Site Forum

Nobody is suppressing the fact that the card exists. I'm debating whether it's an error. You need to forget about the printing thing that has nothing to do with my argument. I was just trying to come up with an example of why it may not be an error. There could be a million other reasons it was done that would be intentional. If it was done intentioaly then in my opinion it wouldn't be an error, which is not to say it shouldn't be noted. Just maybe find a different way to note it like in the trivia section or just add a note to the card. I don't see how that would be suppression. 

I fully admit it may have been an error. The key word there is may. And without definitive proof I would not label it as an error. But that's just me and it sounds like Dan is already in communication with the Admin about how to list it so this is all just academic at this point. 

Still waiting for Admin's response.

Billy - I'm going to be blunt with you here. I'm not trying to suppress truth or history. If I didn't say it here, I said it in a private message to another member - Adding a comment to the card indicating that it's the only card in the set with the number oriented that way it is would be 100% fine with me (and communicates that this card is, in fact, different from the rest of the set). Yes, I am opposed (or as I said 8 months ago HESITANT) to adding UER notation to it as orientation of numbers is not a fact (such as the number of HRs, wins, or some other statistic).

Is it different that all the other cards in the set? YES!

Is in an error? Who knows? We can't definitively say.

But by that logic we can't say for sure if the cards that have gotten the UER label are errors, unless they have a correction. Maybe Fleer CHOSE to spell Robert Parish's name wrong in 1986-87 Fleer. Maybe Panini chose to consider Charlotte North Carolina on the west coast in 2014-15 Prizm. Maybe Pro Set chose to put T.W. Taylor's picture on Mike Wallace's card in 1994 Power. We don't know they were errors, other than being very obviously an error. None of those got corrections, so maybe they were planned? 

I certainly don't believe that but that is the argument being presented here. Again, intent doesn't matter. Reality does. The reality is that this card is wrong to every single other card in the set, which makes it an error. 

Mike, I may have missed your intention because literally the entirety of your argument was about the printing process. I took it literally, as I tend to do. If that's not what you were getting at then I am sorry. You're still wrong, but for a totally different reason then  (that is meant to be humor, please don't take it as an attack)

And I still say:

Different? Yes.

Wrong? Not sure.

And thank you for actually using the same types of examples I gave previously. A name being misspelled is an error. The picture of person A being used on person B's card is an error. Stating that a state is on the west coast when it is actually on the east coast is a factual error. It's something that can looked up, and refuted as an error. A difference in design is simply that, a difference. It is not factual. It is a matter of opinion whether that is an error or not.

If I decided to dot the i in Daniel in my signature really high sometimes, or even once, is that an error?

Edited for bad typos.

But if the whole point is INTENT it doesn't matter if it's a factual error or a typographical error. The fact is it's an error. What if their intent was to spell a name wrong? What if somebody at the card company didn't like Robert Parish and spelled his name wrong out of spite. That would make it intended, but again, it's not important because intent doesn't matter. 

Billy, even if they did it out of spite, and intentionally spelled his name incorrectly - it's an error because his name is a fact. 

A design element is not a fact.

Please stop comparing apples to oranges.

But I'm using your own arguments. It's ok to assume intent for one thing but not the other? Since when? Are ALL UERs now going to be removed because some people are guessing at the intent of others? Where does the madness end?

Again, INTENT DOESN'T MATTER. WHAT'S ON THE ACTUAL CARD DOES. 

I was going to make the same statement earlier but decided against.  So I'll say it now.

We don't decide by questioning intent, we decide by the results.  Wrong birth city? Wrong birth date?  How do we know that wasn't the information they had in-hand at the time.  Intent-wise not an error; they did nothing wrong with information they had. Results-wise it's an error.  If we're going to say we don't know their intent so no UER.  Then many cards will have to have UERs removed.

Please show me the reference where it states that the 1974 numbers must be oriented a certain way and I'll go in an add the UER myself.

You can't, because it's not a fact.

We do have references that show people's names, their sports satatistics, where states are, etc. This is the point I'm making and you're ignoring.

Actually Dan, yoou're ignoring the point that I'm making, which is, again, intent doesn't matter and what's actually real- the card itself- does.  You say you can't assume the intent of the design, while assuming the intent yourself that it was done on purpose. It's an error and everyone knows it.