Site Forum

Despite the fact that I think comparing someone being killed by a bus to the way a number is printed on a baseball card to be extremely disturbing...

No one is disputing that the number is sideways. I am disputing whether it's an "error". What's truly "wrong" about it? It is card #161 and that's what is printed on the card "161"- that's correct. Topps decided to print one sideways? OK, big deal. They have decided to use different colors for team names, or player names in various years that don't match all the other cards for that team. Again, so what. That's what THEY chose to do. If they chose to do it, it's not an error.

Just like if that bus driver chose to run me over. Then it's treated differently in court than if I jumped out in front of the bus and he had no chance to avoid me or if he didn't even see me.

I can't believe I'm following with this...

Sorry, but rediculous pointless analogies is what's been presented in this thread, I thought that was the way we were going now. 

I am SO staying out of this useless bickering about a completely unnecessary UER note. It's not an ERR or VAR, so why all the fuss?

Other places in the internets have called this out as an UER. Even that one site B3cke+t. Not saying this should be done the same as others, but it certainly adds weight to the UER argument. What does it hurt? We get so focused on being perfect or right, we must understand that this is what we get with crowdsourced editing.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=190818

http://baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/1974_Topps

Please be civil folks. We're not here for a long time, so let's have a good time.

Also, if you don't want to dignify this with a reply: then don't. It remind me of people taking the time to write reviews of "I have no opinion" or answering a question in a public forum "I have no idea".

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

Love to all.

So the argument is the number is sideways, and the counter-argument is it has never been determined if it was done on purpose or on accident?

Maybe for the sake of clarity, civility, and future reference until the Admin makes a decision or confirmation from Topps possibly is to just keep it not listed as an UER but put it in the trivia section that the specific card has raised quite the debate on the site.

I've stayed out of it this long because it got out of hand quite quickly and I waited for it to calm down a bit.  As for my opinion, I think both sides make an argument, but I think by now if Topps had a reason to make it different from the rest they would have.  However if it was just a mistake, I also figure by now they'd admit it.  We may never know, but in my opinion, I'd say its an UER.

Billy I’m not sure what I’ve done to merit the level of disdain and disrespect you’ve shown me in this thread. I don’t think my analogy was that out of line. I was trying to think of a reason for them to turn the number and the first thing to come to mind is printing or cutting. Why is that a “ridiculous pointless analogy” that you “can’t dignify with a response”? By the way your bus analogy falls flat because if the driver intentionally hit someone it wouldn’t be an error it would be murder. You seem to have come into this thread so sure that you’re right that you’re not willing to listen to another side and just dismissed my argument. It’s frankly insulting. I’m disappointed because I’ve always been nothing but complimentary to you. I found your blog on scanning cards early on and have used your method to great success and have steered several othe members to it.

I really don’t care how anyone else chooses to collect. As far as I’m concerned any and all people are welcomed here. The more the merrier. But if the goal is to make this the most accurate database out there then some debate on issues like this is going to be needed. At the end of the day let’s all remember this is supposed to be a fun hobby and an escape from real life! 

Who would have though TCDB would have a mutipage page thread about an error card with only five responses from Bob? 

And since I'm working from home this morning, and extremely bored, I'm going to add my two cents that no one asked for.

To begin with, I'm confused with the criteria about a UER or not being determined based on if they meant to do it. Its 1974; Topps wasn't intentionally printing cards with no backs or missing names, or any other weird gimmicks. That was still 45 years away. They either made a mistake (a.k.a an error) or they didn't. That said, if I missed the part where we were trying to use intent to determine whether it was a UER or a VAR, I apologize - that would make more sense to me, though I still don't see why it wouldn't be an UER or VAR. 

Oh yeah, my opinion on the actual card? Before I forget, it's that it should absolutely be noted and acknowledged. Read further for more thoughts, or stop now and tell me to get back to work.

dsorek made an excellent point that I want to build off of. I've said this time and time again to many individuals and groups. This site, which is truly a marvel when you really think about it, is quickly becoming THE hobby resource. Zistle was before my time, but it's gone. More and more people seem to be leaving Beckett. The only other one I have experience with is SportsCardForum and I'm not a fan of their layout. I'm getting off track though - the point is that as people come to this site for help and resources and to take part in this great hobby (folks, it is a hobby; one that we're all passionate about but cards aren't the end-all, be-all), we should be putting out the best, and most accurate, resource that there is.

Here's the thing though - there is no formula! There is no perfect way to build that resource. All we can use for reference is the information provided by other sites (checklists, notes, etc.) and learn from what DIDN'T work for them. But I would say that ultimately a situation like this should be noted. It's okay to say that "other sites have" because yeah, they have. They also had the checklist posted before it was posted here but we added it to our site anyway. This is crowd sourced, which means we get all of the information that we can and we put it all into one big pot and we sift through it to find the most accurate info that we can and we put it together in a nice and pretty format and present it to the world. 

One of those bits of info is the fact that for some odd, unknown, and seemingly random reason, poor card #161 got its numbered turned on it's side. Heck, put it in the Trivia section with links to every single doggone conversation and mention of it on the first five pages of Google (my actual vote on the matter, but I wouldn't be bothered either way). But remember, all of you, please - there is no right or wrong way to go about doing this. There is only the information we try to preserve and share with the hobby.

Everyone have a good day, and I look forward to ranfordfan popping into this thread sometime tomorrow afternoon, late to the party because he's buried under sixteen feet of snow.

My problem, like all historians, is that suppression of knowlegde tends to trigger us. This is well known knowlege that we are suppressing. (I was not aware that it was well known before, but I don't care about baseball) Why are we doing that? There has yet to be a valid reason given. 

If we are supposed to be a database of all knowledge of the hobby, randomly denying actual known knowledge invalidates everything. 

Lugnut, I did dismiss what you said. Your argument is not based on any sort of reality,  how cards were made then is well documented and not at all what you've imagined. Pushing that thought again after I gave a (albeit brief) description of how it was actually done told me you weren't interested in reality or actual documented facts.

Where is the knowledge being suppressed!?!? Nobody’s denying the number is turned just that maybe it shouldn’t be labeled as an error. I don’t know how you  think my argument is not based in reality but apperantly the reality of an arrogant “historian” is different the one I live in. I don’t think anyone including myself is trying to deny “actual known knowledge”. Please enlighten me to where I did that. I will do my best to steer clear of you in all future   endeavors  on this site so I don’t trigger you with my ignorance. 

Isn't the whole point of this thread about a known error not being listed for no valid reason? You are arguing for it to be not listed, which is suppression of it. Suppression and denial are not the same thing. 

I will explain this again because you aren't getting it. Cut lines were printed in the margins. Examine any uncut sheet or even an off center card and you will see them. Topps didn't always care about getting them right during the 70s and 80s, which is why so many cards are available from that time that are off center or diamond cut. The cut lines are how the cards were cut, not the design between the lines.

The printing process was carved into metal plates which were then filled with ink and pressed into the paper, four of which required to complete the full card. This is done by machines, and the carving is so lighly done it's nearly imperceptible in hand. The only human part of this is making sure the plates are the correct ones going in, and making sure the ink is full, and even that may be computerized now. The design is irrelevant to the process, it's the same for all printed objects, from cards to books to the ads in the newspaper. I do not know when the plates transitioned from hand carved to mechanical, I have not really researched that. The process dates to the 1500s and the concept hasn't changed greatly since then even though the technology has. 

I digress but the concept of them using this as a marker for cutting or printing is just not accurate in any way, shape or form.