2005 Topps Heritage Baseball Forum

Hi All,

I recently have made a few trades with people for what I thought were 2005 Heritage Base set cards.

When I received the cards, I discovered that the cards I received were of the White Back variety.

Now, I must admit, when I started bilding this set, I did not know that there was a variation, as it is not listed in the normal set as a VAR, but instead has it's own listing.

https://www.tcdb.com/Checklist.cfm/sid/20305/2005-Topps-Heritage---White-Backs

I contacted my trade partners, as I am sure it was unbeknownst to them as well, so I just wanted to make sure everyone here knew of it as well, so they could go back and adjust their lists. It is quite clear when you view the backs that there is a distinct difference between the white backs and the standard gray backs.

Happy collecting everybody!!

-Tom

I've experienced the same problem as you.  I really don't want the white backs.  I think it is odd these are listed as a separate set instead of a variation within the regular set.  I don't recall them being issued in separate packs, so why would they be identified as a separate set.

There's a similar issue with the 2009 Heritage which has both green backs and black backs.  My recollection was that they were all intermingled in packs, but TCDB lists the black backs as a separate set.

They are listed as inserts, which are related, not separate.

I stand corrected.  To a regular user, it's one of those situations where it's confusing.  Probably because it is the card back.  Most people wouldn't have an issue identifying a parallel like a blue border or something like that because the front is different.  But since it's only the backs which differ, and they differ in a manner that mimics the original Topps set, it's just harder for typical collectors to distinguish correctly.  And since not every card has a white back (or black back version), they seem more like variations rather than an insert.  TCDB lists Heritage action variations and other types of variations within the primary set and not as inserts.  There's some inconsistency in how these variations are treated and that can confuse people.

Like how 2001 Heritage has the red back and black backs listed in the main checklist?

Correct. Why wouldn't they do the same for 2005, or any other year for that matter.

Would make sense, and stop with the confusion.

Someone might think they have 2005 completed, only to look at the backs of their cards and be disappointed.

At the very least, the White Back set should be a parallel, not an insert. I can't say that I know 100% for sure, but something to consider...

We didn't always have the tools that we have now. The site came to exist in...2009? It's in the FAQ. Anyway, 2005 Topps Heritage would have been entered on this site well before many of the abilities that exist now were put in place, not to mention some of the listing conventions. No way to enter VARs for sets format sets for multiple VARs, no basic/master set functions,  no way to have the sub-number ("a", "b", etc.) have its own box, etc.

As things have evolved, changes have been made to the listing conventions on here. However, that doesn't mean that sets are automatically updated. I can say that for one, I wasn't aware that this set had the dark backs and white backs. There are almost certainly sets on here that have cards listed as an insert or parallel that should be VARs.

What we do with these isn't my realm of "expertise". I don't know the product well enough (hence my opening statement). All I ask is that we remember that as things on this site have evolved, many sets need to be updated and formatted correctly. There is still a very long list of things to do to continue to update the site listings and keep it accurate, so what is perceived as an inconsistency or confusing likely isn't done that way on purpose, or at least without reason - it's usually the lack of awareness of a situation (can't fix what isn't known about) from a product that was initially entered here correctly and has fallen "out of compliance", if you will, due to the passage of time.

Edited to make some clarification changes now that I'm not on my phone, and at a computer instead.

Thanks for your response, Jason.  I wondered if there was some explanation like you suggested - even if we don't know that's that actual reason it's plausible.  These aren't easy questions to answer.  I can make an argument that the different color back versions in the various Heritage sets should be listed within the primary set as variation since they are mimicking the original set on which the Heritage set is based on - which had those same variations!  To me that's more justifiable as an in-set VAR than the action image variations or the alternate team color variations you'll find populating Heritage sets.  And yet we have no issue calling the action image or alternate team color versions as in-set VARs.

I'm curious, how would an issue like this be resolved?

It's currently being discussed as to what the best fix is.

Jason is correct, as the tools the site had when this set was entered were almost "primitive" when compared the vast expansions Admin has added since then.

And I think you guys were correct when stating that you expectwed to find (or would expect to find) the White Backs listed as a VAR rather than as an insert or partial Parallel set.

Thanks to this discussion, we have analyzed this release, discussed parallels, and determined that the "whirte backs" do indeed belong as "VARs" within the base set. This will take a little bit of work to make it happen, but it's not terrible. There is a step along the way that will require Admin to step in to re-order the cards once they've been moved into the base set, so for a little while, the "white backs" will appear at the end of the base set. When Admin has the opportunity, he will move them into the proper spots.

Thanks again to those who brought this up, participated, and discussed. This was helpful.