1997 SkyBox E-X2000 Baseball Forum

Hello everyone - I was wondering if anyone knew anything more about a gold variant of the Hall or Nothing insert in this set. Here's what baseballpedia has to say:

The foil was etched for detail; however, two colored foil versions exist: Copper and Gold. Fleer/Skybox provided no information about these two versions and two theories have emerged for explanation: that the Copper and Gold foiled cards were a result of a printing error or that one color was a stealth parallel variation that was never officially announced. Regardless of the theories, the Copper foil versions are more plentiful than the Gold and the common conclusion is that the Copper foil was the intended finish and the Gold foil was the variant (intentional or unintentional)

http://baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/1997_E-X_2000

Obviously that's still pretty ambiguous. And I know it's a shot in the dark but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks!

my personal opinion is that the gold should be a parallel to the insert, and submitted an IR today

I've got one gold, Juan Gonzalez I think

COMC has pics of Gold #1 (which looks copper to me), #9 and #12

https://www.comc.com/Cards,sc,=1997+hall+nothing,ot,i100

Tough call on this one since we don't know if it was intended or just a printing error.

my IR report was answered with -

Ha

1996 Fleer - Base set - gold foil. Tiffany set - holo-silver foil. Production mistake caused 100s (if not 1,000s) of cards to go out as base set with holo-silver and Tiffany with gold. Those versions were once listed here and Admin removed them. This sounds like another production issue (possibly same facilities). Additionally, historically speaking, this pre-dates the idea of parallels for inserts. I don't see how a gold foil set of these can be listed here.

so shot down,

So I am re-opening this thread because I have obtained a copy of a gold Variant. I have looked very closely and done a bit of research on these. Where I can't find anything that concludes that they were intentional variations, they do seem to be accepted as variations with a fair amount of  player collectors and set collectors. A close examination of the card would suggest that this would be a tough printing glitch to overlook as the image of the player is printed over parts of the foil, and then an image of the logo is printed over part of the player. Where it is not impossible to miss during the printing process, it seems like it would be very tough not to catch. 

I must make a response to the response that was given to abide's IR. Whoever said " Additionally, historically speaking, this pre-dates the idea of parallels for inserts.", might want to look at the 1995 Fleer Ultra Baseball set that had a parallel to all of there inserts, which the parallel happened to be a foil stamping. Collector's Choice all the way back to 1994 when it first released a set had parallels of silver and gold signatures.

I am really re-opening this thread because I feel that an honest look should actually be taken before having this variation shot down. To look at the variations side by side you would be able to see that this isn't a fade of the coloring in the foil. The gold around the borders of the variation are the same gold that is used in the EX2000 Logo. If needed I can provide images of both variations side by side for closer examination.

And the 1996 Fleer foil "variants" are very clear as well - but are printing glitches that Admin didn't allow and removed the sets that were listed.

These are the same.

I have taken this variation before Admin and they have given the go ahead to add this to the database. I wanted to let it be known so that I don't get accused of going rogue by adding this set.

This is an interesting thread.

In principle, the question of whether variations are TCDB-worthy variations depends on if the manufacturer intended to create those variations. That's the gospel, right?

But unless the manufacturer made it clear that they intentionally made those variations, we will never know their intentions. So, sometimes it's guesswork. This set is a good example. Leaf never announced a gold-foil parallel, so according to gospel, it's just a print variation and not worthy of being listed. I'm OK with that.

But this particular variation is fairly well known, and seems to apply to all cards in the set. And most importantly, Admin says it shall be listed. I'm OK with that too.

If that sounds wishy-washy, that's because it is. There's no black-and-white line to be drawn here. For any rule anyone makes, someone can easily present a gray-area example that isn't totally settled by that rule.

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. As an obscure variation hunter, I think this stuff is fun. I'd rather see TCDB err on the side of including more variations than fewer.