Sunday, May 6, 2012

Are GQ minis actually Rookie Cards?

I kind of stumbled upon this post today, because I had planned to do another angle to go along with the Gypsy Queen posts that I had made last week. 

I purchased two Gypsy Queen blasters yesterday during a trip to Wal-Mart.  I didn't have a chance to open them yesterday, so I opened the first one this afternoon.  Nothing fantastic to shout about, but I did get one card that kind of made me think.

Exhibit A is below:

Card # 208, regular back, Adron Chambers of the St. Louis Cardinals.

Notice the prominent RC stamp in the lower right corner.  This made me think for a minute.  Aren't RC's supposed to be from the base set, and not portrayed by any kind of insert?  This was always my impression, so I did a little hunting, and found this definition of a rookie card from  [NOTE: the paragraph below is the 2nd paragraph of the webpage, and is used to illustrate my question/point.]

Note that a rookie card is not necessarily always produced during a player's rookie season, as there may have been cards that fit the definition printed in previous years. It is generally agreed that to be a true rookie card, the card must be numbered as part of a product's base set. Thus, insert cards of any type are generally not considered to be rookie cards.

Minis have always been inserts as far as I'm concerned.  Does this further muddy the waters of how RC's are defined, or has Topps over stepped their bounds here by stamping GQ minis as Rookie Cards?

I am curious to hear the responses out there....

Thanks for reading, Robert


  1. I was unaware of that. Something for me to think about. Good post though....

  2. I think it's a good question. I wonder though is the "rookie" card for new players still relevant to collectors?