Site Forum

Lately I've seen all kinds of different markings on this site in regard to variation cards.

Let's assume we're talking about autograph cards with inscription variations, and for the sake of example let's say the cards are officially numbered like A1, A2, A3, and so on.

In some cases I've seen this handled like this...

A5 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some inscription")
A5 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some other inscription")
A5 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "And another inscription")

...this personally seems most correct and most logical way to handle it, imho, since card number remains the same since it is the same on all cards, and variation note clarifies the difference.

Now, more commonly, I've noticed the people change this to something like this...

A5a Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some inscription")
A5b Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some other inscription")
A5c Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "And another inscription")

...where small letter of the alphabet would be added after the actual card number. Not really sure what purpose that has other than the change actual card number into something that isn't on the card.

Now, if this latter example is how we should go about it, then I have a following question... what happens when there are more than 26 variations and we use all letters of alphabet? Would A5a, A5b,... A5z then continue like A5aa, A5ab, etc.?? You may think that never happens, but it does, and we have some sets on file, although in those cases user created numbers to look like...

A5-35 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some inscription")
A5-36 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "Some other inscription")
A5-37 Some Name VAR (VAR: Inscription says "And another inscription")

So, all three ways of handling this can be found on site, and I'm not sure which is the most correct way to go about it, and I'm guessing many of you guys will say the second is the right way (although not sure how you'll answer me about handling more than 26 variations of the same card in such cases), but the first way of handling seems the most logical to me because it uses VAR note for what it is intended... when there is a card variation. It can be 1 variation or 1001, and it won't mess up anything, and all those variation cards will share the same number which they do.

Anyway, I would like to hear from more of you to see if you all look at this the same way or if you're all going about it in a different way or don't even care how this is handled? I'd like to know so I know how to fix things that are not done the right way (well, at least when I'll be able to, that is). Thank you for the input.

Actually, those lowercase letters are not in the number field but in a "subnum" field that only gets opened up when "VAR", "ERR" and a couple other things are in Note2. That's so the checklist shows them as different entities. If you go to the card's page, the lowercase letter will not be visible.

I hadn't realized there was another field there. Is it a new feature and does it get used automatically? As in if I enter a checklist as an .xls with 1a 1b 1c in the fields it will put the a, b and c in the subnum field? I looked at a checklist that I entered a long while ago and this hasn't happened.

No, it's still mostly a manual process to do that (unless the set has VARs on most cards, then the set will get those plus signs - like the late 80s Donruss baseball sets, then there are some tools available to automate the process). The subnum field has been around for about 3-4 years.

To further expand upon Dan's point - while the "a", "b", "c" numbering system is the standard and the correct way to do so, you will find plenty of sets that are not formatted like this. The ability to move this to a "sub-number" field is, as Dan stated, relatively new. Many checklists used to be loaded with the card number and VAR letter in the "number" field, which wouldn't let the filters work correctly - but it was the only way to note that there was more than one card for a number.

If you go to a specific card's page, and you can see a letter to denote a variation appearing next to the card number, then it is not formatted correctly. If you see it on the checklist, but not on the particular card's page, it is formatted correctly.

Dan also notes that the sub-number field won't appear unless VAR:, ERR:, or COR: (with the colon after them) are in the Note2 field. This indicates to the site that there is a difference between cards, and a sub-number may be needed so the box becomes available. If those descriptions aren't in Note2, you can't enter the sub-number.

I don't believe that there is a set standard for having more than 26 VARs for a card, since it happens so rarely. I would assume that "y", "z", "aa", "ab"... would be the most logical.

Thanks for clarifying. And just to add, when we have had the rare occasion of 27+ variations, aa, ab, ac is the approach we used. Using that method, we have a system that will allow us about 700 variations of a single card.

So what would be the best way to enter a checklist where every card has a number of variations? I'm thinking mostly of German pre-war cigarette cards that have every card in a bunch of brand variations. For example if it's a 300 card set with the same 5 variations for each card, do I need to edit 1500 cards individually or is there some way to automate it?

That would be a case where the set would be formatted for variations and the process to move the a/b/c/d/e out of the number field and into the subnum would have the tool available.

You should enter the checklist with all 5 variations of each card from the beginning, then there are no manual updates needed.

I did that with this set: https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid/295622/1934-Ruhmesblatter-Deutscher-Geschichte-(Glory-Pages-of-German-History) I then submitted an IR to have it formatted with the dropdowns and that was done and I had thought it was all done and looked good at the time but now it's all messed up for some reason with the cards in the wrong order in the checklist view.

I see issues with that set where it wasn't completed the way it needs to be. Just being formatted for it isn't enough - there is work to be done once those approvals have occurred. That work wasn't done. I'll work on it in a little bit.