Site Forum

I'm not trying to argue; it's more of a question.  The "Rules and Guidelines for Notes and Glossary Entries (PDF)" from the FAQ's page says:

"...include an explanation in all VAR Notes, e.g., for card xxxa put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Blue background” in Note2, and for card xxxb put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Green background” in Note2."

Does this only aplly to sets that don't have a "base card"?

After reading the rules a little further, I found this:

"Use the following terms in Note2 to activate the secondary card number field and permit the xxxa, xxxb, etc. numbering: “BASE:”, “ERR:”, “COR:”, and “VAR:”. Note that Level 7 permission is required to edit card number fields."

As I understand it....for a set that has a "base card", you should enter a variation like this? (I'm asking not telling)

Base Card # xxxa

• "Note 1" = "VAR"
• "Note 2" = "BASE: Description of base card"

Base Card Variation #xxxb

• "Note 1" = "VAR"
• "Note 2" = "VAR: Description of variation"

Edit: I re-read OcH's earlier post, and I amended my question/example.

carthage44 wrote:

I agree 100% here. The base card is NOT a variation and should NOT be listed with a VAR in the note field.

I don't really think a base card needs to be labeled a base card...but..when there are more than one version, and A and B are listed as the sub-number, I know for a fact it needs the : in the Note2. Is it possible to just put Base: in the note2 to make the subnuber field show up? I have not really played around much with that feature yet...so much to do, so little time.

Yes, having "BASE:" in Note2 (with no other explanation) and nothing in Note1 still makes the sub-box appear for a card number

(see http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/83630/cid/6395229/2014-Topps-33-Matt-Harvey?PageIndex=1)

1.  These BASE cards do still appear on the Error/Variation report.
2.  Choosing to "Add all missing cards in this set to wantlist (without ERR/VAR)" does add the BASE cards to the want list.

Seems like a win/win to me.

Kudos to Admin for thinking the logic of that one through.

Edit: I have no idea if the above example is an allowed method of entry; It is just one that I did within the last week in playing around with the "BASE:" functionality.

Edit2: The 2014 Topps "Sparkle" variation has to be in the top 3 things of dumbest things Topps has ever done.

Billy Kingsley wrote:

I don't really think a base card needs to be labeled a base card...but..when there are more than one version, and A and B are listed as the sub-number, I know for a fact it needs the : in the Note2. Is it possible to just put Base: in the note2 to make the subnuber field show up? I have not really played around much with that feature yet...so much to do, so little time.

I agree with the way this discussion went for the new idea from the card companies in producing 2 different player cards with the same #, one being SP.

But for the older sets (before this became the latest trend) when we are talking about variations on the same #'d card of the same player, the VAR needs to be on all cards of this # and explained in the Note 2 field. A good example of these is the 1991 Fleer set that has cards with different stat lines on some of the backs.  Neither can be said to be the BASE card. This is as per the guidelines cnangle quoted above "...include an explanation in all VAR Notes, e.g., for card xxxa put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Blue background” in Note2, and for card xxxb put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Green background” in Note2."

This thread was created in an attempt to correct practices that are in error, many because of the changes made to the site in the last year.  I am happy to see the newer sets have a different method to differentiate the "BASE" and the "SP".  

Just to update, overnight 131 baseball sets and 1 Racing set appeared again in the Things To Do List in the Abbreviations list. The Racing set was an extra comma in the NOTE field.  Though one card was updated after the error was made to the whole set, it would have been nice to see them all updated.  I did the rest of the work this morning. The baseball sets are new Acronyms that now show up in the Glossary but are not defined.

I sent a note to the member who is responsible for the first two in thelist. And since they all seem to be MiLB sets (or least mostly), I'm sure it was mostly the one person. I'm going to go in and clean up as much as possible, since I know the subject fairly well. :)

Edit - And they're all fixed..

sandyrusty wrote:

Just to update, overnight 131 baseball sets and 1 Racing set appeared again in the Things To Do List in the Abbreviations list. The Racing set was an extra comma in the NOTE field.  Though one card was updated after the error was made to the whole set, it would have been nice to see them all updated.  I did the rest of the work this morning. The baseball sets are new Acronyms that now show up in the Glossary but are not defined.

That's a very valid point that the intentionally released short print variations of today are a different animal from the variations of yesteryear.

I agree with what you say, but that does leave an issue as I see it - and one I don't have an answer to.  It centers on how the "Add all missing cards in this set to wantlist" behaves.  Take the scenario where I want to start collecting a vintage set of which I own none of the cards.

There isn't a convenient way to generate my wants with any of the options.  Selecting "Add all missing cards in this set to wantlist (without ERR/VAR)" gives me a want list of 1 & 3. Selecting "Add all missing cards in this set to wantlist" give me a wantlist of 1, 2a, 2b, and 3.  Unless I manually go through an pick and choose each, I don't know of a way to get to a wantlist that gives me enough for a complete set.

That reminds me of another "issue": Set completion metrics.  In the above set, if I have cards 1, 2a, and 2b (missing #3), this set shows as complete even if I have 3 on my wantlist.  The variants should probably be treated as a "if you have one or more of these, count it as one".

Case breakers commonly refer to a product's "Master Set".  Are we in need of a similar concept where two numbers get shown for set completeness?

sandyrusty wrote:

But for the older sets (before this became the latest trend) when we are talking about variations on the same #'d card of the same player, the VAR needs to be on all cards of this # and explained in the Note 2 field. A good example of these is the 1991 Fleer set that has cards with different stat lines on some of the backs.  Neither can be said to be the BASE card. This is as per the guidelines cnangle quoted above "...include an explanation in all VAR Notes, e.g., for card xxxa put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Blue background” in Note2, and for card xxxb put “VAR” in Note and “VAR: Green background” in Note2."  

OCHawkeye, well aware of your issue here.  I have used the "Add all missing cards to my Want List" only to find that I get a card VAR in a trade of a card that I already had and didn't care to get the VAR. Personally, as long as I have one of the variants inthe set, I am happy unless it is of a very gross error (not just because a dot is missing in the copyright or similar instance). The only thing is that if I don't add the VAR of those that I need either card, I may only have the one listed as a Want if I exclude the VAR or ERR card when either one would satisfy me.

Not sure what it would take to make the solution work for all. Maybe the database should only enter the card with the "a" in the sub-box when moving all cards into any list? Of course, this poses issues as well as I believe some of the ERR / COR cards are in different orders (some have the ERR as "a" and the COR as "b" while others in reverse order).

Again, a good discussion bringing out points to consider. As usual, I believe Admin monitors these discussions. We may have given him something to ponder for a while.