Tom Brady Rookie Card

[S_GERACE]

Hi Greg,
The 2000 SP is his best rookie card and usually runs about $1,200 for an 8 and about $1,750 for a 9. However, it is not a very attractive card.

I personally prefer the 2000 Bowman Chrome or Bowman Chrome refractor. The regular Bowman Chrome is about $90 in a PSA 8 and $150 in a PSA 9. The refractor is probably about $600 in a PSA 8 and $850 in a PSA 9.

If you don't care for Chrome cards, you could go with the 2000 Bowman regular issue at about $50 in a PSA 8 and $85 in a PSA 9.

These are Brady's best RC's. Like I said, the best RC is the SP but I prefer the "looks" of the Bowman/Bowman Chrome more. You can have a better looking card and save some dough in the process.

Hope this helps.
Scott

[S_GERACE]

Here is a scan of the 2000 Bowman Brady.

[gnaz01]

Thanks all, wouldn't mind going for an SP from UD but the ones on eBay are crazy priced. Anyone know where I can buy one "reasonable"??

[bcbgcbrcb]

Isn't the Auto Playoff Contenders a very popular one as well. Maybe not classified as a true rookie because of the auto and I guess it was an insert-type card, correct?

[S_GERACE]

I personally wouldn't include it because of the auto/insert aspect but yes, it is a popular card. It's all a matter of personal preference. The Bowman Chrome refractor is also an insert card but to me it it's not a chase card like the Playoff Contender.

To give you an example using vintage cards, Otto Graham's RC is listed as the 1950 Bowman on the PSA registry but if someone were to approach me with a 1946 Sears card I wouldn't dismiss them if they called it his rookie card. The argument against the 1950 Bowman is that there was actually another card issued prior to it. The argument against the 1946 Sears is that it was not nationally distributed. I feel that both sides have valid points. Again, to me it is a matter of preference.

It seems like only football cards issued from 1951 through 1988 have rookie cards that are pretty clear cut, with the exception of the 1955 Topps All-Americans & 1961 Topps/Fleer. You can't call something a rookie card 10 years after he retired (Hutson). Again, it's personal preference.

[Coninefan]

The Contenders is numbered as part of the base set and is considered a true rookie card.

I've never understood the allure of the SPA. Much like most of Rodgers' RC's, I dislike the red practice jerseys.

I agree about the Bowman Chrome. Classic product, NFL uniform, great design.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wait a weak, the whim will pass.

[twincitycards]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Isn't the Auto Playoff Contenders a very popular one as well. Maybe not classified as a true rookie because of the auto and I guess it was an insert-type card, correct?

The Playoff Contenders is a true rookie card, not an insert/parallel. Here are Brady's true rookie cards I would recommend, after these three there is quite a bit of a drop off.

1: Playoff Contenders
2: SP Authentic
3: SPx

[MRSPORTSCARDCOLLECTOR]

bumping because I noticed a lot of Tom Brady rookie cards have doubled and even tripled in price since this thread started. Looks like they could go even higher the next few weeks.
So the two best holy grails now for football seem to be Tom Brady and Joe Namath rookie cards.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by MRSPORTSCARDCOLLECTOR

So the two best holy grails now for football seem to be Tom Brady and Joe Namath rookie cards.

I am not sure I agree with this statement. Joe Namath RC, sure, but Brady? The big problem here is that Brady has quite a few rookies, such as the SP Authentic, Playoff Contenders, Bowman Chrome, etc. So which one is the holy grail here?

Also, would you take a Brady RC over the 1935 National Chicle Bronko Nagurski? I sure as hell wouldn't!