1982 Topps Baseball Forum

Is there a way to capture information about more significant print flaws that could be of interest to variation collectors through the site without creating a separate database entry?  I think the defect is interesting and one that I want to check for in my collection.  I'm not advocating for bending the site rules or anything - am thinking more about whether adding a comment about the card to promote awareness of the print flaw is a reasonable step to take?

Dan,

Certainly even you can admit that there is little energy put toward discerning actual variation items from the (very frequent) posts asking about a fish eye or other aberrant print mistake. It is unfortunate that so much good information gets tossed out or disregarded in this practice. Both yourself and C2Cigars are often quick to dismiss items, either as "against the FAQ" or "fake" without any actual work put into the item (ex.: 1991 Wild Card Doug Allen). There are frequent examples of what appears to be contradicting criteria for inclusion here (1982 Topps Tom Seaver is not a print flaw?) and often when questioned, people are met with "because we're crowd sourced." Why not aim for the most truthful, complete catalogs possible? 

Perhaps such a headache came out of the Donruss Inc/Inc. and UD hologram stuff that the people, such as yourself, who've appointed themselves the final word on these questionable findings, don't have the stamina to sort through and dig and research to make a thorough decision. And that I can understand but why rush to dismiss so easily? The goal for everyone contributing here should be as complete a checklist as possible for all listed sets, it is certainly mine.

You can add comments to cards and sets. Maybe that is the best way to note these recurring flaws.

Has zero to do with dots and asterisks. It has to do with the printing process.

Honest question - What is your experience with the printing process?

I'll answer that from my perspective: I worked for a card company. I helped with typesetting. I dealt with the printers on occassion. I actually DO have experience in the print process and sheet layout.

This is why I actually am able to be quick to dismiss items as print flaws (or certain plates as fakes). (We also used to receive cards that were counterfeit so I saw those differences as well.)

(I will not speak for C2Cigars, however I know he has good knowledge of the process as well from our discussions.)

That is nice to know but unfortunately, you are not always correct. To answer your question, I have a great deal of experience with print processes, both as a clothing designer (my primary income which includes creating graphics for screen printing) and as an independent artist (10 years as well and my secondary income), which, in my chosen medium, relies heavily on the CYMK process used in trading cards. I understand these processes very well.

And this is just one facet of what I asked to you, in good faith, I might add. What you are ignoring entirely here is that I have chosen, out of genuine interest, to dig deep into the cards of this era and get a better idea of the intricacies of these sets. I have invested the time, the study and have an understanding of the production timelines and aberrations for several of these junk era sets and I have a very long track record to back it up. I do not believe that you can say the same. There have been several instances where you dismissed items as counterfeit that weren't simply because they werent familiar to you. You have called legitimate, accepted variations, print flaws yet you accept several objectively print flaw cards as variations. I know that I am not alone here in my frustration with this as others have tried to express recently.

Again, I ask, why wouldn't you want TCDB to have the best, most accurate checklists available? At the very least, when you dont know about a card, why not wait to see from those who may? I certainly do not chime in on sets/topics that I have nothing offer. It comes off like you are in a race to close out discussions and I can't figure out why.

Maybe someone should start a User List of Printing Errors.  Showing the two cards side by side so everyone can see the different.    So when this come up again, they can be added.   Anyone that is interested in them has one place to look and add cards to.  

We can use the forum to point to the User List when things like this comes up.

As has been mentioned or alluded to here, the question isn't whether or not collectors/grading companies/other catalogs consider something a variation. The site's FAQ differentiates from printing errors like extra ink and a situation where the company created new printing plates to correct something. The former is a print error and the latter is a VAR as far as the site is concerned. That's why folks can make relatively quick judgments on something like the card in this thread.

People are 100% well within their rights to treat cards like this as variations in their own collections and refer to them this way. They just won't get their own listings as variations on the checklists. As always, the folks that respond to these questions try to do so in a consistent manner that lines up with the site's rules/guidelines, but anyone can contact Admin to make a case for an exception. Any vitriol directed at the folks responding and pointing to the FAQs is just spitting into the wind. I hope this helps.

I am not quoting anymore because this is getting too long-winded. And in case it's not obvious, this is in response to jacksoncoupage.

I have not allowed print flaws to be listed as VARs knowingly. That is against TCDB's guidelines, and if they have been allowed, it's been either because someone went rogue (just as they did with the checklist I was just fixing) or Admin has approved the inclusion here (such as the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas that everyone loves to bring up in these conversations).

I think you under-estimate the amount of time I have put into the trading card business/hobby. And yes, I have made mistakes. But that doesn't change what TCDB recognizes as a variation and what it doesn't. Knowing how trading cards are set up and printed really helps in this process.

And just because TCDB doesn't classify something a specific way, certainly doesn't stop anyone from collecting it the way you want to. Other things people have asked for but have been denied were color swatch differences for relics, cameos, and multiple team listing for cards with the player in one uniform but the updated team printed on the card. And guess what I have in my various collections that don't meet TCDB's guidelines? All of them. So it doesn't stop anyone from collecting how they want to collect.

And finally, yes, I work DAMN hard to make TCDB the best and most accurate checklists available. What other checklist site has the T206s like TCDB? No one. Who worked on that? Cynicalbuddha and I did. Who worked on most of the Overproduced-Era variations? Yeah, you're reading his post right now. So don't give me that line. Which ones have you worked on? Which ones have you made "the best" and "more accurate"? Come close to me, then talk to me about that. Until then, just stop. I'm not the only one annoyed by your behavior. (I have received emails form others about you recently and even a while back). I came to your defense in the beginning because I saw the time you've spent compiling your lists. Great. But that doesn't give the right to come on here and bully people into doing things your way. There are a few of us here who have communicated with Admin directly about doing certain responsibilities and helping out. We take what he has laid out for us seriously and we will not be the ones responsible for adding something that he has expressly asked us NOT to add to the database. So, yes, it is in fact crowd-sourced, and so that means that someone who has the permissions to add it can add it, but it doesn't mean that they were correct in adding it. We're protecting what Admin has given us. If you don't like it, I'll assume you know what to do.

Basically, play by Admin's/the site's rules and stick around, or don't. Up to you. 

If you feel bullied by anything I have said here, you may need to take a break. And nothing I have stated is about me trying to force anyone to do anything. All Ive asked is that you (and others with your approach) not knee-jerk shut down people's findings here. Its constant and I've seen you state absolutely false judgements on items you don't know anything about. I don't do it, most the users here don't do it, why do you? I would imagine that anyone using this site is doing so because they enjoy the hobby and learning and sharing new information. This should be THE source for new discoveries for all of our collections. Its bizarre for anyone to chime in with incorrect info, its troubling when those doing it have some sort of seniority power. 

Messages about me? For what? Supplying information? I know very well that none of my behavior or comments here are in no way against the site's rules or rude or any other thing that would "require your assistance." This is ridiculous.

Im replying and addressing what you just said out of respect for you taking time to comment but I don't care to continue this pissing contest here and I should've suggested taking it to messages a while back, that is, if you insist on carrying this on further.

I don't view his conversation as hostile. I view him as trying to have a real conversation. However using the term "usual suspects" should have been rethought. My guess there is many people frustrated on both sides of the FAQ.

This is a HOF rookie card of Lee Smith so in my view is not a common card and may not be too valuable but not a common card. Now we know more about this card that there is two types. If true, we know there is about half with long I and others with normal I

Being a Lee Smith collector, In my view this lowers pop count in half as it breaks cards in two categories. 

Regardless, I am wondering now if any of these print flaws have any real value? Not knowing what one has could be bad for a trader. If one trades away something not knowing what they have. Nobody can know everything and that is why we use databases. Maybe a certain card is rare who knows??

I am thinking a list of cards that have real  print errors that are accepted by other places such as Beckett or grading companies etc. The website should have a userlist by perhaps a team of members if nothing else. I can also see very quickly how this could get ridiculous too. Perhaps the cards that do could be noted by members something like "accepted/verified print variations exist". (So it gives users and traders more knowledge when trading) We know nothing stays constant in the sports card world (or most things for that matter) it's always changing.