Site Forum

So if they decided to turn that number 90 degrees to mark an end point in the printing or cutting process and it was a completely intentional act on the part of Topps you would still consider that an error? That’s not the definition of error in any dictonary I’ve ever seen. 

You are simply making things up to fit a scenario that there is no documentation or even rumor of ever happening. 

The cutting process is well known and is marked by colored lines on the margins in cards of that era. That is simply not how the printing process works. Get real.

That was purely a hypothetical. The point remains if you don’t know the intent of the people who made the cards you can’t say definitively that it’s an error. It’s their design if they want to make half the cards with numbers pointing one way and half pointing the other that’s their perogitive. Why can’t we all just say hey check out this quirk without the need to slap a label on it. 

I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. Just wanted to make it clear that I have better things to do than play word games for the sake of being argumentantive. Have fun.

Yikes!! Sorry I asked. If we treat every card "uncovered" as I did with the "vertical 161" and then IR or ask for advice, WE WOULD NEVER get it right, corrected or uncorrected.

There is no mystery about ME being an ERR/VAR/COR card collector. Unlike other posts I've made, this post just asked for advice. UER added or not, I really don't care. I do believe we should all want the site to be as accurate as possible. Everybody knows there are Many Collectors on TCDB that just can't deal with the many ERR/VAR/COR collectors on here. Even a hint of the topic creates a lengthy pooh-bah tread. Gets annoying after awhile. And that's me talking!!! lol.

Aplogies if I offended anybody. I will return to my corner and stick to making silly dad jokes. 

Bob, you have this one absolutely correct. The real question is if somebody besides you or I brought it to light, would it have been done before 20 minutes were passed? I suspect so. 

However, you have the reputation of trying to add printing flaws as repeating, collectible variations, and everything I ever say is automatically discounted and argued against. 

So, the "discovery" of an actual UER will be discounted because we noticed it. I put discovery in quotations because I'm sure people have noticed it in the past, and just didn't care enough to say anything. 

A couple points.

1 - this was brough to my attention back in May or June of 2019 by another member who has not participated in this thread. We discussed it in a very civil manner, much like I'm trying to do here. What I wrote to that member in May or June was:

I'm hesitant to add UER notation for things that aren't clearly an error. Misspellings, incorrect pictures, incorrect stats/bios are examples of fine UERs. Unless you worked for Topps in 1974, do you know this wasn't by design (for some other reason)?

Again, unless you worked for Topps, you have no idea what they were doing with this one. Maybe it is a mistake on their part. But the operative word there is MAYBE. *I* truly don't know for sure. CAD said "This is just my guess at a hypothetical possibility." Again, his word - a guess. No one knows. This is not a black and white case where as an example a company printed "Micheal Jordan". That is, as a fact, spelled incorrectly, and if not fixed, is considered an UER. No guesswork, no hypotheticals, no deliberation needed.

That conversation I had wit that other member obviously had ZERO to do with Bob or Billy having any opinion on the matter. (And as an aside, Bob and I are working together on other things, and doing so quite well, so I'm not opposed because of it being brough to the table by him. I was opposed to the idea 8 months ago.) Same holds true for Billy. That said, even if I disagree with someone (and apparently, I'm disagreeing with Chuck here on this one too), doesn't mean I don't like the person. I simply don't like the idea. There's a huge difference between disliking a person's idea and disliking the person. And in this case, all of the members I have mentioned that I disagree with, I like as people.

I have promised one member that I will contact Admin and see if he thinks UER should be added to the card. I will do so, and I will do it remaining neutral on my opinion, but I will share both sides.

But, the idea that ideas are being discounted because of who brought them to table is not true - at least on my part.

Let's put it this way. You are walking down the street and get run over by a bus. But it's not a big deal because the bus driver didn't intend to run you over. 

However, that's not really all that important, because you're dead. Intent doesn't matter, does it? The error still occured. You're still flattend on the street. 

Reality matters, taking wild guesses at what people you've never met were intending doesn't.