I know the #36 has both the with and w/o gap in the INC. *DENOTES* and I think I saw that in card #38 as well. Have not looked deeper into it. Im not into these types of variations that cover the majority of the set but as typesetting variations are accepted on TCDB so I think these would qualify.It's not for me but if it helps others thats fine. I do not have enough cards to do a whole lot but if anyone has the ambition to dive in I will contribute a list of the ones I do have.
sandyrusty wrote:
But the question is: are there 2 cards with the same . and * combination that are different in this regard?
From the examples provided (which are two different . & * VAR), the difference is insignificant and it is one of those VAR that I personally do not believe belongs here.
Someone previously pointed out that in order for the "gap" difference to be any form of a variation, the cards have to have the same previously mentioned variations with the gap being the only differece.
So, below, I have provided two links. The 1st link is of the current scans of the [a] variation of the Jose Guzman Card #284 (which is now actually supposed to be the [b] variation), the scan shows "1988 LEAF INC." (w/ a period) and shows "* Denotes *" (w/ 2 asterisks), but no gap. The 2nd link is of the card I just scanned in, for what is now the [b] variation, which shows "1988 LEAF INC." (w/ a period) and shows "* Denotes *" (w/ 2 asterisks), but with a gap.
After looking at this, I definitely won't be going through my 15,000 cards again comparing gaps.
-------------------------------
Bruno
--------
Check my Profile page to see my 2020 Goals and my Lists of sets near completion (5 cards or less) or sets getting close (less than 100 cards missing and 75% complete).
I'm done too. It's one thing when it came to dot/no-dot and */** as those are obvious, conscious differences in the printing set-up. Minute gaps though, maybe only if the text was altered on the back (think along the lines of 88D).
-------------------------------
I'm not trading right now; I don't know when I will again....
So, after being notified by TCDB about the variation discrepancies of the back of certain cards in the 1989 Donruss set, I proceeded to check the #542 Ken Caminiti cards which I have and found that 2 of the 3 cards are indeed of form variation type a (1988 LEAF, INC. and *Denotes). However, my 3rd #542 card has a blurred "1988 LEAF, INC." as though this copyright line was printed twice. Is this yet ANOTHER variation of this card? I shall be happy to upload a pic of it for review if needed.
"I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat..."
Whoever doesn't google that and can tell me the song will get a card. :) (a 1989 Donruss card!)
vrooomed wrote:
Just for the record, double printed text is a printing glitch, and not listable here.
althib wrote:
In regard to #542 Ken Caminiti, I have another A) variety. Same as the usual A) "Inc. / * denotes", but "1988 Leaf, Inc. / Printed in USA" is double printed, but not the rest of the card.
-------------------------------
-- Dan --
Note: I have currently stopped accepting transaction requests but I am not opposed to trading. Please see my profile for more info regarding this.
As mnetioned in the thread about 100 times and in the emass -mail, cards that were not visually verified by the committee that worked on this were not added. I have sent you instructions via PM on how to help us. Thank you.
rhinomeadows wrote:
Anyone know why #368d doesnt come up on the checklist? I have it.
-------------------------------
-- Dan --
Note: I have currently stopped accepting transaction requests but I am not opposed to trading. Please see my profile for more info regarding this.
Members who have not been to the forums recently, before you post a message, please read through the last couple pages of this thread. There is a ton of info that seems to be missed.
Not all cards were visually verified - so they were not added to the checklist. If you HAVE one of those, leave a message here, or send me a PM, and I (or someone else) will get back to you on how you can help.
Blurry text is NOT a VAR (per site rules).
This is all we plan to add at this point.
Thank you. I hope this is the last time I have to say these things.
-------------------------------
-- Dan --
Note: I have currently stopped accepting transaction requests but I am not opposed to trading. Please see my profile for more info regarding this.
It won't be the last time you say it unless you chose not to do so; you know that unfortunately.....
vrooomed wrote:
Members who have not been to the forums recently, before you post a message, please read through the last couple pages of this thread. There is a ton of info that seems to be missed.
Not all cards were visually verified - so they were not added to the checklist. If you HAVE one of those, leave a message here, or send me a PM, and I (or someone else) will get back to you on how you can help.
Blurry text is NOT a VAR (per site rules).
This is all we plan to add at this point.
Thank you. I hope this is the last time I have to say these things.
-------------------------------
I'm not trading right now; I don't know when I will again....
.jpg)
