1993 Stadium Club Football Forum

I was entering some cards in my collection when this one came up: https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/3371/cid/868846?PageIndex=1

I have the "corrected" version; the stamp on the front. My question is, under site guidelines, isn't the one missing the stamp just a printing error and as such, shouldn't be catalogued as an error here? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, so some education would be beneficial if I'm wrong. Thanks in advance!

Jason

If the "Draft Pick" stamp was foil, I'd say just a printing error.

It is listed as an error here.

This looks like more of a design change to me, there's foil for his name and Stadium Club logo on the error version so it's not like the card missed going through the foil process.

So the one with the "Draft Pick" logo is a limited printing (short print) perhaps? First printing only?

I would guess the reverse, along the lines of "Oops, we forgot to include the draft pick foil that Bob spent three months designing.  Stop the presses!"  A quick check of the Bledsoe on COMC looks like roughly equal quantities, so must have happend about mid-print run.

There are several listed over at the price guide place. And it looks like we have them listed here (although formatted incorrectly - I have formatted the 2 cards of the player mentioned by Jason as an example to whoever wishes to take on the others).

THis might seem silly, but what color is the foil that was used for the Draft Pick Logo? Was it gold like the name? If so, I can't imagine Topps feeding a sheet through the same color stamping twice, so I would say if the logo is gold, then it belongs as an actual error. If it's a different color, it would be a candidate for "exception" status, and Admin should be alerted.

I'm not sure on the foil color, but with 102 examples of the Bledsoe on COMC, it's a 48/54 split.  This was an intentional "fix", not something where a few sheets missed some foil by accident.

Soapbox Time!!

Must be my failing eyes, I don't see a difference on theTCDB scans. lol.

Meanwhile, if the ERR, VAR or COR versions are not "just 1 card finds", then they should be included. And furthermore, if they are reported by more than 1 member, they should be included.

Matter-of-fact, if we just included "more than 1 IDed cards and included by members" the ERR/VAR/COR forum questions could be easily solved. Exceptions are ridiculous, if cards in our database have been entered, IDed and added by members, then president has been set. EX. the recent * and ** dilemma, shouldn't have been an issue, many cards are listed with these variations. Just add them. 1990T Frank Thomas is an exception, why? going for $400?, when there are other cards in this set with the exact same variation as the Big Hurt, Why shouldn't they be included, I ask?

There are so-so many cards listed that allegedly "shouldn't be" We certainly aren't going back and removing them! So, THERE is our double-standard, many ERR/VAR/COR cards are listed but many more are being scrutinized up, down and around. Just can't grasp the rationale, sorry.

Just my opinion, ~BOB~

Bob, we are on the different side of the same page. I'm not a fan of listing every single miniscule variation we can find on cards. Not my cup of tea; to each their own. However, I do agree that I'm seeing an odd standard here. I'm not home so I can't look at the card again until tomorrow, but the stamp seemed the same kind of foil as the name. What's the difference in the foil stamp not being applied or the foil stamp wearing off after 25 years? If I can come up with 55 examples of a 2001 Topps Ichiro card that has foil loss, do we enter it as an error?

Maybe I'm not making my confusion clear enough, but something doesn't seem to click here.