Blowout Cards Forums
Holiday Madness

Go Back   Blowout Cards Forums > BLOWOUTS HOBBY TALK > RACING, GOLF & OTHER SPORTS

RACING, GOLF & OTHER SPORTS Post your Other Sports Hobby Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2013, 09:23 AM   #51 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Celina, OH
Posts: 156
Default

Unfortunately I do not have that. I have a regular Vader card.
wakigatame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:42 AM   #52 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedlegers View Post
I am new to wrestling cards but have been collecting sports cards since I was a kid. My question is if there is a way to figure out which card is considered the 'rookie' card for wrestlers? I don't think they say on them the way that sports cards do? I know the 1982 set has a bunch of the classics but I'm wondering about current wrestlers as well? Any input is appreciated! Thanks!
We here at WrestlingTradingCards.com believe when determining what is a wrestling rookie card. First and foremost, the card must have been part of a national release. For example the 1985 WWF Topps. This is a national release and in our opinion contains Hogan's rookie card. We would not consider any card from the 1985 WWF OPC Series 2 release a rookie card as it a regional release.

No cards which are released regionally, food premium, mail order, and so on should be considered a rookie card. A card must in our opinion have national exposure via a national release.

Again, this our opinion and I felt it was worth sharing.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 01:56 PM   #53 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

So, you only consider cards from the United States as rookie cards?!?

1985 WWF Topps had national distribution in United States, just as 1985 OPC had national distribution in Canada, and 1985 WWF Scanlens had national distribution in Austrailia and New Zealand.

I would consider cards from all three set to qualify as potential rookie cards.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 02:22 PM   #54 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 266
Default

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere when setting forth the guidelines of what constitutes a wrestling "rookie card", but it seems to me that the national release standard, as placed to wrestling cards, does not correspond with market value--e.g., Hogan 1985 "rookie" vs. 1982 Wrestling All Stars.

No matter the definition, I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the 1985 OPC Series 2 Savage would not be considered his rookie.
__________________
Collecting primarily pre-1980s non-sport, wrestling and regional issue basketball, baseball and football
http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r387/booyahlaw/
booyahlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 03:40 PM   #55 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

I'd condsider 1982 Wrestling All Stars cards to qualify for rookie cards, even though they were distributed by mail-order. Many people refer to this set as a "pure rookie card" set, even though many (well, most) of the wrestlers have earlier cards.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 03:43 PM   #56 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by booyahlaw View Post
I guess you have to draw a line somewhere when setting forth the guidelines of what constitutes a wrestling "rookie card", but it seems to me that the national release standard, as placed to wrestling cards, does not correspond with market value--e.g., Hogan 1985 "rookie" vs. 1982 Wrestling All Stars.

No matter the definition, I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the 1985 OPC Series 2 Savage would not be considered his rookie.
I agree. The OPC Randy Savage is his rookie card.

Does it really matter whether or not a card was printed in Canada and not in the United States? It is still an official licensed card regardless of where it was printed.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 03:57 PM   #57 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

To further clarify...We go with the same logic used to determine baseball rookie cards. Below is an excerpt on how baseball rookie cards are determined. We just apply the same logic to wrestling cards. Keep in mind this is just our opinion & what we believe. This obviously a great debate which will continue for some time.

Rookie Card: For such an important term, rookie cards are surprisingly hard to define. Rookie cards have long been the holy grail of card collecting because of their unique mystique and investment potential. Put simply, rookie cards are the first base cards issued for a player by major brands in the first year that a player appears on a card. By definition, parallels, inserts and sub-set cards can not be considered rookie cards, and are instead often called "rookie year cards." Oddball issues and local issues (such as cards produced by a team or by a regional manufacturer) are not considered rookie cards.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:11 PM   #58 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrestlingcards View Post
Put simply, rookie cards are the first base cards issued for a player by major brands in the first year that a player appears on a card.
Solely applying this part of the definition, explain please how OPC is not a "major brand"? Using the definition, I would agree that Wrestling All Stars could be excluded in theory. However, given the breadth of major sports releases compared to wrestling, I wonder if the same logic should apply--simply put, wrestling doesn't have nearly as much to choose from as the major sports, so it's not really "apples to apples".

That being said, I will take a PSA 9 1982 Wrestling All Stars Hogan over his rookie card in similar condition.
__________________
Collecting primarily pre-1980s non-sport, wrestling and regional issue basketball, baseball and football
http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r387/booyahlaw/
booyahlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:22 PM   #59 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

The term usually used is "Extended rookie card".

"Extended Rookie Card (XRC) - A card released in an extended or limited set outside of the regular issued set of the major company. Most often once a player was drafted and prior to a player's first major league appearance."

Glossary Of Baseball Card Terms

For example, in the case of wrestling, the FCW cards would be considered Extended rookie cards, while Topps' mass produced base cards would be considered "rookie cards".

As for inserts, relics, and auto cards should be refered to as "rookie year" cards.

As for parallels (#'d cards/colored cards/refractors) I'm not sure what the general rule is.

I don't think the country of origin (ie OPC) should be a factor. That's just my opinion.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:23 PM   #60 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

OPC is a subsidiary of Topps...therefore a regional brand exclusive to Canada. I understand a card such as the 1982 All Stars Hogan is valuable, but that doesn't mean it's his rookie card. Its simply a sought after mail order card. Rookie doesn't mean value.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:28 PM   #61 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

This debate will go on for a long time... There is obviously a lot of passion for it as well. We have never actually put anything down in writing on the site because as we can see, it's just not that simple.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 05:56 PM   #62 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 266
Default

Yeah, its a tough issue.
__________________
Collecting primarily pre-1980s non-sport, wrestling and regional issue basketball, baseball and football
http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r387/booyahlaw/
booyahlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:08 PM   #63 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrestlingcards View Post
OPC is a subsidiary of Topps...therefore a regional brand exclusive to Canada. I understand a card such as the 1982 All Stars Hogan is valuable, but that doesn't mean it's his rookie card. Its simply a sought after mail order card. Rookie doesn't mean value.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
O-Pee-Chee is NOT a subsidiary Topps, nor has it ever been owned by Topps.

The similar sets are simply due to Topps licensing its products/designs to them.

O-Pee-Chee was always its own company, until sold to Nestle in 1996.

O-Pee-Chee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:11 PM   #64 (permalink)
Member
 
sjim8660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,542
Default

if the 82 Hogan all star could be found in a wax box would it still be as valuable as it is now? a lot of that debate would depend on the company that released the set. Also we have not seen a whole lot of 85 topps hogans that were 10's (PSA) sell auction style. So we don't have that great of an idea of how much that card could potentially be worth. Wrestling cards are very unique considering they weren't nearly mass produced as baseball cards ect.... I honestly believe we have only seen the tip of the ice burg as far as value goes for wrestling cards. There are tons of rare and ungraded wrestling sets out there who knows what they would bring in high grade.
sjim8660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:12 PM   #65 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrestlingcards View Post
This debate will go on for a long time... There is obviously a lot of passion for it as well. We have never actually put anything down in writing on the site because as we can see, it's just not that simple.

David
WrestlingTradingCards.com
I totally agree.

The price guides usually make that determination for mainstream sets.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:30 PM   #66 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sthoemke View Post
O-Pee-Chee is NOT a subsidiary Topps, nor has it ever been owned by Topps.

The similar sets are simply due to Topps licensing its products/designs to them.

O-Pee-Chee was always its own company, until sold to Nestle in 1996.

O-Pee-Chee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I stand corrected!!! I still believe an OPC release should be considered regional. Based on our discussion, I wonder if & when a price guide will step forward a designate what a wrestling rookie card is?

David
WrestlingTradingCards
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:00 PM   #67 (permalink)
Member
 
sthoemke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrestlingcards View Post
I stand corrected!!! I still believe an OPC release should be considered regional. Based on our discussion, I wonder if & when a price guide will step forward a designate what a wrestling rookie card is?

David
WrestlingTradingCards
I really wouldn't be too surprised if Beckett Monthly starting telling us which wrestling cards are rookie cards for all the wrestlers... haven't they already starting doing that to some?
__________________
--------------------------------------
"They got non-smelly fish." - Pete Rose
--------------------------------------
sthoemke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 11:41 AM   #68 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 982
Default

If you take for example Hulk Hogan. He does indeed have a paper cut out card from 1981, a more limited card from 1982, and a mass produced card from 1985. Some will argue that the paper card is the rookie as it is his first appearance on what is deemed a card. Others will argue the 1982 card is the rookie as it is his first hard card stock trading card. And finally many will argue the 1985 card is rookie as it was a nationally released card from a major card manufacture.

At the end of the day all that matters is the one that the market likes the most and it is the 1982 Wrestling All Stars card.

I would never look at a Randy Savage 1987 Topps as his rookie card when he appeared in both the OPC and Monty sets. The market is smarter then that and would never place a higher value on the third card he appeared on and especially with a print run higher then the prior two.


If you look at baseball for example the 1984 Fleer Update set featured many of the top rookies in baseball at the time but the 1985 pack issued cards were deemed the rookie cards and the 1984 were XRC. No matter what the designation says the 1984 cards are the most valuable and highly sought after and that is what you must own to say you have their best early card.

I don't concern myself with designations. I want to own the best and that is the approach I take.
dpeck100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:52 AM   #69 (permalink)
Member
 
wrestlingcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 26
Default

Hey guys, so I thought I would have some fun and write up what I believe constitutes a wrestling rookie card.

Wrestling Rookie Card: A rookie card (RC) should be the first card produced of a wrestler which is part of a nationally distributed and fully licensed wrestling card set. A rookie card designation should be extended to the first wrestling card produced and released in a single year. A true rookie card must be numbered as part of a product's base set.

What should not be considered a rookie card:
1. A parallel or insert card from a set.
2. Likewise, a wrestler’s rookie card should not be from a subset within the set.
3. A card from a set that is only available or sold as a set. An example would be be a regional, mail order, or magazine set.
4. Cards from regional promotions or obscure manufacture's sets. Regional promotions or obscure manufactures may not even have a license to produce cards.
5. Manufacturers should not designate a rookie card status.
6. Price guides should not designate a rookie card status.
7. If a wrestler has multiple cards within a set, only one should be the true rookie card. Example: Hulk Hogan has six base cards in the 1985 WWF Topps set (1, 16, 29, 56, 57, & 60), but only #1 should be considered his true rookie card.

Market Value: Market value should not be used in determining a rookie card. A Rookie card may not necessarily be worth more than other (promo, autograph, event used, ex.) cards of the same wrestler, as other factors like scarcity and condition can play large roles in their value.

Again, this is just my personal opinion.

David
wrestlingcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
Copyright © 2013, Blowout Cards Inc.