1995 Walt Disney Productions Disney Movies Pogs Non-Sport Forum

Everybody likes using "snarky" , must be a bedfellow of Dan's. lol. He likes using snarky ! Mr. Supersleuth was not directed towards you Tom,  that came across all wrong. It was aimed at my buddyroll Dan. 

I actually used your pics and info. to realize the error of my ways. And I will continue to do so. I appreciate your research tips, and will bookmark those sites that help.

I'll say it again, These came as sets, no reason to question the seller/trader at the time. Obviously, my bad, and I was wrong. No need to rack me thru the coals any further. Oh Splinter, Oh Dan, leave it be, next time will be better.

I have a goal in mind, and I will achieve it, no matter how hard certain members try to derail me.

Have a good day boys.

Please don't mistake my candor and outright honesty in this thread as snarkiness. In this case, I was never snarky about anything. I explained how things needed to be done, Ryan helped you as well, and (as usual) you completely didn't do what you were instructed to do. This is not snark. This is direct and complete frankness. What I said has all through this thread has not changed. You were required to ensure you had a complete and accurate checklist before proceeding. You failed to do so. Again, openness and honesty - no snark.

No one here tried to derail you. You're playing he "victim card" here again. It's your MO. You are not the victim. You had help. People tried very hard to assist you in getting things right. You uploaded the checklists that were not correct. This is all on you for not doing it correctly. You are not the victim of anyone trying to derail you. You did that to yourself. In fact, you started out off the rails with the lack of examples and unwillingness to share what you were actually trying to do. It wasn't until page 3 of this thread that we finally got you to show us what you were trying to do. Were you hiding something? Ryan, Chuck, Ed, Bruno, Jim, Tom, and I (and maybe others) all kept getting you BACK on the rails. In fact, you had more help for the smallest checklist EVER in the history of this site. (And you still managed to muck it up.) If anything, you should be thanking those members who did everything in their power to KEEP you on the rails. You took yourself off of them - and you have no one to blame for that except yourself. Please stop thinking people are out to get you. No one who participated in this thread are out to get you - in fact, obviously, it's just the opposite - we all were there trying to help you.

And what do you do to the people that were helping you? You hurl insults at them and tell them to leave you alone.

Bob, don't ask for help if you want to be left alone.

Everyone else, please leave Bob alone. He apparently doesn't want, or appreciate, the help he has been given (over and over again).

i'm not sure what else you want me to do or say. 

i tried to explain. with just 500 points, u think i know what to do but i didn't. just started to get the hang of scanning, let alone uploading to the site.  i can't help that my brain doesn't adjust as quickly as everybody elses. it was a damn mistake, ok......i owned it and you keep going on. your mo dan.

thanks to everybody that tried to help, i'm sorry i didn't comprehend everything at once.

this post really sours me on adding cls, and uploading my scans. real shame, i was just starting to enjoy and get the details down. 

Instead, you could look at it as a learning experiemce. You had a half-dozen people working WITH you to try to get your "dream" to happen. Look at the positives.

The shame would be if you didn't learn from this, and stopped trying.

I made a mistake on an IR fix last night.  I denied my own fix so it wouldn't go thru. I re-submitted the IR on the other guy's behalf.  I apologized to the person who submitted the original by PM, in two or three sentences. And I will quit trying to fix things late at night when my mind may not be so alert.  Yes, we all make mistakes.  But every little thing doesn't have to be turned into Watergate.

Bob, you gotta realize that these people helping you are taking time out of their day to do so, most of them have no interest in pogs whatsoever,  and they will never make use of these checklists you are adding.  But they're still helping you.  Or at least they were.

OK, putting all this bs aside. Certainly not getting anything done boo-hooing !

My research led me to conclude the following:

1. Sets can be found [unpunched pogs] of 6 / panel. That's a given. 

2. Unless they are traded sealed or sold together, putting panels together is tough. Ex.My Lion King POGS came as a set of 6/panelx2=12 POGS Set, Mickey & Friends came as 4 6POG Panels or 24. It's not out of the question that you can match the ID qualifier of punched POGS and match them to unpunched POG Sets you find on the web.

3. With all that being said many POGs came in Panels of 6, so with proper research these can be safely listed as sets. My question? Should they be listed as Panels or Single Punchouts? or both.  And with the panel or single punchouts, then CLs should be fairly easy based on proper formatting.

Final Note: I'm not going on a POG rampage, just listing what I can from what I have in my boxes. Have no fear, I'm not going with TPDb..................

Did they actually come in sets?  Or were they released randomly?

The grouping of them seems problematic, or at the very least undocumented at this point.  How they were released seems to me (and I have absolutely zero knowledge of these) to be the first step in determining what constitutes a checklist.

Yes, the ones I'm tracking down have specific release years. ex. Jurassic Park [1993], Simpsons [1994] etc. or Mickey Mouse [1995]. Releasing years and how they are released are not a problem in most cases. Dan, provided the format [in another post] for checklisting the POGS, some can be found on the web, some are just NNO and aplhabetical.

Regarding whether you list them as individuals, panels, or both completely depends on the mthod of distribution.

Panels can only be listed if that was the sole method of distribution. (Examples of this include, but are not limited to, Wax Box card panels, Star Company 3-card panel sets, multi-card sheets inserted into magazines.) The singles would be listed as well since they could be punched out and moved on the secondary market separately.

If the POGs were distributed through the "mass market" as individual entities, then the panels are NOT listable. (Examples of this include, but are not limited to, standard sports cards released in packs but found on ebay in 2-, 3-, and 4-card panels.) In this case, only the singles would be able to be listed.

(And I guess I should state that only sets that are confirmed to be complete, single sets can be listed at all.)

Did that answer the questions?