Opinion on ice auto patch cards /10 RC or not

09-10 UD ice auto patch /10

  • True RC

    Votes: 5 3.8%

  • Parrallel

    Votes: 92 70.8%

  • Insert

    Votes: 33 25.4%
  • Total voters
    130
S

si1992

Verified Trader
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Location
St-Comoban, QC
In the past in 05-06 the ice auto patch variation was an insert leaving it in my opinion as an insert and not a RC, now in 07-08 and 08-09 these patches were the continuation of the set which in my opinion would be considered as a true RC. now this year set seem to be a little different example Hedman is card 182 of the set and is # out of 99, the ice auto patch is also # 182 in the set however much different and # out of 10 would this card be now considered a true RC or a parrallel?
Opinions pls Thanks

09-10 ud ice auto patch
1. True RC
2. Parralell
3 Insert
 
It's a parallel. Anything under a print run of 99 cannot be considered an RC. None of the Ice Premiers patches have ever earned the RC designation.
 
Last edited:
Got to be a parallel. The serial #'d (/99, /499, etc.) are the TRUE RCs. The Ice Auto Patches /10 are comparitive to the Cup Golds, parallels of the actual RCs.
 
I kinda agree for this years but the past other 2 years its been an exension of the set had its own set # card
 
si1992 said:
I kinda agree for this years but the past other 2 years its been an exension of the set had its own set # card
Click to expand...

Regardless, it's never earned the RC designation because of the /99 rule. Much like the 01-02 Titanium Hobby cards (where the rookie's card was serial #'d to their jersey #) even though they are numbered as part of the set, they are not classified as RC's. In fact, even UD refers to them on the official checklist as the "patch variation" indicating it's a parallel.
 
TanguayFan said:
Regardless, it's never earned the RC designation because of the /99 rule. Much like the 01-02 Titanium Hobby cards (where the rookie's card was serial #'d to their jersey #) even though they are numbered as part of the set, they are not classified as RC's. In fact, even UD refers to them on the official checklist as the "patch variation" indicating it's a parallel.
Click to expand...



I was always under the impression that Beckett doesn't consider those true RCs because the product was released too late in the season, could have been misinformed though.
 
haelwho2 said:
I was always under the impression that Beckett doesn't consider those true RCs because the product was released too late in the season, could have been misinformed though.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, then Cup cards wouldn't be RC's, since it's the last product released each year.

I think you may be confusing it with the cutoff date for a rookie making his NHL debut to be included in a set.
 
wildwestgal63 said:
Isn't a Kovy rookie card /17? who made this /99 rule?
Click to expand...

The /99 rule was created around the time Pacific Titanium was released (2000-01). Basically, this set numbered a parallel "rookie card" to each player's jersey number. This included Ty Conklin, who wore #1 in his rookie year. It was determined that these parallels numbered any less than 99 copies should not be considered true rcs because they would not be widely available enough to be available to a wide fan base. It makes little sense to me, but ever since then any RC numbered lower than /99 is not considered a true RC by beckett, and almost hand-in-hand, not considered valid by the generation of collectors who were around to experience the controversy.
 
rookiesorbust said:
The /99 rule was created around the time Pacific Titanium was released (2000-01). Basically, this set numbered a parallel "rookie card" to each player's jersey number. This included Ty Conklin, who wore #1 in his rookie year. It was determined that these parallels numbered any less than 99 copies should not be considered true rcs because they would not be widely available enough to be available to a wide fan base. It makes little sense to me, but ever since then any RC numbered lower than /99 is not considered a true RC by beckett, and almost hand-in-hand, not considered valid by the generation of collectors who were around to experience the controversy.
Click to expand...

IDC what beckett said haha, but yea makes sense. Although this isn't a RC. RC are just the base set. And the /10 patches aren't a part of the base set.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,533
Messages
2,233,417
Members
4,149
Latest member
vegasfiredawg
Back
Top