Site Forum

To the question of if we are scaring off poetential members then the answer is probably yes based on your twitter experience, but many ideas that scared people in the beginning are now regarded as significant.

Maybe admin would prefer to have the most accurate site and if it scares some off than they can be scared and not get the enjoyment.

I chose to use this partly because I felt it was the most accurate and easy to navigate ( and it doesn;t hurt to be free)

I honestly don't care if people won't use this site because we wish to document every variant of a card known to man.  I love that about this site.  I personally have no dog in this "fight" as I only find out if I have a variant of a card because I found it here whilst cataloging my collection.  Heck, I didn't even realize so many variants existed until this site showed them to me.  When I check the box on whether I own a card or not, I do look glaringly at the card if "VAR" is listed.  I want to accurately tag it for myself and that is why the notes section on the card is important to help me figure that out.  I do however think some of the intentional "modern" day variants are crazy and a sparkle on the brim of the hat is just plain dumb.  What I really wish card companies would do is on the back where they are putting the year and name of the set also include the name of the insert/parallel set it belongs to as well  That would help collectors like us avoid so much confusion of whether I have the Chrome Camo parallel or the Chrome Rainbow Camo parallel especially when they aren't #/2019 or something like that.

Thought I would just add that I have no problem at all with the VARs being listed on the base checklist.  I actually welcome that.  What I don't really care for is the parallel set being created.  Again, just my opinion, right or wrong.  

I do remember that for many of the Donruss sets ADMIN made the decision to list them all as VARs since some of the cards in the sets (Diamond Kings and other subsets) didn't have all the same varations (Like the DK borders were all the same in some sets etc...)

One of the biggest issues is that some of these variations are still being discovered, which is causing confusion to longtime collectors and causing pain to the folks that have decided to put the work in to update the database and move collections around. If all of these variations were already known and documented from the start, I don't think we'd be having this kind of discussion. Personally, I think it's fascinating.

That said, there should be options/filters for those who only want to see one version of each card from a given base set. And there probably will be someday.

I can also see how this stuff drives set collectors crazy in particular, but as a team/player collector, I'm definitely interested in all 3 versions of Donruss whatevers. That's about the only way you could have ever seen me get interested in junk wax era stuff again.

Very interesting reading, thanks for your concerns Jason. TCDB is a collectors site. Every member uses it in many different ways. It's refreshing to see how important the site is to those that replied to the original post. I luv this forum, it allows for the freedom to voice our opinion. Great input, our members always have constructive advice. So if a few have a problem and don't like what they see, "hit the road Jack", we like it, we appreciate that all collectors can collect in their own way. Alls Good,  ~BOB~

Well, this has generated some great discussion. Jason, great job of putting into words what could have been tough.

First, allow me to say this - I am not an error/variant CHASER, but if the err/var exists, and I have it, I'll "collect" it. For my Phillies collection, I'm okay with having one version only. If I somehow wind up with a second version, I'll keep it, but once I have one version, I'm done looking for that card.

That said, I think we're doing some of the sets correctly, and some incorrectly. I think (albeiit unweildy) we did 1991 Donruss baseball correctly. I think we did the 90-91 Fleer Line on back incorrectly (yes, I was the one who added both). I think we did the * & ** sets incorrectly. I think they should ALL be variants of each other.

I don't think we've gone too far. I think it's a shame that some people would steer away from accuracy. I think our policies for adding variants is ideal. No print flaws, only setup differences, and yes, the addition of a period at the end of an abbreviation *IS* a setup difference. We should note them. They should be part of the same set. That's the ONLY way we can do it so that people who don't care which version they have in their set can log sets here. (I don't think we should take it as far as one color blind "hot head member" who would even put true parallels in his base set and be happy with that.)

I think our level of accuracy will attract and retain more members than we ostracize. I'm not losing any sleep tonight. :)

For the record, I prefer accuracy.  I can choose to do with the accuracy whatever I choose to do with it.  

Well stated.  The accuracy here has been more detailed than even those of us in the VAR collecting niche were even aware of, since the largest portion is player and not set collectors.  I would have just created entire parallel sets if not challenged/questioned on some of the subsets where they weren't affected.  This is the only site that has accurate info for the entire sets.

@madding, these aren't just being discovered, it's just that many in the hobby were never aware or didn't care.  Check out junkwaxgems site, the first place I'm aware of to aggregate them, and many were known long before that.