Baseball card question

[autographhunter]

As I am trying to catalogue all 10,000 plus cards of mine, I have a question about what is considered an insert. I want to catalogue accurately, so I have a couple examples. If anyone has a clear explanation of what defines an insert, I'd appreciate it. Thanks

In the 1992 Score baseball card set, there are cards with "The Idols" printed on the front (with the player being pictured with his boyhood idol). Is that considered an insert? Or would it be a subset?

Another example: In 2006 Upper Deck featured a World Baseball Classics set in addition to its base set. Would the WBC cards be considered inserts because they were found randomly within the base set of 2006 UD? Or would they be considered base cards of the WBC set?

So I guess my question is, how do you differentiate between specially themed sets of cards from the base set (which would be considered an insert) and entirely different sets?

 

[cletus_83]

I think that it all depends on the numbering. If the base set contains numbers 1-300, for example, and the cards fall in that range, then they are a subset. But if they have their own numbering system, then they are an insert set. I'm sure there is some grey area, but that's how I would define it.

 

[Dilferules]

For cards that are numbered as part of the base set but are SPed it's kind of a personal preference. I sort all of my Heritage, A&G, etc. SPs in with my inserts since they are "tougher" than regular base cards.
Richard

 

[autographhunter]

I think that it all depends on the numbering. If the base set contains numbers 1-300, for example, and the cards fall in that range, then they are a subset. But if they have their own numbering system, then they are an insert set. I'm sure there is some grey area, but that's how I would define it.

For cards that are numbered as part of the base set but are SPed it's kind of a personal preference. I sort all of my Heritage, A&G, etc. SPs in with my inserts since they are "tougher" than regular base cards.
Richard

Ok, thanks for your input.
And how do you know if they're short printed? Obviously if they're serial numbered, but are there any other indications other than looking at a checklist of SPs? thanks again!

 

[JamesNevans]

Ok, thanks for your input.
And how do you know if they're short printed? Obviously if they're serial numbered, but are there any other indications other than looking at a checklist of SPs? thanks again!

I agree, part of the normal numbering then it's a subset rather than insert, have a special numbering and it's an insert.

Some cards are easy to determine if they are short prints, generally because of serial numbering, but others like 1996 or 1997 Finest had a system of Bronze/Silver/Gold fronts as well as on the backs had Common/Uncommon/Rare. Others like Heritage, Cracker Jack, or A & G have no real clue although in the case of the former followed the original set's rarity schedule based upon distibution in series of varying print runs because of demand. The latter found a way to make a protion of the numbering the start of the short print run, typically being 301-350. Other short prints are variations and are part of the regular set for some people and not others.

One of the reasons they went away from inserts and tried to make cards part of the regular set was the discussion of what constituted a rookie card. This was back in the early 1990's when inserts were all the rage, yet people were still defining what a RC was. Was it the first issuance of the card (like Update) first regular issue, or the first time THAT manufacturer had that player in the set. Once it was determined that Update sets would get XRC it was also said that the first major brand to issue a card as part of it's base set would be a RC, so 1992 Bowman Piazza was a RC, 1992 Fleer Update Piazza was a XRC, and 1993 Topps Piazza a FTC (first Topps card), the latter dropped out of popularity. So even though an insert carried a popular rookie, the industry (driven by Beckett) decided it had to be part of the base set to be a RC. So you started having short printed rookies around 1997-1999 as part of the set numbering, started to have serial numbering of those cards around 1998, and having autographs in 2001 culminating with the Bowman Chrome Abert Pujols auto all as part of the regular set. Interestingly enough, even with serial numbering as part of a set, the parallel to the RC is not considered a RC.

 

[autographhunter]

I agree, part of the normal numbering then it's a subset rather than insert, have a special numbering and it's an insert.

Some cards are easy to determine if they are short prints, generally because of serial numbering, but others like 1996 or 1997 Finest had a system of Bronze/Silver/Gold fronts as well as on the backs had Common/Uncommon/Rare. Others like Heritage, Cracker Jack, or A & G have no real clue although in the case of the former followed the original set's rarity schedule based upon distibution in series of varying print runs because of demand. The latter found a way to make a protion of the numbering the start of the short print run, typically being 301-350. Other short prints are variations and are part of the regular set for some people and not others.

One of the reasons they went away from inserts and tried to make cards part of the regular set was the discussion of what constituted a rookie card. This was back in the early 1990's when inserts were all the rage, yet people were still defining what a RC was. Was it the first issuance of the card (like Update) first regular issue, or the first time THAT manufacturer had that player in the set. Once it was determined that Update sets would get XRC it was also said that the first major brand to issue a card as part of it's base set would be a RC, so 1992 Bowman Piazza was a RC, 1992 Fleer Update Piazza was a XRC, and 1993 Topps Piazza a FTC (first Topps card), the latter dropped out of popularity. So even though an insert carried a popular rookie, the industry (driven by Beckett) decided it had to be part of the base set to be a RC. So you started having short printed rookies around 1997-1999 as part of the set numbering, started to have serial numbering of those cards around 1998, and having autographs in 2001 culminating with the Bowman Chrome Abert Pujols auto all as part of the regular set. Interestingly enough, even with serial numbering as part of a set, the parallel to the RC is not considered a RC.

Wow, thanks for the long explanation! I can see that it's a little fuzzy, so I'll do my best cataloguing, thanks to everyone who posted.

 

[autographhunter]

Here's another question:
I have a Brian Barton 2008 Topps RC but instead of a regular number it says "8 of 20." It's not a serial number, just a card number. Is this a subset? Couldn't find it on google.

Thanks

 

[nerk01]

Sounds like a bonus card from a factory set to me.

 

[dp33]

Sounds like a bonus card from a factory set to me.

Agreed - I have a Lincecum from 2007 listed as "12 of 20" on the back, and it's from the factory set of bonus rookies.

 

[autographhunter]

Thanks for the quick responses!
So would it be classified as a short print?

 

[greatdadx2]

It sounds like Becketts OPG will answer all of your questions...You might want to look into getting a months subscription to help you out and you will be able to find out about the cards attributes

Looking up your 2008 Brian Barton card:
2008 Topps Factory Set Rookie Bonus #8 Brian Barton - $1.50

 

[dp33]

Thanks for the quick responses!
So would it be classified as a short print?

I would classify the Barton as an insert myself - I consider short prints only those cards from the base set that have lower odds than the rest of the base set.

 

[autographhunter]

Ok, thanks again, appreciate the help.