1969 MLB PhotoStamps Baseball Forum

I happened to see one of these on Listia and went to look at the checklist here on TCDB and noticed that these are NNO cards, yet they are numbered in the checklist.  They appear to be in alphabetical order with AL teams first, then team name, then player name on eatch team which makes sense.  Could someone (or Admin) change the card numbers to NNO?  Thanks, always looking to find ways to make the site better.  btw, the link to this card on Listia is:

https://www.listia.com/auction/32694995-graded-baseball-card-stamp?li_source=other&li_medium=search

  There are a lot of Topps insert sets from the 60's (ruboffs, transfers and tattoos) which have no numbers but the checklists here assign them numbers.   Personally, I find it helpful it helpful when searching sites like EBay to have a number assigned to the card.   Anyone can tell from looking at them they are NNO.  It is not like there is an identical item with a number and NNO would distinguish it from the numbered version.

Labeling cards NNO  is an example of this site choosing accuracy over functionality. I haven't seen it used on any other card collection or catalogging site or reference material. I think most collectors are so used to seing some of the vintage sets with numbers added that it is second nature to them. I have to laugh sometimes when I see a checklist added with NNO1, NNO2, NNO3 etc. I think we just hate the amibguity of NNO.

Just to add, I don't have a preference one way or the other, but I would hesitate to change a set with numbering that should be NNO  as I would be worried about alienating a large contigent of collectors. 

I'll just go ahead and apologize for the aggressive tone here, but it comes from a place of frustration.  

I don't understand the implication that collectors are this clueless mass of buffoons that can't figure out what a card is because someone labeled it with a non-existent number.   It's nonsense.  Speculators, sure, they're just in it for a buck and don't really care anything about the cards, but actual collectors are a resourceful bunch and not easily bewildered by something as simple as a card number.  If a card has no number, why number it just becasue someone else referenced it with a bogus number?  I just see that as providing misleading information, and deliberately injecting confusion where none existed to start with.  I always try to choose accuracy over interpretation.

I think what confuses collectors is when other collectors try to clear up non-existent confusion by adding unnecessary embellishments.  See MLBPA and their disasterous rookie card policy.  It helped no one.

To add to what DaClyde stated (quite nicely):

Several years ago, my wife & I set on a quest to find as many Steve Yzerman cards as possible. The Internet was nothing like we know it today, and websites were reserved for very few companies. eBay didn't exist yet. I began putting together our own checklist in a database (not Access then, but I have converted the files to Access) by scouring Beckett Hockey Monthly (or whatever it was called back then). Thankfully, Yzerman wasa card they listed in just about every set (unfortunately, it was because of the value place on Stevie Y cards, but that's another tpic). But we were finding lots and lots of oddball cards at shows and eventually on Beckett's Marketplace when they finally stated their website. So, we turned to the Annual Hockey Beckett with the "alphabetical checklist" - what they touted as a comprehensive cdhecklist by player. GREAT! So, we snag one of them, and I start filling in the gaps with the info I didn't have in our database. Oh, Little Caesar's cards. Oh, he's card number 23. Great. Um, the backs are blank. There are no numbers on the fronts. Why? Oh, read the set description: "This unnumbered set is listed here and numbered in alphabetical order" (or something like that).

Let me tell you this - THAT was more confusing. Trying to hunt down card #10, or #23, when there is no #10, or #23.

So, for us (TCDB) to have more accurate info is crucial to the collectors out there so they KNOW what they are looking for (or at). I like Beckett. I don't think they are the evil empire some people claim they are. They are not 100% correct, but they are trying. I get that. They actually do a pretty good job. But, we have the opportunity to be BETTER than them. And we are - we fix the errors we find (you report errors there and they go unfixed). And we can be better in our checklists too. We're getting there.

 Who gave numbers to all the non-numbered insert sets from the 60s?   Is that admin?

Probably copied from Beckett - the grand deciders of card numbers for cards that have no numbers.

I apologize, I didn't mean to suggest collectors are clueless or anything else of the sort. I am new to the hobby and from what I have seen, adding numbers to cards that are without numbers seems to be a tradition in the hobby that most expect and prefer. The rules of the site are clear, they should be listed NNO.

I didn't intend to come down so harshly, but it isn't "the hobby" that has the tradition of adding arbitrary numbers to unnumbered cards, it is very specifically Beckett.  Beckett is not the sole authority to dole out mandates to the masses.  One of the best things to come out of the Beckett vs COMC lawsuits of recent years is that in being forced to create their own database of set checklists, COMC is actually correcting many of the arbitrary set names and numbering schemes that Beckett has been perpetuating for decades, and adhering more closely to what is displayed on the actual cards or what is assigned by the manufacturers.

I don't necessarily see Beckett as a villian or anything, but they have long had a habit of ignoring anything that is not them, and assuming that they are the only voice in the hobby, even though that has clearly never been the case.  Lots of people have blindly followed wherever Beckett led, rather than open their eyes to the rest of the hobby.  It is similar to pro wrestling, where WWE basically ignores all other wrestling, and people who only watch WWE just blindly assume that is the only wrestling that exists.

Fair enough, I didn't know what Beckett was or that they tired to sue somone over this kind of thing. I always thought it was just information freely shared, in the public domain so to speak.