1965 Topps Ugly Stickers Non-Sport Forum

All,

I created this set and built/uploaded the checklist based on some personal research and several freely available resources online. My interest in the set is due to its inclusion in a megaset (i.e., set of sets) that I'm building out of 100 non-sport sets. Regardless, I was hoping one of you TCDB veterans can give me some feedback.

Most of the cards in this set showcase 1 out of 4 variations for the underlying base design of each numbered card in the set. There are only 4 cards in the set that are "unique" on the checklist, meaning there are no aliased variations. Each variation shows the same illustration, but has a different name on the front and a shifting location of the name as well.

Based on the above, I was hoping someone with more site experience could weigh in on whether my checklist design is an optimal representation of the set itself? In particular, when creating the checklist, I was unsure if I should:

• Option A: List the card numbers for the variations the way that I did here (i.e., use identical card numbers for each group of variations but explicitly differentiate them from one another with an alphabetical suffix that gets iteratively incremented from -a through -d: 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 14a, 14b...).
• Option B: Use identical card numbers for all cards within a group of variations, but without providing the suffix as a differentiator. I think this approach kind of assumes that the shared identifier among the variations indicates to the platform that the checklist items are, in fact, variations of the same card, triggering master set calculations, etc.

Would someone be kind enough to share some best practices, or describe the system logic, so that I can continue to contribute effectively? Thanks!

Note2 should be formatted as "VAR: [variation description]" - you are missing the colon after "VAR" and the descriptions are a bit vague.

By not having the ":" in Note2, the subnum field is not displaying when editing the numbers, so the a/b/c/d cannot be moved out of the number field.

Total cards should be 44 - if having one of each card number is considered having the set.

Making these adjustments would then trigger the Basic / Master set calculations.

Thank you so much, @vrooomed. This is tremendously helpful. I will implement updates and/or submit requests today to align with your feedback.

Thanks for posting this, I've been wondering how the subnum thing worked on import.

Unfortunately, the subnum thing doesn't have import capabilities (at least not as of yet). I'm not sure if it's even possible, but I will be submitting a new feature suggestion later today about that.

If I'm working a checklist that will have subnums, most of the time I will upload with the letters in the Number field (just so it's easier to find them later on to fix them). When working with smaller checklists, I might skip the letters on upload and add them afterwards.

But in either case, it's a second step if subnums are involved.

Ah, understood.  Thanks for the clarification.

I finished updating the Note2 field for the entire set and I can now see the affected cards in the Variations section of the Overview. I also submitted a report to change the total cards in the set to 44. Will the rest take care of itself? I don't have permissions to edit card numbers, so the number versus sub-number distinction is not visible to me in the UI. Do I need to submit a separate report to have the card numbers updated, so the subnum values (e.g., a, b, c, d) can be broken out?

If you can't edit card numbers, yes, you'll need to submit an IR so someone with the proper permissions can. It won't resolve itself. Thanks for updating all the Note2 fields.

Roger that. Submitting it now. Thanks again for all the help.

Glad to help!