Posted By | Message |
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,515
Joined: Aug 2011
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 12:21 AM | |
When a set has a retail and hobby version, both of those get listed as RC, and that is 100% correct. This is the same thing. The refusal to acknowledge that some sets don't fit into the made up rules that we made up is the real problem. We should take into account that not every set follows the same formula, not every one fits like a neat puzzle piece into how we want them to.
If you don't think there's an anti-parallel bias...try collecting them. Constant insults, constantly being considered second class, constantly having their existence ignored...and now it's filtered in here, too. I'm aware of at least a half dozen sets that have parallels mixed into the base set checklist, listed as VAR, for the sole reason that there's a bias against parallels. The bias is in the entire hobby, not just here.
With the 91 donruss...you can't get them all out of the same packs. It's not possible. Doesn't that alone make them different? Why is every other factory set where the cards are different get its own listing but these are in the base set? I get that not all the cards are different. So what? There are plenty of sets that don't include every number... especially prevalent with Panini, which likes to use different parallels for veterans and rookies... And Admin now has the tools to make the same card appear in multiple places, so it could easily have been set up so the first 25 or whatever cards show up in both places.
Look, I know you're always going to argue this, and I know nothing I say matters to anyone about anything ..you spent a lot of time and effort on doing this and you thought it was the right thing, I'm sure it stings when it gets pointed out that that it not only doesn't really help anyone, but actually made it much worse because now you can't use the Collection summary, but you don't need to start getting nasty. Telling me to wake up, telling me I don't know what a card is, telling me I don't follow the rules? Give me a break. I've never once insulted you or made any backhanded comments like that...yes, I think it was done wrong. So what? Mistakes happen. Not a big deal. Insulting someone who is a friend just because they believe something is done wrong though...I would never do that. I haven't done that. I've commented on the cards themselves, and how they should be listed, not the people entering them.
-------------------------------
VERY slow trading due to health problems. Not transferrable so safe to trade with, just moving is painful and can't always access the cards. Cardboard History My COMC New Collection Website: Cardboard History Gallery (Still under construction) Tips on how to make your scans look like the card does in hand (No more washed out, fuzzy scans!):
|
|
|
|
spazmatastic
Posts: 5,905
Joined: Dec 2014
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 2:20 AM | |
I'm OUT of this conversation now! I just don't care anymore.
-------------------------------
NO PWE's EVER!!! PLZ PM me 1st before sending any offer. ONLY selling cards as of March 2024. No trades or purchases right now. _______________________________________________________________________ Largest total PC card collections by Team, then Athlete (as of 3/22/24): STL Cardinals (MLB) - 8810; Carolina Panthers - 2888; GB Packers - 1790+ cards Mark Martin (NASCAR) - 2038 cards; Jimmie Johnson (NASCAR) - 1875 cards; Jeff Gordon (NASCAR) - 1594; Ricky Rudd (NASCAR) - 839; Ozzie Smith (MLB) - 707
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 4:31 AM | |
Me too spaz, with HAAA! Maybe I wasn't such a "bad guy" last year, been there, done that ! However, I must admit, I do like my present standing with ALL TCDB members, being a constant Devil's Advocate really sucks...BIG TIME !
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
reakins
Posts: 512
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:02 PM | |
Billy's reasoning about the Factory Set makes sense to me. Why can't there be two listings for the same card? If the Factory set includes the exact same card as the base, so what? People entering their collections, should know if they have a Factory set or not. In the hockey card world, the exact same inserts have been issued in O-Pee-Chee and Topps many times over the years. Since they were issued with both products, they are listed as insert sets under both, resulting in two listings for the exact same cards. The only difference in the listings is the insert set name which includes the prefix "Topps" if it were issued in an O-Pee-Chee product.
-------------------------------
~Rob~ Hockey set collector including inserts, ERR, COR, VAR. Knowledgeable about 1968-69 to 1994-95 hockey. All 1990 and newer cards for trade are NRMT. Expect the same in return. 1989 and older are assigned a grade. Everything on my trade list is available for sale. Reasonable prices based on condition. If it's not on my tradelist, it's not available.
|
|
|
|
Vonnegut37
Posts: 95
Joined: May 2019
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:19 PM | |
I completely agree here. I collect the VAR/ERR cards as well. This site is like a treasure trove of information on cards I never knew existed when it comes to VAR/ERR cards. I will collect the entirety of the 1991 Donruss set in all versions and enjoy every second of it.
Is there a way to filter a checklist so it only lists one version? This could be effective for the collectors who don't care for variants while giving those of us who do a way to catalog them easier...
-------------------------------
Joseph P.S. Inzirillo III
|
|
|
|
ranfordfan
Posts: 4,975
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 2:50 PM | |
Meh Part 2 ............... Dan said it well enough and this is why I speak no more really. Try Try ReTry ReTry Give Up, Try Again.
RC is a SET thing in hockey, first NHL card in a standard issue set. Minor / Jr cards are NOT RCs anymore. Starting in the early 1990s (?) the league took this and made a solid determination. No XRC, no FC, no PreRC. Just sayin.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
jeffzcubfan
Posts: 25
Joined: Sep 2019
|
Sunday, September 8, 2019 8:14 PM | |
As a noob that only found the site for the first time a couple days ago, I can say that the amount of cards available can be overwhelming when you are not sure which exact card fits you. That said the variations are clear if you take your time and read what holds the cards apart.
As a long time collector, I think the level of detail should be up to that collector. Many collectors are not interested in production variations and will consider those variations a standard card. They should then choose the standard card as their choice on the list of cards to have and would consider the value of that card variation to be of equal value to the standard card.
This is a choice, just like the collector to choose just how deep into collecting the varieties of Topps releases to collect (Gold, Blue, Black, etc). I can only say I've enjoyed the short time I've been here and look forward to getting my collection completely entered.....it should only take a few months' time, I hope.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Monday, September 9, 2019 2:16 PM | |
Why is it a problem if a card is listed in than once? If a card is found in 2 or more different sets, it could be considered "a different card", so to speak. To avoid this listing hoopla with variations, parallels etc, can't we just [*] cards that can be found in different sets, footnoteing that.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,515
Joined: Aug 2011
|
|
|
|
yokonashiwa
Posts: 264
Joined: Jan 2012
|
Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:42 PM | |
You know I thought I had an original idea here about how to fix our variant issue, but after going through and reading the comments again I found edk had the same idea I just did. Instead of including variants in the base set, treat them like a SEPARATE set and put them under their own heading of variants. Then for the set same use "inc." or "inc" or "thick line on bottom". This way those who want to have variants listed gets that and those who don't want to have variants "doubling up their base set count" can both win. Making variants a separate checklist is a strong and viable solution one that I think should be given strong consideration. Maybe that doesn't solve everything talked about in this thread, but it might very well solve the OP's original question of are we going to far and it is costing us users. If the industry recognizes variants exist for a set, then treating it like a separate set shouldn't be an issue. As for the checklist, so what if every card number isn't included because that card doesn't have a variant so long as those that do are properly documented within the set. We already do this for those buyback sets. I think edk is on to something and it got massively overlooked and that is a shame because I believe it to be a wonderful solution to the variant problem. So IMO good job edk!!!
Edited on: Sep 10, 2019 - 12:44PM -------------------------------
What?? No American Ninja Warrior cards or Ninja Warrior cards yet?? Someone is really slacking!!
|
|
|
|