Site Forum

All my errors and variations are systematically organized separately in their own albums. Each error, variation etc are lined up with it's corrected version. Much easier for me to refer to and show interested parties.

This issue alone is enough justification for me to not collect variations. For the few I had when I put my sets into binders, they are just next to the "original" card. For others, whew. I have all my sets in binders, with the cards back to back in the sleeves. Too expensive and cumbersome to have them not back to back. If I discover a variation that I've stumbled into, I'd have to move all the cards in the binder. Not doing that. So I shove the variation in the same sleeve with the other one, mark it on here and on my spreadsheet, and then forget all about it.

v3

Next up.

Can somebody PLEASE show an example of how 1}ERRORS, 2}VARIATIONS and 3}CORRECT card versions are supposed to be formatted in the TCDB?

Before somebody jumps, yes, we have guidelines [confusing to me at best] BUT A CORRECT EXAMPLE would really be helpful.  So from 1982 Fleer is this correct: #, Name, Note1, Team, Note2

#438 - Al Hrabosky ERR - Atlanta Braves

ERR: All Hrabosky on back

Now this is an error card, corrected card is treated similar.

Are VARIATIONS treated differently?

I'm sorry to say, the formatting appears to be all over the place. Maybe a little expertise would step in.

I love it when I find an error or variation.  Nobody wants a Frank Thomas rookie error card?  We cant't please them all.  We need to document the variations as some could be rare.  We're collecting aren't we?

hmmmmm???

....I believe that one of the ways that line can be crossed is when variations that are not widely recognized in the hobby are recognized here. I’m not saying that is happening. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t color outside of the lines – heck, that’s what makes us different. What I am saying, however, is that my ultimate fear is that at some point, we do cross that line to where it appears that our site is only for tracking collections, rather than being a historical archive or reputable source.

I know what Jason is driving at here. He's afraid that some members are trying to personalize the TCDB. But doesn't the site allow us to personalize within the framework. You can certainly circumvent the guidelines for your own personal use yet not "cross the line". That's what makes us great! So, we learned last year that you can't list Coasters [unless of course you smoke El Producto] or list Jello Molds, but other collectibles are acceptable. And ADMIN decides that. 

Having done some research on External Links and User Lists, I believe you could make a case for at least documenting the existence of "crossing the line" not widely known items....such as variations etc. I think that the more information we include makes us a more reputable source and historical archive. As long as it's not fake news. lol. I expect in the near future to expand my collection tracking as well as adding references to the so-called "crossing the line" variations and more. And I don't see anything wrong with it so long as guidelines, rules and policies are met. Why wouldn't members like that?

~BOB~

Yes! Bob! Breakthrough!

This is exactly what I’m driving at. No one is suggesting removing variations from the site. And yes, we have tools to showcase our own personal collections, just like you’re doing with user lists. No complaints there whatsoever (actually no complaints with anything, as I said earlier). Personal use is great when done in a personal manner with personal tools provided by the site.

But when is a variation not a variation? I think more along the lines of colored dots on the front of my 1988 Fleer Bob Welch or the bottom of the “3” on 1987 Topps card #328 being cut off or not finished. To me, intentionally documenting those as card #328b would be creating variations that are not widely recognized in the hobby, which could appear to a new member to be “overkill” or “unrealistic”, which in turn could drive them away and/or cause us to lose credibility or acknowledgement as a site.

Am I saying this will happen? No. Am I saying that we will ever document those variations? No. Was I suggesting that we have already gone too far? Not intentionally, although the title of my post probably sounded like it. Rather, I was wondering out loud if there was a line, if/when we would cross it, and what the consequences would be for the future of this site.. Not that we should ignore variations; not that those who collect them are any different; not which way they are listed is good/better/best.

Okay; now I’m done.

I list them all side by side, and not back to back since the backs sometimes have the variations.  Also, if I pull out the set to take a look, as I periodically do, and come across a card of a player I've never heard from before or hadn't thought of in years, I want to read the information on the back.  Also, I put 9 cards on a parge no matter what.  So if the variation and the base card are on two different pages, so be it.

I have a printed "checklist" in the very front of the binder that lists all of the variations that are included.  Helps me to remember and search for certain cards.  Also if something ever happens to me and my wife/kids are selling my collection, they have a much better idea what is really there.  Some of the variations hold significant value, and I want to make sure the realize what they have.

I'll stay on topic about the set mentioned 1991 Donruss

I kept putting logging in my wants and haves off. Because it's a complete mess. A B & C?? I can understand having the cards listed and a variation. That is fine. But listing the factory set with them all?? Is a mistake  The name "Factory Set" tells you it is completely another set and should be listed in with Inserts and Related Sets after all it is a Related Set. I even suggested maybe adding "factory set" button into the top menu so it would stand out and there would be a one-click button to get to it. But I got the lame answer of "if you open a factory set their normal cards" and that is why they're listed that way?? Some people should really think before answering a question. Really. Because if there now considered normal cards why are they still called a factory set?? Also, Why are some factory sets listed under the Related Sets  It can't be both ways that is sloppy. I also pointed out if the factory set was listed in the menu or under related sets it would make it easier for everyone. The answer to that one was. "Get over it and stop complaining." Yet another uneducated answer.  I just wondered how insecure he was to go straight to assuming my question was complaining and failed to get the point of other sets are listed that way. After chatting with some of you. I now do like most and when you see his face on a post you just pass over it along with any replies to him.

Bottom line, the way it was listed was the quick fix way to help rush it so people could post images and not the right way. So now we have a listing that is a mess called 91 Donruss and to see it's being talked about on other formats. Tells you something is wrong. If it was done right no one would be saying anything about it. So the overall outcome is, this is a fail and it's sad to see it's turning people away from the site. Because we all lose when that happens. 

It's probably OCD or my "Professor" mentality, but as I read postings, I keep coming back to the word CONSISTENCY. I feel the TCDB is inconsistent in many of it's listings. Not inaccurate, but different formats to list either sets or errors or variations or cards in general. That's why we see so many forum posts questioning , How?, Where, Why? Many times the listings are for convenience sake that differs from guidelines. Many members find this "messy". I like consistency myself.