1994-95 Finest Hockey Forum

I removed the B but not sure how to proceed as I now see this set has some kind of Beckettness to it. I now understand the letters, the B was for Blue and R is for Red, X I have no clue. But after reading the new rules should not the Note bare the card color and not the card number??  Help.

Helps if I look at the actual insert set in question - reading comprehension, Dan!

Anyway, Beckett is all over this. This may be a perfect candidate for 3 separate sets - Blue, Red, and Dual (X - for crossover?). The numbers on the cards are not what Beckett used. Grrrrr.

Here is your answer directly from Beckett's description.

"Cards are numbered with a B (1-20) prefix for veterans, R (1-20) for rookies, and X (21-25) for dual player cards."

Looks like the letter in the numbers should go away and Note1 should be used for the Rookies portion and the Duals portion.

Thought so ................ I shall begin the repairs.

Glad to help. This might be the first time I've helped you with an NHL set. You mentioned Beckett and b/c of the age of the set, I figured they would have a description in their checklist for the set. It was easy to see what had been done here to match theirs originally. I really wish Beckett would get back to adding descriptions in their CL's. They really haven't done that for several years now in pretty much all sports and releases.

The hockey cards are similiar to 1994 Bowman's Best baseball, and don't actually have the number prefixes on them. The backgrounds are blue or red though, leading to the B and R prefixes. Should they therefore be listed without prefixes?

Good job on fixing the sets. Now get back to work on adding checklists Ranfordfan

That is the idea here - to have what is seen on the card as the card number. If there is no "R" on the card, there should be no "R" in the database.

If I get a random lot of cards, and I have no idea what this card #8 is of a certain player, the database is great in that I can go to that player's page, go to filters, and search only cards that are number 8. But if we have the card listed as R8, I won't find that card here. (A fw years back, I bought a couple big lots of Tony Gwynn and Frank Thomas, and since these were mostly cards from my baseball hiatus, I didn't know most of them. I used the TCDB to identify them, and used that feature on several of the insert cards. So glad for that capability!)

The question becomes, do the Rs and Bs become separate sets? (Else, we'd have two 1s, two 2s, etc. in the set.) There is a submission into Admin regarding the hockey set - let's see where that leads before taking action on further sets. Thanks!

If the have the same numbering, I would say that yes they should count as separate sets.

I think the 1996-97 Bowman's Best NBA release should be listed with the Rookies as an insert, and the Retro as an insert...both have different numbering systems with letter prefixes, which the veteran players do not have. But that would make it one so an insert would carry the RC prefix, because it was the only way to get rookie cards...and they were not seeded any shorter than veterans. Had the same design. That year's Stadium Club had the rookie cards only as inserts as well. Thankfully, that was a short lived trend limited to those two sets.

They were all insert cards and the first 40 cards did have the same numbers of 1-20 for the veterans and 1-20 for the rookies. The background color was a minor difference. The Duals cards were #1-5. I don't see a problem with each card number having two (or three) cards as long as the note(s) match what is actually on the card. Splitting this insert set into 3 different sets (and then 3 more for the parallel) seems a bit over the top to me. If someone searches for the Finest Bowman's Best insert, it would all be in one CL (and a Refractor CL), instead of several CL's. Simplicity is the key sometimes. I think this set should just be one CL with the correct notes and the refractor parallel should also be one set with the correct notes. We know what the notes should be, so it isn't hard to make this listed that way. JMO!