

[Brewer Andy]

XRC is short for "extended rookie card". Back in the days before prospects had cards produced 5 years before they ever debuted that was the distinction Beckett used to denote late season "traded" or box set cards versus rookies that were issued in packs the following season

 

[r2d2]

Like Brewer Andy said, if they had a Topps Traded or Fleer Update before a regular Topps, Donruss or Fleer, they were classified as XRC. Also if we are very picky the glossy wouldn't be considered a RC as it is from a parallel set.

 

[SINFULONE]

Dmitri Young collection.Neat.

 

[DaClyde]

So for modern collectors, isn't the question really just, "What is the most expensive early card of player X?" The issue of what card is their rookie, "true" or otherwise is basically irrelevant in the hobby since the useless RC logo was introduced. Everyone should just be straight about exactly what they're trying to say. Plainly, no one asking the question actually wants the answer here to be Smoltz's 1989 cards because they are absolutely worthless.

 

[smapdi]

There are a surprising number of people who still follow Beckett's rules about what is and isn't a rookie card, and it's confusing and frustrating. Their reasoning was that back in the day, not everyone had access to hobby shops or places where you could obtain the end-of-year rookie/update boxed sets. And for some reason, rather than just saying,"Tough," Beckett labeled those cards as XRCs, and cards from the following year as RCs. So a guy like Barry Bonds had cards from all 3 makers in 1986, they came from something other than a regular pack, so it was his 1987 cards being called Rookie Cards in Beckett, and thence onward to today.

I never heard the term "XRC" till I started getting Beckett back in 1991, and I've never heard anyone use the term seriously in any context other than their pages.

And don't even get me started on the "parallels are not RCs" problem. You can have a Bowman Chrome card, which is a parallel to regular Bowman, and they're both RCs. But the gold foil version of the Bowman, and any refractors of the Bowman Chrome, are not RCs. Going back in time, the Tiffany versions of cards are not RCs in Beckett, because they came in a complete set, and were too limited at 5000 or 10,000 copies, to be considered "True RCs."

 

[BBCgalaxee]

And yet the mlb RC logo is plastered on every kind of refractor.

So THOSE inserts are considered rookie cards but bowman prospects, also considered "inserts" by Beckett, are not rookie cards.

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[fordman]

So, did the HOF inductees just send the price of the 88' traded, rookies and extended sets through the roof or will they still be $5.00 a set at every card show/LCS?

Fordman

 

[Brewer Andy]

Which brings is back to DaClyde's point. We never cared then, and no one cares now.....cards from the first year a player appears on card board in a real or airbrushed major league uniform are the most desirable. Parallels included. Rookie schmookie. Don't know when we made Beckett The Lord of our hobby and jargon.

 

[SINFULONE]

And yet the mlb RC logo is plastered on every kind of refractor.

So THOSE inserts are considered rookie cards but bowman prospects, also considered "inserts" by Beckett, are not rookie cards.

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Haha.

 

[SINFULONE]

So, did the HOF inductees just send the price of the 88' traded, rookies and extended sets through the roof or will they still be $5.00 a set at every card show/LCS?

Fordman

Still $5 a set.

 

[Brewer Andy]

So, did the HOF inductees just send the price of the 88' traded, rookies and extended sets through the roof or will they still be $5.00 a set at every card show/LCS?

Fordman

The HOF spike is a thing of the past. Seems there needs to be actual collectors (end users) and not just prospectors for values to rise and fall more than 5 years after a product's release

 

[fordman]

The HOF spike is a thing of the past. Seems there needs to be actual collectors (end users) and not just prospectors for values to rise and fall more than 5 years after a product's release

I knew they wouldnt spike, I was being facetious with my statement about the '88 sets. I used to have those by the hundreds when I sold out my dealer stock in 1997. Plenty on '88 Fleer update Smoltz's to go around for everyone to have not just one but 100 of them!

Fordman

 

[moxacaine]

Not the glossy version but I chose the 88 fleer for my auto RC pc.

 

[WESTLAKE]

Originally Posted by fordman
So, did the HOF inductees just send the price of the 88' traded, rookies and extended sets through the roof or will they still be $5.00 a set at every card show/LCS?

Fordman



Still $5 a set.



I agree. Everybody knew those guys were going in. Biggio this year or next. Just gives me an opportunity to sell through some cards at current retails.

 

[goobmcnasty]

Like Brewer Andy said, if they had a Topps Traded or Fleer Update before a regular Topps, Donruss or Fleer, they were classified as XRC. Also if we are very picky the glossy wouldn't be considered a RC as it is from a parallel set.

I wouldn't consider it a parrallel set. It wasn't issued as inserts in 88 regular fleer. It is a completely different product... Similar to Bowman/Bowman Chrome.

 

[r2d2]

I wouldn't consider it a parrallel set. It wasn't issued as inserts in 88 regular fleer. It is a completely different product... Similar to Bowman/Bowman Chrome.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I just knew them from checklists and picking singles of Tiffany from Topps products and Glossy from others. No idea how were distributed.

 

[D-Lite]

Dmitri Young collection.Neat.

Dude had a crazy collection. And even after selling it all off he's probably broke today.

 

[DaClyde]

I wouldn't consider it a parrallel set. It wasn't issued as inserts in 88 regular fleer. It is a completely different product... Similar to Bowman/Bowman Chrome.

Sort of, but Bowman and Bowman Chrome were both traditional, pack-issued products. The Topps Tiffany and Fleer Glossy sets were exclusively boxed complete set offerings (like Traded and Update sets), and again, neither were available through tradition retail distribution. Now we seem to need a more refined definition of what constitutes a "parallel" to distinguish it from an "insert" (assuming such a distinction is necessary, in which case just eliminate the term parallel). In either case, inserts weren't considered rookie cards.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Sort of, but Bowman and Bowman Chrome were both traditional, pack-issued products. The Topps Tiffany and Fleer Glossy sets were exclusively boxed complete set offerings (like Traded and Update sets), and again, neither were available through tradition retail distribution. Now we seem to need a more refined definition of what constitutes a "parallel" to distinguish it from an "insert" (assuming such a distinction is necessary, in which case just eliminate the term parallel). In either case, inserts weren't considered rookie cards.

Me personally labeled pack variations as parallels. Anything issued by themselves , was another set to its own.
I consider Tiffany's / Glossies etc RCs. To me I consider RCs to be anything issued first and if that was only I'm set form say (86 Bonds / Clark etc) , then I consider their 87 stuff in that same group. If you have something pack issued in any given year, then any following years items are not RCs.

Ryan