Posted By | Message |
Acehogue
Posts: 16
Joined: Jan 2018
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:22 PM | |
This card is missing from the Rickey henderson page
|
|
|
|
BigEd76
Posts: 3,966
Joined: Nov 2016
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:26 PM | |
It's bootleg junk. Not listable here
-------------------------------
* Ed * L8 * Cards in my personal Collection are unavailable *
|
|
|
|
grim25
Posts: 559
Joined: Jan 2013
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:47 PM | |
It looks like the set is not listed on the site as of yet. I will lookk to see if I can get something put together. If you look under the 1989 > Baseball > Unlicensed section of the database you will see they did not change the design very much over the years that they produced them.
|
|
|
|
C2Cigars
Posts: 11,335
Joined: Oct 2014
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:54 PM | |
Not listable, Henderson was an active player in 1990. From FAQ:
Are unlicensed/Broder, ACEO, or reprinted cards allowed to be listed?
Cards of this nature may be added in limited scope.
For unlicensed*/Broder** cards, the following criteria must be met:
- The cards cannot feature any current players as they would presumably be under current player association contracts for use of likeness.
- The year of release must be known.
- A complete checklist must be known.
- The set must be placed into the "Unlicensed" category.
- The set should have "(Unlicensed)" placed into the set's name.
For ACEO cards, the following criteria must be met:
- The cards cannot feature any current players as they would presumably be under current player association contracts for use of likeness.
- The year of release must be known.
- A complete checklist must be known.
- Sets featuring players, celebrities, and other popular subjects must be produced by a registered company and added to the site organically by collectors (not by individuals of the company seeking to advertise or promote their product).
-------------------------------
Someday my cards may double in value and then be worth half of what I paid for them.
|
|
|
|
grim25
Posts: 559
Joined: Jan 2013
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:08 PM | |
C2C, you and I are usually on the same page and I would not usually go against with a veteran member of the site. But if that is the case then we need to remove the following sets as they were produced by the same group.
1987 Action SuperStars Series 1 (unlicensed)
1987 Action SuperStars Series 2 (unlicensed)
1987 Action SuperStars Series 3 (unlicensed)
1987 Action SuperStars Series 4 (unlicensed)
1988 Action Superstars (unlicensed)
1988 Action Superstars Samples
1988 Action Superstars Series I & II (unlicensed)
1989 Action Superstars Gallery
1989 Action Superstars Display Cards (unlicensed)
1989 Action Superstars Display Cards (unlicensed)
1989 Action Superstars MLB Logo Test (unlicensed)
I have found all but card #1 and #10 for the 1990 checklist. I would have put it under the Unlicensed section with the title 1990 Action Superstars (unlicensed). Similar to its previous sets. So if the thought is that I am incorrect, then I will not pursue the checklist any further is this is the case.
grim25
|
|
|
|
jasongerman9
Posts: 1,896
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:18 PM | |
I would say to run this by Admin. Jason, you're right - if the FAQ is to be believed and followed 100%, then they should all be removed.
The wording in the FAQ that C2C quoted is fairly new - I say fairly new, and by that I mean it was clarified and added within the last year. Those sets may have been added before that clarification was put in the FAQ. It may also be a case of Admin granting an exception to the rule. I know some members don't like these exceptions, and I also know that there are some member(s) working on ways to document said exceptions. Who knows.
I'd say bounce this off of the big man and let him make the call.
-------------------------------
I'll never quit collecting entirely, but I am downsizing. Check out my COMC store and help me thin out what I don't want so I can buy cards that I do want. See something you like? Send me a message on here, and we can knock the price down quite a bit. I'll even take a bit of a loss if it means getting you a card you really want.
|
|
|
|
SirKnightMark
Posts: 55
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:33 AM | |
Completely agree. These unlicensed cards are still a fun part of the hobby and isn't this site supposed to nurture our collecting avenues? If the other unlicensed sets are listed here the MJ set should be too. I have many of these cards and they are a fun part of the hobby to me.
-SirKnightMark
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,820
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:49 AM | |
While we are entitled to our opinions on what a "fun part of the hobby" is to each of us (hey, I think collecting pocket schedules is fun), but the site has rules and guidelines, and we must follow them, whether or not our collection falls in or out of those.
I have sent in a proposal under the New Feature tracker as a means of eliminating these types of debates. It would be a method in which sets (full releases, not like individual insert sets) would get "Admin approved". They would get to that point first by a series of "up/down" votes by a portion of the membership deemed responsible enough for making such judgements (Maybe L7/L8, maybe only L8, that would be at Admin's discretion). After the release reaches a certain number of "up votes", it would go before Admin to be given the "final up vote" - and would be considered a valid release and there would be no more ability to up/down vote it. Once a set receives a down vote, it, too, would go before Admin. If Admin up votes it, it stays, and the ability to up/down vote it is removed (meaning it stays for good) or Admin can "down vote" it, and remove the listing from the site. I don't know if Admin can do this, or even how quickly he can, but this would allow all these "oddball" unlicensed sets to be given a final chance. And it would eliminate the back and forth of "it show go" / "it should stay" we've seen a few sets go through.
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|
jasongerman9
Posts: 1,896
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:53 AM | |
I can appreciate the sentiment, but in all fairness, there's lots of things that people think are a fun part of the hobby that don't get listed here - game programs, ticket stubs, pocket schedules, coasters, Jell-O molds, etc. It's easy enough to say "well, those aren't cards, and these are, and this is a Trading Card Database, so these should be included." In this case, however, there's more in play.
The card in this thread, as well as the Jordan cards in another thread and all the sets that grim25 linked here were produced illegally. Whoever printed these almost certainly didn't have permission to use Henderson's image, or the A's logo. Unfortunately, lines have to be drawn somewhere, and it has been Admin's stance in the past to not give creedence to these illegally produced cards. This is why I suggest grim25 contact him to get a judgement.
I do want to observe something else from the FAQ, though: The cards cannot feature any current players as they would presumably be under current player association contracts for use of likeness. This could, in theory, be interpreted as current players - as in, right now current, not current when the cards were printed. Perhaps that is why those sets are listed.
Dan answered as I was typing, but I put too much effort into wording and re-wording this post to not post it. His proposed method is what I mentioned in an earlier post.
-------------------------------
I'll never quit collecting entirely, but I am downsizing. Check out my COMC store and help me thin out what I don't want so I can buy cards that I do want. See something you like? Send me a message on here, and we can knock the price down quite a bit. I'll even take a bit of a loss if it means getting you a card you really want.
|
|
|
|
sandyrusty
Posts: 4,614
Joined: Dec 2014
|
Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:15 AM | |
Personally (and my opinion only so no one can say I am wrong though some probably will), I think these should be listed but in the set title have (unlicensed). These cards are found in fairly large numbers across hobby outlets (LCS, card shows, online selling sites, etc.). They are part of the hobby and always will be whether one wishes to include them in their personal collection or not. These cannot be confused as unmarked reprints; these are a totally different line of cards.
I understand Admin's rules about a set not being listed here during the time a player is under contract to MLB. But most of these sets are from the Junk Era years and I think most of the players are no longer under MLB contract (of course, I have not read the contract but I doubt if it extends beyond their playing days.
I also support the guideline that if a set is to be added, the research must be done to submit a complete checklist. Preferably that is done by the member who is wishing to have a card added.
-------------------------------
Bruno -------- Check my Profile page to see my 2023 Goals and my Lists of sets near completion (5 cards or less) or sets getting close (less than 100 cards missing and 75% complete). https://www.tcdb.com/Forum.cfm/Page/B/ID/0/?MODE=VIEW&ThreadID=25745&C=0
|
|
|
|