Questioning the license based on... speculation? It is fact they had the full nba license. Is printed on all Star cards and enforced by the nba. Further proof has been shown by Steve Taft. Nba commissioner has 1984 Star uncut sheet in his office. Not debatable it's fully nba licensed.
Dr Beckett, I love your UA-cam podcasts! Your 10 reasons why the Star 101 Jordan is an XRC rather than an RC involve several that imply or make explicit the position that Star Company or its cards or its licenses were in some ways inferior to the standards of the day. However, when you discuss with Dave, Ryan, Steve, and Victor, you indicate the XRC is a type of RC such that "XRC is not a pejorative. An XRC is earlier. In almost every case it is more expensive, shorter printed and a lot more valuable. A lot of people bought the 101 because of the XRC designation." Later, you indicate, "XRC was screaming to the public: This is the first rookie card. There’s nothing bad about an XRC." This does leave me confused and I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth. (I did my best to quote you accurately above.) What am I missing that would help me to understand how your "10 reasons why the Star 101 Jordan is an XRC" do not contradict "There's nothing bad about an XRC." Thank you, much appreciated. Adam
I started collecting basketball cards in 1988. Started football & baseball cards jn 1985. All my friends & I thought the 84-85 star was the “only rookie” until the 1989 Beckett hoops mag came out. Granted, we never saw a Star MJ 101 in-person unless at huge shows & didn’t know all the details behind the Star company. We just knew Star had earlier cards of MJ, Ewing, Olajuwon, Drexler, etc… compared to 86 Fleer. Prob mainly because of the year on the sets & order how they appeared in price guides / magazines
I started collecting Jordan cards in 1989 at the age of 11 (almost 12) about a year before the first Beckett Basketball Price Guide was released. I went to dozens of card shows (1-2) per month leading up to the price guide release. I can say with 100% certainty that the Star cards were an absolute joke at the time. Maybe 5-10 dealers I saw in that time frame had a few of the Jordan Star cards but they were not considered serious cards by the collectors and even the dealers themselves. They were just "the Star cards". Dealers didn't even push them. They just sat there in the showcases. It was like they weren't even real cards. There was zero buzz about them and this was despite the prices the dealers may have had on them. There was however plenty of buzz around all of the Jordan Fleer cards up to that point in time. Star was never viewed as a "legitimate" product in the first 5-7 years of Jordan's career which were his prime hobby years leading up to the first championship. And they certainly were not worth the prices to almost all of the collectors at the time. The prices that were being charged for them were due to the low print run, not the demand. The same goes for today's Star card values. It's about low quantity, not high demand.
Most of the people in this ‘rookie’ debate were not even around collecting in 1984 and are trying to use their limited hindsight to revise what the reality was back then. I think it’s time to leave ‘rookie’ label behind and just say first card, first year card, first Fleer card? Too many people hung up on the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ terms and it’s getting out of hand. It’s quite ridiculous that people are saying Mickey Mouse rookie card or Marilyn Monroe rookie card or Kermit the Frog rookie card. Just as ridiculous that you have thousands of ‘rookie’ cards of one player nowadays.
John Stockton explains why this whole myth about Fleer RC status is silly because consider when his first Fleer card appeared - "On November 10, 1984, Stockton had his highest scoring game as a rookie, with 19 points in only 19 minutes of playing time" - Fleer didn't issue a card of Stockton until when? Yet consider that Star Co. recognized Stockton with statistics on a card under license
Dr Beckett, your reasons for XRC vs RC, I am fine with all the reasons/logic. Just as your monthly/yearly price guide had criteria of XRC vs RC, etc... other companies could (SCD, etc) could decide what they felt was XRC and RC. We all can have opinions of what is XRC vs RC, and we all see items from our view and perspective. In hindsight, Star Co and Star Co collectors should just be grateful you added them to your price guide. Your /company decision was made 40 years ago (or thereabouts) and here we are in 2024... the debate continues... the good news is Star 101, Fleer 57 are both important to hobby and debate continues.. that is good sign.
Well said. When folks are out there trying to define what a ‘rookie’ card is with a bunch of criteria, it’s time to leave that label behind. Just say first card, or first Fleer card, or first Bowman card. Let the market decide where the value is. Kill the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ labels as it is quite meaningless nowadays.
Saying "first card" is even more ambiguous than the "rookie" label. The reason that is, is because "rookie" had baked into it certain quality standards and didn't just mean "first", it meant "first legitimate". You can have a first card that is a Broder card, but it is not a real card. These aren't just labels, they are labels with a specific meaning. That's why XRC and RC fit so well, because they both describe the actual card in great detail. I think even the XRC label was too generous of a label in regards to Star, considering it was barely a real product, but here you have the Star folks trying to say it wasn't good enough. I think the Star cards should have been in the price guide but should have not had any labels at all. It's the people who claim they are just labels, that are trying to re-write history. No, they are not just labels, they are designations with definitions. History can't undo definitions. But it is these labels that gave Star any sort of credibility not the other way around.
Dr. Beckett, Thanks for the insight on the Star Company... now I am curious as if Pacific Trading Card is considered a successful major card manufacturer these days?
your statements about Star Co. not having to provide guaranteed minimum of sell through proves the point - no manufacturer would guarantee sell through and the NBA understood that so didn't require a production run to meet the non-existent demand - Topps knew based on prior NBA releases they could print the cards, but there were no collectors so distributors returned the product; and Fleer confirmed that trend as well for 1986-87 Fleer - no demand = no demand; it stands to reason that Star Co. low-balled a license amount because they could; and even without a stated required minimum guarantee to the NBA, they still couldn't make producing NBA cards a viable market - Star Co., even with Michael Jordan and all of the other great NBA players from that era, could not make "fetch" happen
It was not possible for Star to meet or even create demand. Star was never a serious product. It would have required a national presence for Star to either meet or create said demand and this was never "in the cards" for Star (pun intended). Star was a mail-order only gimmick that probably made Robert Levin enough to buy a nice house. His intentions were never connected to any sort of low or high demand at the time. It was because there was historically low demand that caused Topps to pause the basketball cards and this allowed Robert Levin to work is deal, whatever that was. Even if Topps wasn't able to meet the traditional ROI metrics, Star's numbers were so microscopically small that they were probably 100x less than the actual low demand at the time and STILL were a failed operation. It is the failing of the company despite underproducing the product is what tells the entire story. The basketball card market was not 3,000 sets wide at the time, it was much larger than that, even if lower in terms of historical numbers. Star was closer to a "fanzine" card operation than a real card company. It was a fanzine company that managed to somehow legally call themselves a licensee even if said license was not the same license as the big boys.
@@AllSystemsGo321 - there's a lot of things said in the above, a majority of which I disagree with; it's unfair of me to say that you are "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" the whole launch/failure of Star Co., but be that as it may be - if you want to actually discuss the issue, we should do that - let's not try to create a word --- fanzine --- brilliant and creative, but not productive and actually does not match the scenario that is being judged about 40 years in the past - the phrase "make fetch happen" exists for a reason, so that's my pithy retort to your reconstructed narrative about Star Co. - my main and only point - it was available, no one wanted it and I bought it only because of Larry and Michael, plus it was cheaper than baseball cards at the time
Dr Beckett, question, what about NBA card issues from non USA?? 1988 Fournier Set has the NBA logo and back of box: Official Licensed Product, NBA. On Star 101 being XRC or RC, Star 101 prices are going up and are hot and highly sought after.
@@dr.jamesbeckettsportscardi9681 sounds good!!! the 1988 Fournier was sealed with gold band, with so many sets opened up, the sealed set are starting to get rare. (note, some have this gold band, some do not) what is super rare are the 10 stickers inserted into the sets, kinda like cracker jack's prize in yellow packet. most seemed to be inserted were MJ, Bird, Magic, and much less so, the other 7. (Worthy, Kareem, Ishiah, McHale, Parrish, M Malone, Mark Aguirre) the 33 card set, many HoF'ers... as Fournier picked the top few players from each team, and the 10 card sticker set, 9 of 10 are HoF and Mark A is on list of best players not yet in HoF. I think the neat part of the 1988 Fournier Spain set is in the 1980s, as you noted, not many issues of NBA cards or stickers... so, this 1988 Fourniet set and stickers that NBA licensed is a neat card set/sticker set.
this concept of RC has become silly in my opinion - RC had previously come to designate what is the "best" card for the subject - which is highly debated now depending on the subject topic - whether it be rarity by grade, by manufactured scarcity, by non-produced quantity, by patch, by autograph - basically pick your criteria - at one point, and not today, the RC designation mattered - that designation has been shown by market constructs to not much matter - for non-sports, what's the best Eiffel Tower card, not what's the Eiffel Tower RC seems to prevail; for me, at least, the debate is irrelevant; it's up to each individual to figure out what the best card is for what is being collected
Well said. When folks are out there trying to define what a ‘rookie’ card is with a bunch of criteria, it’s time to leave that label behind. Just say first card, or first Fleer card, or first Bowman card. Let the market decide where the value is. Kill the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ labels as it is quite meaningless nowadays.
Questioning the license based on... speculation? It is fact they had the full nba license. Is printed on all Star cards and enforced by the nba. Further proof has been shown by Steve Taft. Nba commissioner has 1984 Star uncut sheet in his office. Not debatable it's fully nba licensed.
Dr Beckett, I love your UA-cam podcasts! Your 10 reasons why the Star 101 Jordan is an XRC rather than an RC involve several that imply or make explicit the position that Star Company or its cards or its licenses were in some ways inferior to the standards of the day.
However, when you discuss with Dave, Ryan, Steve, and Victor, you indicate the XRC is a type of RC such that "XRC is not a pejorative. An XRC is earlier. In almost every case it is more expensive, shorter printed and a lot more valuable. A lot of people bought the 101 because of the XRC designation." Later, you indicate, "XRC was screaming to the public: This is the first rookie card. There’s nothing bad about an XRC."
This does leave me confused and I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth. (I did my best to quote you accurately above.) What am I missing that would help me to understand how your "10 reasons why the Star 101 Jordan is an XRC" do not contradict "There's nothing bad about an XRC."
Thank you, much appreciated. Adam
Thanks for your comment - I will respond to your points in my future LQ episode explaining the apparent contradictions.
@@dr.jamesbeckettsportscardi9681 Thank you! Looking forward to it!
I started collecting basketball cards in 1988. Started football & baseball cards jn 1985.
All my friends & I thought the 84-85 star was the “only rookie” until the 1989 Beckett hoops mag came out.
Granted, we never saw a Star MJ 101 in-person unless at huge shows & didn’t know all the details behind the Star company. We just knew Star had earlier cards of MJ, Ewing, Olajuwon, Drexler, etc… compared to 86 Fleer. Prob mainly because of the year on the sets & order how they appeared in price guides / magazines
I started collecting Jordan cards in 1989 at the age of 11 (almost 12) about a year before the first Beckett Basketball Price Guide was released. I went to dozens of card shows (1-2) per month leading up to the price guide release. I can say with 100% certainty that the Star cards were an absolute joke at the time. Maybe 5-10 dealers I saw in that time frame had a few of the Jordan Star cards but they were not considered serious cards by the collectors and even the dealers themselves. They were just "the Star cards". Dealers didn't even push them. They just sat there in the showcases. It was like they weren't even real cards. There was zero buzz about them and this was despite the prices the dealers may have had on them. There was however plenty of buzz around all of the Jordan Fleer cards up to that point in time. Star was never viewed as a "legitimate" product in the first 5-7 years of Jordan's career which were his prime hobby years leading up to the first championship. And they certainly were not worth the prices to almost all of the collectors at the time. The prices that were being charged for them were due to the low print run, not the demand. The same goes for today's Star card values. It's about low quantity, not high demand.
Most of the people in this ‘rookie’ debate were not even around collecting in 1984 and are trying to use their limited hindsight to revise what the reality was back then. I think it’s time to leave ‘rookie’ label behind and just say first card, first year card, first Fleer card? Too many people hung up on the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ terms and it’s getting out of hand. It’s quite ridiculous that people are saying Mickey Mouse rookie card or Marilyn Monroe rookie card or Kermit the Frog rookie card. Just as ridiculous that you have thousands of ‘rookie’ cards of one player nowadays.
John Stockton explains why this whole myth about Fleer RC status is silly because consider when his first Fleer card appeared - "On November 10, 1984, Stockton had his highest scoring game as a rookie, with 19 points in only 19 minutes of playing time" - Fleer didn't issue a card of Stockton until when? Yet consider that Star Co. recognized Stockton with statistics on a card under license
I plan to spend more time on Stockton in a future episode - thanks.
Love this! Can I add
#11 because Sports Card Dad is pumping the Star card. 😂
Dr Beckett, your reasons for XRC vs RC, I am fine with all the reasons/logic. Just as your monthly/yearly price guide had criteria of XRC vs RC, etc... other companies could (SCD, etc) could decide what they felt was XRC and RC. We all can have opinions of what is XRC vs RC, and we all see items from our view and perspective. In hindsight, Star Co and Star Co collectors should just be grateful you added them to your price guide. Your /company decision was made 40 years ago (or thereabouts) and here we are in 2024... the debate continues... the good news is Star 101, Fleer 57 are both important to hobby and debate continues.. that is good sign.
open respectful debate is healthy and good - and so is passion!
Well said. When folks are out there trying to define what a ‘rookie’ card is with a bunch of criteria, it’s time to leave that label behind. Just say first card, or first Fleer card, or first Bowman card. Let the market decide where the value is. Kill the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ labels as it is quite meaningless nowadays.
Saying "first card" is even more ambiguous than the "rookie" label. The reason that is, is because "rookie" had baked into it certain quality standards and didn't just mean "first", it meant "first legitimate". You can have a first card that is a Broder card, but it is not a real card. These aren't just labels, they are labels with a specific meaning. That's why XRC and RC fit so well, because they both describe the actual card in great detail. I think even the XRC label was too generous of a label in regards to Star, considering it was barely a real product, but here you have the Star folks trying to say it wasn't good enough. I think the Star cards should have been in the price guide but should have not had any labels at all. It's the people who claim they are just labels, that are trying to re-write history. No, they are not just labels, they are designations with definitions. History can't undo definitions. But it is these labels that gave Star any sort of credibility not the other way around.
Dr. Beckett, Thanks for the insight on the Star Company... now I am curious as if Pacific Trading Card is considered a successful major card manufacturer these days?
perhaps Rich and I can tackle Pacific in a future episode - good suggestion.
your statements about Star Co. not having to provide guaranteed minimum of sell through proves the point - no manufacturer would guarantee sell through and the NBA understood that so didn't require a production run to meet the non-existent demand - Topps knew based on prior NBA releases they could print the cards, but there were no collectors so distributors returned the product; and Fleer confirmed that trend as well for 1986-87 Fleer - no demand = no demand; it stands to reason that Star Co. low-balled a license amount because they could; and even without a stated required minimum guarantee to the NBA, they still couldn't make producing NBA cards a viable market - Star Co., even with Michael Jordan and all of the other great NBA players from that era, could not make "fetch" happen
It was not possible for Star to meet or even create demand. Star was never a serious product. It would have required a national presence for Star to either meet or create said demand and this was never "in the cards" for Star (pun intended). Star was a mail-order only gimmick that probably made Robert Levin enough to buy a nice house. His intentions were never connected to any sort of low or high demand at the time. It was because there was historically low demand that caused Topps to pause the basketball cards and this allowed Robert Levin to work is deal, whatever that was. Even if Topps wasn't able to meet the traditional ROI metrics, Star's numbers were so microscopically small that they were probably 100x less than the actual low demand at the time and STILL were a failed operation. It is the failing of the company despite underproducing the product is what tells the entire story. The basketball card market was not 3,000 sets wide at the time, it was much larger than that, even if lower in terms of historical numbers. Star was closer to a "fanzine" card operation than a real card company. It was a fanzine company that managed to somehow legally call themselves a licensee even if said license was not the same license as the big boys.
@@AllSystemsGo321 - there's a lot of things said in the above, a majority of which I disagree with; it's unfair of me to say that you are "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" the whole launch/failure of Star Co., but be that as it may be - if you want to actually discuss the issue, we should do that - let's not try to create a word --- fanzine --- brilliant and creative, but not productive and actually does not match the scenario that is being judged about 40 years in the past - the phrase "make fetch happen" exists for a reason, so that's my pithy retort to your reconstructed narrative about Star Co. - my main and only point - it was available, no one wanted it and I bought it only because of Larry and Michael, plus it was cheaper than baseball cards at the time
Dr Beckett, question, what about NBA card issues from non USA?? 1988 Fournier Set has the NBA logo and back of box: Official Licensed Product, NBA. On Star 101 being XRC or RC, Star 101 prices are going up and are hot and highly sought after.
I will address Fournier in a future episode - thanks!
@@dr.jamesbeckettsportscardi9681 sounds good!!! the 1988 Fournier was sealed with gold band, with so many sets opened up, the sealed set are starting to get rare. (note, some have this gold band, some do not) what is super rare are the 10 stickers inserted into the sets, kinda like cracker jack's prize in yellow packet. most seemed to be inserted were MJ, Bird, Magic, and much less so, the other 7. (Worthy, Kareem, Ishiah, McHale, Parrish, M Malone, Mark Aguirre) the 33 card set, many HoF'ers... as Fournier picked the top few players from each team, and the 10 card sticker set, 9 of 10 are HoF and Mark A is on list of best players not yet in HoF. I think the neat part of the 1988 Fournier Spain set is in the 1980s, as you noted, not many issues of NBA cards or stickers... so, this 1988 Fourniet set and stickers that NBA licensed is a neat card set/sticker set.
Didn't Upper Deck back door 1989 Ken Griffey, Jr. Star Rookie snd Dale Murphy reverse negative?
will address this in a future episode - thanks!
this concept of RC has become silly in my opinion - RC had previously come to designate what is the "best" card for the subject - which is highly debated now depending on the subject topic - whether it be rarity by grade, by manufactured scarcity, by non-produced quantity, by patch, by autograph - basically pick your criteria - at one point, and not today, the RC designation mattered - that designation has been shown by market constructs to not much matter - for non-sports, what's the best Eiffel Tower card, not what's the Eiffel Tower RC seems to prevail; for me, at least, the debate is irrelevant; it's up to each individual to figure out what the best card is for what is being collected
Well said. When folks are out there trying to define what a ‘rookie’ card is with a bunch of criteria, it’s time to leave that label behind. Just say first card, or first Fleer card, or first Bowman card. Let the market decide where the value is. Kill the ‘rookie’ and ‘RC’ labels as it is quite meaningless nowadays.
I agree that "RC" means less today than it did years ago.